The Supreme Court identifies flaws in the Toshakhana judgement but refrains from taking action for the time being.

ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court stated on Wednesday, while hearing appeals filed by the PTI chairman in the Toshakhana case, that the trial court ruling appeared to have flaws, but that the highest court will await the Islamabad High Court’s decision on the appeal.

The appeals hearing has been postponed till tomorrow (Thursday) by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Umar Ata Bandial, stated that the court will wait for the IHC’s decision before ‘interfering’ in the case. “Prima facie, there are shortcomings in the trial court verdict,” the highest judge stated.

On August 5, an Islamabad trial court convicted the PTI president guilty of ‘corrupt activities’ in a case involving hiding the specifics of official gifts and sentenced him to three years in prison. The judgment also implies that he will be ineligible to run in general elections for the next five years.

Following that, the PTI head appealed the judgement to the IHC. The case had been delayed by the high court a day earlier until August 24.
The case was heard by a three-member SC bench consisting of CJP Bandial, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.

During the sessions, PTI lawyer Latif Khosa and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) attorney Amjad Pervaiz pushed arguments.

Following hearing both parties, the CJP stated, “The Court would not intervene in the Toshakhana matter today… We will review the IHC hearing tomorrow (Thursday) before continuing.” The CJP remarked that the trial court judge in the Toshakhana case had issued the decision in haste.

Latif Khosa, the PTI chief’s lawyer, stated at the start of the session that his client has filed three pleas in the Supreme Court challenging the IHC judgments.

Advocate Khosa petitioned the court, claiming that his client had been accused of failing to declare his assets. In response to Justice Naqvi’s question, Khosa read Section 137 and Subsection 4 of the Election Act of 2017.

Justice Naqvi enquired if assembly members had the ability to send references against their colleagues, and under what statute could assembly members send references against other parliamentarians.

Khosa said that members of the legislature lacked the power to submit the reference. He said that only the NA speaker has this authority.

He also informed the court that the electoral board could only take action against an MNA after 120 days of receiving financial statements.

“The present case is not about whether a reference could have been sent against the PTI chairman or not,” Justice Mandokhel explained. “You have challenged the decision of the Islamabad High Court.”

CJP Bandial also told Khosa that the issue of the case’s jurisdiction had been challenged. 

“You yourself are saying that the case is pending in another court,” the CJP said. “Our stance is that the Toshakhana complaint should have first been sent to the magistrate,” Khosa pointed out. 

“According to you, the magistrate conducts the initial inquiry and then the sessions court holds the trial,” the chief justice asked.

Justice Mandokhel explained that the law states a magistrate would review the complaint and then send it to the sessions court.

After hearing arguments from Khosa and Amjad Pervaiz, the CJP remarked, “We will not interfere in the Toshakhana case today. We will look at the IHC hearing tomorrow and resume the hearing.”