The special court trying former prime minister Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the cipher case has appointed state defence counsels for the two defendants after their senior lawyers failed to appear.
In a written order issued by the special trial court formed under the Official Secrets Act 1923, Judge Abul Hasnaat Zulqarnain said that no senior lawyer representing the defendants appeared when the hearing began.
The court took a recess and reconvened at half past noon. No senior counsel representing the defendants appeared again, bringing the trial proceedings to a halt.
The court said that despite numerous opportunities, no lawyer has appeared on behalf of the defendants. Hence, the court said they had no option but to ask the Islamabad Advocate General to appoint a government lawyer to represent them.
The Islamabad Advocate General later furnished a list of available lawyers to the court. A list of available lawyers was provided to the court in a sealed envelope.
Subsequently, Malik Abdul Rehman and Hazrat Younis were appointed state defence counsels to represent Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi, respectively.
Govt to seek maximum penalty for Imran Khan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi
The federal government will push for the maximum penalty allowed under the law, including the death penalty or life imprisonment against former prime minister Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the cipher case.
The Special Prosecutor Rizwan Abbasi disclosed this.
In a report by The News on Saturday, Abbasi said that they now have sworn testimony from three witnesses from the Foreign Office on the record, including Sohail Mehmood, Faisal Tirmizi and Pakistan's former ambassador to the US, Asad Majeed. Together, these statements comprise sufficient incriminating evidence to convict Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi while pushing for the maximum penalty.
After the Supreme Court had approved the bail of Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the case, their lawyer, Salman Safdar, had stated that it had let all of the air out of the cipher case. He had claimed that it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove its case against the former prime minister and foreign minister after the court order.
In its order, the Supreme Court had held the evidence available on the record thus far suggests there is not much incriminating evidence available to suggest that Imran Khan had waved a copy of the top secret document at a public rally or that its contents were manipulated per a well-thought-out plan to either directly or indirectly benefit a foreign power nor did it show that the information disclosed pertained to any secret detrimental to national security. The secret code was not disclosed either.
While approving the interim bail plea, the Supreme Court had further stated that at this point, there was no compelling reason to conclude that either Imran Khan or Shah Mehmood Qureshi had violated the law wherein they would qualify for penalties described under Sections 5(3)(B) of the Official Secrets Act.
The court, though, had said there was room for further investigations to determine whether any acts that qualified to be punished under the relevant laws were committed. Such a determination can be made after the trial court records the witness statement as per the law.
The prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimony of three officials. This includes the foreign secretary at the time, Sohail Mehmood; the additional secretary, Faisal Tirmizi (currently Pakistan's ambassador in the UAE); Pakistan's ambassador to the US at the time, Asad Majeed — who had the crucial meeting with US diplomat Donald Lu.
In his statement recorded before the court, Majeed said there were witnesses to his meeting with Lu apart from an official recording of its minutes. He added that relevant government forums, including the National Security Committee, had concluded that Lu's message did not constitute a conspiracy against the country.
According to the Supreme Court's order, Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi have been charged per Sections 5 (1) a-d for improperly spreading information in the secret diplomatic cable. This makes them liable to be sentenced under Section 5(3)(B), whereby the evidence available on record suggests they could be sentenced to up to two years or fined or both. According to Section 12(1)(b) of the act, the charges and evidence thus far mean they are bailable offences.