Cipher case: Imran, Qureshi disclosed nothing in their statements, says IHC judge

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb has observed in the cipher case that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had not disclosed anything in their statements.

The court observed on Wednesday that on the one hand, the government opted for a demarche, and on the other hand, it did not want to spoil its relationship with a country. “You put a former prime minister in jail so as to not spoil the relationship with that country.”

“If you have already pulled out the elephant, pull out the tail too,” remarked IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.

Chief Justice Farooq and Justice Aurangzeb made these observations as they heard the appeals against the convictions of Khan and Qureshi in the cipher case.

Barrister Salman Safdar said the cipher was not read out in the public. He submitted that the trial court should conduct the trial with care when the case was remanded back twice. He said Qureshi was convicted without recording his statement under the law.

The counsel submitted that after their final statements, the appellants were asked two questions each, and were immediately convicted.

The counsel submitted that the trial court wrote in the order that the trust of the state had been killed and the appellants did not deserve any concession. The lawyers said the rules that were made for the enemies of the state like Kulbhushan Jadhav or Abhinandan had been used against a political adversary.

Justice Aurangzeb remarked that the impression he had got from the judgment was that if a foreign state had done something offensive and it was told to the government in a cipher, then such information should never be made public just because it came in a cipher. The IHC inquired as to what would have happened if such information had not come in the form of a cipher and sent publicly.

Safdar said there had been no recovery from both the appellants, and no copy of the cipher was recovered from them. He said the FIA had made a false case and the trial court also wrongly convicted the appellants, adding that till date, no one had been prosecuted and punished on such allegations.

He submitted that the trial court judge sometimes mentioned political motives and sometimes economy in the decision.

The IHC chief justice said there was a part in the statement of the accused that the judge left the court immediately after pronouncing the sentence. “Are you saying that the requirements of fair trial have not been fulfilled?” he asked.

Justice Aurangzeb said the trial judge gave the finding in the judgment that Pakistan-US relations had ended, and asked on what basis he wrote that.

To this, Safdar replied that the trial judge wrote that on the basis of the statement of Asad Majeed, then Pakistani ambassador to the US.

The IHC observed that the allegations against the PTI founder were that he had disclosed secret documents and then lost them.

Safdar said that the trial court judge did not even consider his oath while hearing this case. He said Asad Umar was not made an accused because he announced leaving the politics and Azam Khan was also let go after he gave a “desirable” statement. He added that Qureshi was punished with the PTI founder because he was not ready to leave the PTI.

The lawyer asked which the enemy state was and what benefit was given to it. He argued that a mockery had been made of the law and frivolous prosecution was carried out. He said the cipher was not brought forward because it would favour the accused.

He said the cipher text did not appear in the plain text either and it was not the case that the cipher had been lost as it was still there in the building of the Foreign Office.

He said a case was made when only one copy of the cipher was not returned and asked when nine other copies of the cipher had not been returned, why the only case was registered against the PTI founder.

Justice Aurangzeb remarked that two-year imprisonment was handed down as the appellants did not return something they were supposed to return. The IHC asked the counsel to argue on the allegation of failure to return the cipher’s copy on the next hearing on April 4.