1. Context and Background.
The case focusses on the May 9 occurrences, when violent protests erupted across Pakistan in response to the imprisonment of PTI founder and former Prime Minister Imran Khan. These protests included attacks on armed forces facilities such as the commander’s mansion in Lahore. Imran Khan is charged with 12 counts linked to these incidents, which are being prosecuted by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Lahore.
Prosecution’s Request for Forensic Audits
On Tuesday, the prosecution, represented by public prosecutors and investigating officials, requested that the ATC perform a forensic examination of evidence related to Imran Khan. The evidence included camera recordings and mobile phones that he purportedly owned. The prosecution asked the court for authorisation to conduct certain technical analyses:
Forensic analysis of video and mobile phones: To determine the legitimacy and relevance of the evidence.
Photogrammetric Test: Analyse and compare visual data to determine whether the video footage belongs to the accused.
Voice Match Test: To match voice recordings to Imran Khan, establishing his involvement in the conversations or orders surrounding the May 9 occurrences.
Legal Issues and the Lahore High Court’s Involvement
The request for a forensic audit was complicated by a prior order by the Lahore High Court (LHC), which overturned Imran Khan’s physical remand. The LHC’s ruling was significant because it limited the prosecution’s ability to conduct certain investigation techniques that may have needed Khan’s actual presence or assistance.
Duty Judge Refuses to Hear the Plea
The case was heard before ATC Judge Irfan Haider, who was acting as a duty judge in the absence of the administrative judge. Judge Haider declined to hear the prosecution’s plea, noting that as a duty judge, he was not qualified to make such decisions. He added that the prosecution should either wait for the administrative judge to return from leave or escalate the situation to a higher level of authority.
Jurisdictional Issues and Advice from the Judge
Judge Haider recommended the prosecution to consider elevating the case to the Supreme Court, especially because the Lahore High Court had already quashed Khan’s remand. He noted that the legal complications generated by the LHC’s decision could mean that the ATC no longer had jurisdiction over the case. His guidance reflected the procedural and jurisdictional problems that the prosecution faced while proceeding with the forensic audit.
Prosecution’s Response and Future Steps
- In response to the judge’s refusal, the investigating officers decided to withdraw their applications. They planned to refile them when the ATC administrative judge returned in September. This decision indicates the prosecution’s intent to pursue the forensic analysis, but under the appropriate judicial authority.
Implications of the Lahore High Court’s Decision
The LHC’s decision to overturn Imran Khan’s remand has far-reaching repercussions for the case. It not only suspended certain investigations, but also called into doubt the ATC’s authority over Imran Khan’s matters. This incident exemplifies the ongoing legal and procedural challenges surrounding the prosecution of a prominent political person like Imran Khan.
pending legal matters
Imran Khan’s bail applications in the May 9 proceedings are still pending before an ATC court. These applications will have a significant impact on the former prime minister’s legal position and the continuance of the prosecution’s case against him. The court’s subsequent findings on these issues will be critical in determining the course of the judicial procedures.
THE END
The ATC duty judge’s reluctance to consider the prosecution’s request for a forensic audit highlights the procedural problems in Imran Khan’s high-profile case. The prosecution faces severe legal challenges due to the involvement of the Lahore High Court and the complexity of jurisdictional problems. The next stages, such as moving the case to the Supreme Court or waiting for the ATC administrative judge to return, will be key in determining how the case moves forward.