SC deems Toshakhana case verdict “hasty” and “incorrect in retrospect”

ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a hearing addressing the appeals of PTI Chairman regarding the Toshakhana case, has pronounced the initial trial court’s ruling as “hastily” made and “incorrect in retrospect”.

Led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, a three-member bench, including Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, presided over the proceedings related to the PTI chief’s challenge against a verdict from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) regarding the case’s transfer to an alternate court.

During the commencement of the hearing, Latif Khosa, legal representative of the PTI Chairman, presented arguments before the court.

Chief Justice Bandial strongly criticized the trial court’s decision, remarking that the judge had hastily issued the order. T

he Chief Justice observed that errors were evident in the trial court’s judgment upon retrospective examination.

He clarified that since the matter was under the jurisdiction of the high court, the Supreme Court was refraining from direct intervention at this juncture.

PTI Chairman moves SC against Chief Justice IHC

Khosa implored the apex court, highlighting that his client had lodged three appeals against the high court’s ruling. He pointed out, “Six members of the National Assembly lodged a complaint against the PTI chairman with the speaker, urging his disqualification.

Subsequently, the speaker referred the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in accordance with Section 137 of the Election Act.”

Advocate Khosa petitioned the court asserting that his client had been accused of misdeclaring assets. In response to a query from Justice Naqvi, Khosa cited Section 137 and sub-section 4 of the Election Act, 2017.

Justice Naqvi sought clarification, questioning, “Do assembly members possess the authority to file complaints against their fellow legislators? By which statute can assembly members submit allegations against fellow parliamentarians?”

Khosa responded by affirming that assembly members lacked the authority to initiate such references; only the National Assembly speaker held that prerogative. He further apprised the apex court that the electoral body could only take action against a Member of the National Assembly (MNA) within a specified 120-day window following the submission of financial statements.

Justice Mandokhel interjected, clarifying, “The present matter does not pertain to whether a reference could have been initiated against Chairman PTI. Your challenge pertains to the Islamabad High Court’s decision.”

Chief Justice Bandial further apprised lawyer Khosa that the matter of the case’s jurisdiction had been raised.

“The case is presently under consideration in another court,” noted CJP Bandial, addressing Khosa’s stance.

CJP Bandial underscored the deficiencies in the trial court’s judgment. He elucidated that while the high court had invalidated the trial court’s decision, instructing a fresh evaluation based on specific grounds, the trial court instead reaffirmed the same voided verdict and pronounced a sentence.

Following arguments from both Khosa and ECP counsel Amjad Pervaiz, CJP Bandial conveyed, “We shall abstain from intervening in the Toshakhana case at this time.”

The Chief Justice adjourned the proceedings till one pm tomorrow.