On Friday, a bigger bench at the Lahore High Court (LHC) deferred its verdict on a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Imran Khan, who asked the court to compel the relevant authorities to refrain from “coercive measures and proceedings” in relation to the 121 FIRs filed against him.
Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, presiding over the case, told Imran’s lawyer, Barrister Salman Sardar, to wrap up his arguments today.
According to Sardar, “there is no example of what is happening around us today,” and there hasn’t been a single ruling on political persecution since 1974. He then asked the judge to issue an order concerning political persecution in light of the current situation.
He pleaded before the judge, “The former prime minister is 71 years old, and yet criminal cases are being registered against him.”
In response to the petitioner’s attorney, the law officer argued that the petitioner had already received all relevant case files. He said that Imran had pleaded with the Supreme Court (SC) to halt any further proceedings against him and to appoint a judicial committee to investigate the May 9 riots.
He went on to wonder why Imran would bother bringing the same case before the LHC if it had already been brought before the highest court.
When the petitioner’s lawyer responded that he had submitted a similar plea with the Supreme Court, Justice Najafi questioned if the latter had done so as well. Justice Najafi asked the petitioner’s lawyer, “should you have not withdrawn this petition from here?” after the petitioner’s lawyer nodded in agreement.
Then, Sardar asked the judge for more time to present his case. With the bench’s approval, he questioned the police as to how Imran could be the subject of many pending cases when he was in NAB custody.
The PTI chief’s lawyer was questioned by Justice Anwaarul Haq Pannun if his client had been granted bail in any cases filed after May 9.
In response to the attorney’s affirmative response, Justice Pannun stated, “you should place your arguments, relating to the evidence the police replied upon, before the relevant court.”
Justice Aalia Neelum stated, “you [Sardar] had been telling us about the registration of more than 100 cases against the petitioner” during the hearing.
The law enforcement official countered that “it is crystal clear that only nine cases had been registered against the petitioner in Punjab.”
The judges deliberated and then decided to delay making a ruling.
