Islamabad: A petition asking for the cancellation of the arrest warrants issued for Imran in the Toshakhana case was dismissed by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). After a day earlier’s confrontation between police and PTI employees outside Zaman Park, the party filed the petition. Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC took up the petition. Imran was told to submit the undertaking, in which he promised to appear in court on March 18, to the trial court after the court reserved its decision earlier in the day. The IHC upheld the trial court’s ruling in the case and stated that Imran’s undertaking should be decided by the trial court in accordance with the law.
On Monday, an Islamabad district and sessions court issued non-bailable arrest warrants for the PTI chief after his persistent absences in the Toshakhana reference. It had also instructed the police to arrest the former prime minister and present him in court by March 18.
In the detailed order, a copy of which is available with media, the IHC said: “Since the non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued by the learned trial court for the purposes of procuring the attendance of petitioner, the petitioner has undertaken to appear before the learned trial court. The competent court is the learned trial court, it is to satisfy itself regarding the undertaking and pass appropriate order as to the status of the warrants.”
The court also noted that it would not be out of place to observe that the law and order situation in Lahore was a “sad state of affairs” where the state was being prevented to carry out its obligation for complying with the orders of the court.
“Such defiance of the law is not acceptable in any civilised society and the law needs to be adhered to by the citizens/people of any country in general and persons in the helm of the affairs particularly. The phrase ‘rule of law’ is not a rhetoric and has different connotations, including obedience to law and any defiance thereof naturally has consequences because law of the land has to and should prevail at all costs.”
The IHC said that the lower court’s order did not suffer from any legality per se and said that the matter should be place before the trial court which issued/reissued the non-bailable arrest warrants.
As the IHC hearing commenced today, Justice Farooq asked Imran’s counsel, Khawaja Haris Ahmed, if he had addressed all the objections that the court had previously raised on the petition.
The judge stated that the petition would only be taken up for hearing once it had been scheduled to which Haris urged the court to hear the plea today.
At that, Justice Farooq highlighted that the court had taken up the plea earlier. “Directions were also issued, but unfortunately, what happened?” he asked.
Haris reiterated his request, stating that the court should hear the PTI’s plea, and insisting that he would legally convince the bench on the matter.
“Earlier, this court had granted relief. But what happened to our order?” asked the IHC chief justice, adding that the court would examine the possible repercussions of not implementing its orders.
Here, Haris said that the “entire situation is visible to you”.
However, Justice Farooq replied: “It’s all because of you. The court had provided a respectable path which was not followed.”
The court subsequently directed the PTI lawyer to remove objections from the petition so that the application could be taken up.
After the hearing was adjourned, PTI’s Barrister Gohar told the media that the proceedings will resume after the IHC’s division bench hears other cases. “We will utilise this break to address the objections that have been marked on our petition,” he added.
When the hearing resumed at 2pm, PTI counsel Haris started presenting his arguments on the petition. He said that his client had challenged the court orders of March 13.
The lawyer explained that Imran had been asked to appear before the court on the said day, but he was at home. “Therefore, we filed an exemption plea.”
He contended that the issuance of arrest warrants was out of the question as there was a difference between criminal cases and bail requests. “We also urged the trial court not to issue warrants until the maintainability of the petition was decided.”
He also contested the nature of the complaint, arguing that the complainant was not authorised to file such a plea.
Haris maintained that the ECP was not entitled to send a criminal case to a trial court. But the IHC chief justice stressed that appearing in court was mandatory regardless of the case for which the summons was issued.
Haris presented an affidavit signed by Imran and urged the judge to suspend the arrest warrants issued for his client. The lawyer expressed regret over the current situation in Lahore and hoped for a swift resolution.
Justice Farooq reiterated his commitment to upholding the integrity of the court, emphasising that respect for the judiciary was of paramount importance to him.
The judge remarked that whether it was a civil court or a trial court, one must show respect to the court. He also stated that judicial orders were issued with a signature as the courts do not have musclemen to demonstrate power.
Justice Farooq also asked Additional Advocate General Munawar Iqbal where the government would keep Imran if he was arrested four days before the scheduled date for his court appearance.
The AAG replied that similar affidavits had been issued previously, but the person who submitted them did not appear before the court. Iqbal also questioned Imran’s reason for skipping his court appearance, despite being a national leader.
Justice Farooq remarked that politicians of the past and present did not do enough for building the society and stated that “I have to take into consideration the dignity and other aspects of the court.”
