September 4, 2024
ISLAMABAD – Incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan on Tuesday petitioned the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against his possible military custody for the trials under way against him related to the May 9 cases.
Countrywide protests erupted on May 9 last year after the paramilitary Rangers whisked away Imran from the IHC in a corruption case. While the protests were underway, social media was flooded with footage of rioting and vandalism at various spots, including the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence and General Headquarters, the army’s head of office in Rawalpindi.
The already incarcerated former prime minister was “arrested” in these cases on July 15 — just a day after he and his wife, Bushra Bibi, had been apprehended in a new Toshakhana case, following their acquittal in the Iddat case.
Imran has previously claimed that there is a plan to try him in the military court. He had also said that arrested former intelligence chief Gen (retired) Faiz Hameed was being forced to turn approver against him to pave the way for his trial in a military court on May 9 cases.
Government spokesperson for legal affairs Barrister Aqeel Malik earlier hinted that Imran’s May 9 cases might go to the military courts. However, the Punjab government said last week there was currently no proposal under consideration to send his case to a military court.
Imran submitted a petition, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, to the IHC today under Article 199 of the Constitution, under which a high court may take up a matter when there is “no other adequate remedy is provided by law.”
The petition mentioned the Islamabad inspector general (IG) of police, Punjab chief secretary, Punjab IGs for police and prisons, Adiala Jail superintendent, Federal Investigation Agency director general, and the interior, defence, and law secretaries as respondents.
The petition said that since the Lahore High Court (LHC) quashed Imran’s physical remand in the May 9 cases, “reports have been circulating on television, print, and social media that the petitioner will be shifted to the custody of army authorities in connection with the cases regarding the events of May 9 and 10, 2023.
“Many observers and commentators have expressed the view that the army authorities will take the petitioner into custody and try him before a court martial.”
It argued that Imran’s apprehensions were lent credence by Barrister Malik’s remarks, adding that it would be a “complete travesty of justice and due process” if Imran was handed over to the military since it would be going against a Supreme Court verdict that the trial of civilians through a court martial was unconstitutional.
“There is a genuine possibility that the army authorities will take the petitioner into custody. The brazenly illegal and unconstitutional manner in which he … has been treated by state authorities over the last two years … make this a real concern. Such action will also frustrate and undermine the aforesaid relief granted to the petitioner by the honourable LHC as well as the bails granted to him,” the petition said.
It further maintained that the instant matter was of “immense public importance as it has a direct bearing on the state of rule of law in the country and involves questions of the petitioner’s rights, especially those concerning liberty, fair trial, due process, and dignity”.
The petition pleaded that the respondents be restrained from handing over Imran to military custody and ordered to ensure that he is kept in civilian custody, subject to the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
A separate petition that prayed for the same relief said: “The balance of convenience lies heavily in favour of the applicant. The respondents will not suffer any inconvenience if the interim relief prayed for is granted. However, the applicant will suffer grave inconvenience if the army authorities get his custody since he will stand deprived of many of his fundamental rights. There is also the apprehension that he will be manhandled.
“That in the event that the relief prayed for in the instant application is not granted, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss as his fundamental rights will be infringed in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court […] Such loss of liberty and other fundamental rights cannot be compensated in terms of money or in any other manner.”