Cipher case: ‘Only 11 days after cipher case trial began, trial court accused defence of delaying tactics’

ISLAMABAD: The counsel for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder told the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday that only 11 days after the trial of the cipher case began, the trial court judge held the defence lawyers responsible for delaying the case by using delaying tactics and ordered appointing a state counsel.

He said that the statements of the four witnesses had been cross-examined by January 24, and later, within next six days the statements of all the witnesses were cross-examined. He said that this was a case of professional misconduct.

The IHC directed the advocate general to submit the CV of the government lawyers. Further hearing on the appeals will be held on March 25.

The IHC’s Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the appeals against the conviction of the PTI’s founder and Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the cipher case.

Barrister Salman Safdar said that the trial proceedings started on January 15, and on January 26 the trial court asked for government lawyers and the trial court judge held the defence lawyers responsible for delaying the case within 11 days. He said that even if the court appoints a public lawyer for the accused, it is necessary to give adequate time to the lawyer. He also said that the qualification of the counsel was to be examined after preparing the list of lawyers.

He pointed out that one day the defence lawyers did not show up, and the trial court issued three orders in a day, writing an email for the appointment of a defence counsel.

He continued that the next day, when the defence counsel went to the court, the prime witness Azam Khan came out of the court and said his cross-examination had been completed. The counsel said that the prime witness of the case was examined and cross-examined on the same day.

He said that the judgements on which the trial court relied on had different precedents from the present case, as the state counsels were appointed in these cases after a delay of two or three years, adding that this was a case of professional misconduct.

The court asked if the appointment of government lawyers in such a manner comes under the authority of the court or if are there are some rules.

The court said that high courts appoint counsels when jail appeals are received. The court asked if government lawyers were to be appointed, who was to do so. The court asked if the court itself or the advocate general needs to appoint government lawyers.

The court also asked the AG why he gave the names of state counsels and why not of any other advocate. The AG replied that the trial court had clearly written in its order that a state counsel be appointed.

Justice Aurangzeb remarked that “state counsel” has been written repeatedly in the court order, and that this would give the impression to the AG that a state counsel is to be appointed.

The court asked why such a letter was written only to the AG Islamabad and why not to the IHC Bar Association president, and what was the standing of the state counsel.

AG Islamabad Ayaz Shaukat told the court that Abdul Rehman Advocate got his kutchery court licence in 2016 and his high court licence in 2019, while Hazrat Yunus Advocate got his kutchery court licence in 2014 and his high court licence in 2017.

Barrister Safdar said that state counsel Rehman was also representing the prosecution in the jail trial of the cipher case.

The court asked the AG if Rehman was ever a part of the prosecution team. The AG replied that he did not appear in the cipher case but he appeared with him in the election commission’s contempt case.

Barrister Safdar said he was not a part of the prosecution but he kept going to the court in these hearings, so the court should check the jail records is he has been going to the jail as everyone has seen him in court.

The court asked whether Rehman appeared on behalf of the prosecution first or not. Justice Aurangzeb said the court would ask the Superintendent Adiala Jail in this regard, and directed the jail superintendent to submit a record of jail entry from October 23 to January 30.

At one point during the hearing, the chief justice asked the PTI founder’s lawyer if a lawyer can talk to the media while the case is being heard. Barrister Safdar replied that the lawyers should not appear before the media but judges should also not watch the media either.