Live from Courtroom No 1: SC takes 66 hours to conclude arguments in Imran Khan case

ISLAMABAD: The country’s top court concluded its hearing into another important case of Pakistan’s history on Tuesday. It took 335 days for the judges to hear 66 hours-long arguments presented by counsels of both parties.

“Naeem Bokhari Sb [counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan] has yet to answer some important questions -- though we conclude the hearing -- but not reserving the judgment (until concluding hearing into Jahangir Tareen case) -- and will continue to ask questions, if feel necessary,” observed Chief Justice Saqib Nisar.

“We remained quite handicapped. Bokhari Sb has yet to provide some documents to justify 6% to 7% money trail matters -- some assets of Niazi Services Limited were also not brought on the record,” observed the chief justice. Only the time will tell what will be the outcome of this case after concluding hearing into Mr Tareen case -- secondary part of this case (Hanif Abbasi Vs Imran Khan & Hanif Abbasi Vs Jahangir Tareen) this month. But many lawyers find some genuine similarities in the intricacies which may threaten political future of Imran Khan.

An interesting situation was witnessed in the Courtroom No-I on Tuesday when worthy judges were searching for Naeem Bokhari who did not come to the court. It took him 65 minutes after judges asked the concerned to trace him. This correspondent witnessed that it was Anwar Mansoor Khan who assured the court that Mr Bokhari would be here after a while. Counsels of both parties have presented over 3,500 voluminous materials (pages) in some 33 hearings which lasted for some 66 hours in the apex court.

The PTI chairman’s ex-wife Jemima Khan was named over 151 times by judges and counsels. She remained in focus in this case as the ‘Qatari letter’ was focused in the Panama Papers case. Judges asked around 170 striking questions from both parties where they tried to find similarities attached to Panama case. The PTI chairman could not completely justify his money trail despite 18 opportunities given to him by the apex court. The central point in this case remained: How did Imran Khan accumulate millions of dollars in the West as cricketer, and through which channels the money was transferred to Pakistan in 1980s to help him build Banigala villa? Why did Imran Khan not declare his offshore company in declarations submitted with the Election Commission of Pakistan? Reference of Panama Papers case was also given more than three dozen times by the petitioner's counsel in this case.

This correspondent witnessed proceedings of both cases -- Panama Papers and Imran Khan cases -- in the apex court which heard Panama case for over 126 days where top legal brains consumed around 111 precious hours of judges in 35 hearings. On July 28, a five-judge bench ruled that Nawaz Sharif was no longer qualified to hold the office of prime minister for concealing his “receivable assets” at the time of his election in 2013. Similar arguments were presented by Akram Sheikh who claimed that the ‘Respondent No-I’ committed such kind of the alleged mis-declaration in this case. But Mr Sheik, like his opponent Naeem Bokhari, perhaps could not completely convince the judges the way he wanted to. Naeem Bokhari produced a plethora of documents including Ashley’s letter, different land agreements, disputed documents, some evidentiary documents of money trail, invoices of charges paid by Jemima Khan and a couple of new affidavits of her, Rashid Khan and many others.

Many striking similarities were witnessed in the Courtroom No-I during Panama case when Sharifs’ counsels -- Salman Akram Raja, Khawaja Haris, Shahid Hamid, Salman Aslam Butt, Makhdoom Ali Khan and PTI’s lawyers -- Naeem Bokhari, Hamid Khan, etc -- presented their arguments. Perhaps Mr Bokhari gave his best to defend his client. The petitioners and respondents focused on Articles 62, 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69 and 184(3) in Imran Khan case while parties focused on Articles 62, 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69 and 184(3),185, 187, 224 and 248 of the Constitution in Panama case. Neither Mr Khan, nor any other top-ranking party leader attended a single hearing in this case, while PTI chairman spent 94 hours in the courtroom by attending 32 of 35 proceedings of Panama case. Similarly, Nawaz Sharif and his children did not attend a single hearing in Panama case.

Akram Sheikh, counsel for Hanif Abbasi, found striking contradictions in statements of Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen made before the SC. Perhaps, similar contradictions were found in Sharifs’ replies submitted before judges in Panama case. Naeem Bokhari did not cite a single case study before the court which requested him to refer to some case studies in response to Akram Sheikh’s arguments. As the apex court concludes hearing into Jahangir Tareen case, perhaps by next week, all eyes will be set on the chief justice to announce order into this case.