Cipher case: Prosecution banks on senior FO officials’ testimonies to seek maximum penalty for IK

ISLAMABAD: The prosecution in the cipher case will seek maximum punishment against Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi from the trial court — 14 years in jail or the death penalty under the Official Secrets Act.

Special Prosecutor in the cipher case Rizwan Abbasi told The News on Friday that the prosecution has sufficient evidence, based on the testimony of three senior foreign ministry officials, to seek maximum punishment against Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

He explained that the testimonies of senior foreign ministry officials in the trial court showed that the cipher episode had upset Pak-US relations against the interest of Pakistan and to the benefit of countries hostile to Islamabad.

The prosecution attaches a lot of importance to the testimonies of three senior foreign ministry officials — the then foreign secretary Sohail Mahmood, the then Pakistani ambassador to the US Asad Majid, who recently testified before the trial court how Imran Khan handling of the cipher had upset Pak-US relations, and the then additional secretary in the foreign ministry Faisal Niaz Tirmizi.

However, Imran Khan’s lawyer in the cipher case Salman Safdar had, after the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant bail to Imran and Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said that the apex court’s order had deflated the cipher case. He had added that after the apex court’s decision, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the case before the trial court. He had termed the cipher case as making a mountain out of a molehill.

The Supreme Court in its order had ruled, “Having so examined the material available on record, we find that there is no sufficient incriminating material available, at this stage, which could show that the petitioner, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi communicated the information contained in the Cypher Telegram received from Parep Washington, USA to the public at large with the intention or calculation, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power nor the disclosed information relates to any of the defence installations or affairs, nor did he disclose any secret official code to the public at large.”

The SC added, “We, therefore, are of the tentative opinion that there are not reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of the said offence, which is to be finally decided by the learned trial court after recording of the evidence of the parties.”

The punishment under clause (b) of Section 5(3) as envisaged in the Official Secrets Act is 14 years imprisonment or the death penalty.

According to the apex court order, the offences of wrongful communication of official confidential information, etc, as defined in defined in clause (a) to (d) of Section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 (“Act”) are generally punishable, under clause (b) of Section 5(3), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, and are bailable under clause (b) of Section 12(1) of the Act.