Imran didn’t lose cipher copy, it went missing from PM’s Office, IHC told

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan’s counsel Barrister Salman Safdar has told the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that Khan had not lost the cipher’s copy but it had gone missing from the Prime Minister’s Office.

The cipher’s copy had been entrusted to Azam Khan, who was also responsible for securing it. He was turned into a witness from an accused, so his statement is not reliable.

Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb asked why Azam Khan was not charged with losing the cipher either negligently or intentionally. The counsel said the prosecution had spoiled its own case by making the accused a witness.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq asked that even though Azam Khan received the cipher copy physically, will this not be considered the responsibility of the PTI founder?

Chief Justice Farooq and Justice Aurangzeb were hearing the appeals of the PTI founder and Shah Mehmood Qureshi against their conviction in the cipher case.

Barrister Safdar concluded his arguments and said Azam Khan had received the cipher’s copy. He said that it was informed that the cipher’s copy issued to the principal secretary had not been returned.

The PTI founder took the cipher and read it, but nothing was in the testimony regarding its return or loss, or if the cipher’s copy was given or not, or if the PM had taken a copy or not — none of these was in the prosecution’s evidence.

The counsel said that the cipher’s copy had gone missing from the PM’s Office, and that the same had been deposed by Azam Khan.

Justice Aurangzeb asked the counsel if he was saying that there is no document on record to show that the cipher’s copy had been handed over to the PTI founder. Barrister Safdar replied that was exactly what he was saying. He argued that there is room for human error when a document is lost. He said that according to the rules, if a document goes missing, it is not a criminal act.

He said Asad Umer was not made an accused because he left the party, but Qureshi did not leave the party, so he was convicted without any evidence.

Barrister Safdar said the procedure was not followed before making Azam Khan a witness, so his statement was not credible, and it was a weak testimony.

He said Azam Khan was named as accused in the FIR, adding that there was no precedent of an accused being made a witness by pardoning him.

The court asked what the status of a statement would be if someone gives it after being missing for two weeks or even two days.

The court said that if the flood gate is opened, in future any key witness can suddenly disappear and then return. What will be the effect?

Barrister Safdar said he did not witness such a situation during his career as an advocate. The chief justice asked if the counsel was saying that the accused was made a direct witness.

The court directed the Federal Investigation Agency’s special prosecutor to initiate his arguments. The special prosecutor said he would take three or four days to conclude the arguments. The court then adjourned the hearing until Wednesday (today).