SC grants bail to Qureshi and Imran in the Cipher case
The Supreme Court (SC) granted bail to former prime minister Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Friday in the cipher case.
The bail has been granted against a surety bond of Rs100,000.
A three-member bench of the SC comprising acting Chief Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
Imran Khan, the PTI’s founder, had approached the apex court for bail relief in the case after the Islamabad High Court (IHC) rejected his post-arrest bail application on October 27.
It is pertinent to note that the bail-in cipher case will not result in the former premier being released from jail. Imran is currently under judicial remand in the £190 million case, and also under arrest in the Toshakhana case.
The document that Imran waved at a public rally last year in anticipation of a vote of confidence that he lost is the subject of the cipher case. Claiming that the cipher was ‘proof’ of an ‘international plot’ to overthrow his government, the former prime minister then named the United States.
Hopes of PTI supporters dashed
The former prime minister Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi were indicted in the cipher case by a special court created under the Official Secrets Act last week on December 13. This decision dealt a serious blow to the ex-PTI chairman’s chances of running in the general election of Pakistan in February.
The two-page charge sheet under the Official Secrets Act, which detailed three separate accusations against the defendants, was read aloud by Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain.
The court determined that Shah Mehmood Qureshi, in his role as foreign minister, and Imran, in his position as prime minister, violated the Official Secrets Act.
The charge sheet stated that both accused publicly flaunted a classified document during a rally on March 27, 2022, exploiting it for personal gain in a deliberate manner, highlighting that the unlawful actions harmed the nation’s reputation, security, and diplomatic affairs
The former premier and Qureshi were first indicted in the case on October 23, where both the PTI leaders had pleaded not guilty to the charges. However, on November 21, the IHC declared the trial “illegal” because the government’s notification regarding holding the trial in-camera was without lawful authority.
Four witnesses had recorded their statements in the case when the IHC scrapped the entire proceedings of the case, ordering the special court to start the trial afresh.
Today’s hearing
Azam Khan, the crucial witness in the case and the former principal secretary of former premier Imran did not take an oath when making his evidence at today’s hearing, according to Justice Masood.
Then he asked whether Azam’s protracted disappearance had been looked into. Is it true that the former principal secretary also took a “tour of the northern areas”? Justice Minallah questioned.
Justice Masood questioned why Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister at the time, claimed that the cipher paper was missing from the National Security Council (NSC) meeting on the issue when it was urged during the discussion that a demarche be issued.
“Mashallah, a ruling on the subject has already been made by the Islamabad High Court. It seems like the only task left is to give [the accused] a noose. Speaking out, Justice Masood expressed his dissatisfaction with the lower court’s actions. The acting chief justice then questioned how, if the cipher was missing, two NSC discussions on the matter could have been convened.
Prosecution’s Raja Rizwan Abbasi
The prosecution’s Raja Rizwan Abbasi retorted that the document had been delivered in master copy throughout the meetings. Concerning the remarks made by Asad Majeed, the former ambassador to the United States, Justice Masood remarked that Majeed omitted any mention of any advantage to another nation.
The acting Chief Justice explained that the court is claiming that the problem relates to law, not that it justifies making the secret cipher document public.
The prosecution was then questioned by Judge Mansoor Ali Shah on the rationale behind the addition of the death penalty provisions.
In response, Abbasi said that sensationalization of the cipher being waved at a public demonstration occurred in India. The prosecutor’s position was subsequently refuted by Justice Athar Minallah, who questioned whether the state would treat the protesters of the Baloch long march dramatically.
“The enemy will benefit if bilateral relations are harmed,” Abbasi stated.
In response to the prosecution’s claim that making the cipher’s contents public “benefited enemy countries,” Justice Shah stated that the crucial question, in this case, is: which enemy country benefited from the situation?
Will PTI’s Virtual Strength Translate into Votes?
“You’re [still] not saying which country benefitted from it,” Justice Mansoor retorted.
“How many prime ministers have been hanged, jailed, and disqualified since the days of Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy?” Inquiring further of the prosecution, Justice Minallah was questioned if these activities affected Pakistan’s relations with other nations.
Judge Mansoor Ali Shah remarked, “Your actions are making a mockery of this country.”
Prosecutor Abbasi said after the arguments that the PTI leaders’ bail was relevant to the case before the Supreme Court, but that Article 184 (3) was unrelated.
Shah Khawar, the prosecutor for the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), questioned the legal basis for the SC’s jurisdiction to consider the cipher case.
Responding to Abbasi, Justice Shah asked if he argued that the apex court could not protect a person’s fundamental human rights. To Khawar, the judge replied that the SC even had authority under Article 187.
