PTI chief moves IHC against denial of right to defence in Toshakhana case

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chief Imran Khan challenged on Thursday the additional district and sessions court's order terminating his right of defense in the Toshakhana case. The former prime minister moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the order, requesting it to declare the trial court's yesterday's order null and void and restoring his right of defense. The PTI chief also requested the court to hear the plea today. A day earlier, the trial court - hearing the Election Commission of Pakistan's plea against the PTI chief for "deliberately concealing" the gifts he retained from the Toshakhana during his tenure as the PM - in Islamabad had rejected the witness list presented by the PTI chief, terming the witnesses irrelevant to the case. The decision of Judge Humayun Dilawar came as the Supreme Court (SC) rejected the PTI chief’s request to stay the trial court's proceedings, and asked him to wait until the IHC decision on his pending petitions. Read PTI chief fails yet again to secure relief at SC in Toshakhana case Initial arguments completed In a separate development, initial arguments on the PTI chief's appeal in the IHC for staying the sessions court's proceedings in the Toshakhana case were completed. During the hearing, PTI chief’s lawyer Khawaja Haris told the court that the trial court cannot give a final decision until a decision is taken on the request to transfer the case to another court. “We submitted the list of witnesses to the court and said that the witnesses could not be available in 24 hours,” the counsel argued, adding that “not even a single day was given to present the witness”. The PTI chief's request for transfer of the case to another court comes on the back of his claim that judge Humayun Dilawar, who is hearing the case, had made a Facebook post against the PTI chief. Commenting on the matter, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq said that a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) report regarding the matter has been received, which states that the post in question was not posted on the judge's Facebook account. In an earlier hearing, the IHC had directed its office to remit the issue of the authenticity of the posts to FIA’s Cyber Crime Wing. Haris objected, questioning “how can a unilateral report be accepted?” Read more PTI chief fails yet again to secure relief at SC in Toshakhana case “Such orders coming from the trial court show partiality; the court should restrain the trial court from proceeding further,” he argued. To this, the IHC chief justice replied that “one of your applications is on the biasness of the trial court judge, you say that the bias of the judge reflects from his decision to hear the case on a daily basis?” Representing the ECP, lawyer Amjad Pervez argued that the FIA's ​​report was about the accusation concerning the judge's Facebook posts. He rhetorically asked "should the judge not be given justice?” “Shouldn't contempt proceedings have been initiated on the basis of this report?” he further questioned. Later, the chief justice directed the lawyers to inform the trial court - where the hearing on ECP's plea regarding the Toshakhana case was already scheduled - that arguments were ongoing regarding the PTI chief's appeal in the IHC.