Farooq Naeem—AFP
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday announced it will indict Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in a contempt of court case on Sept. 22, with proceedings lasting several hours in which the ousted prime minister’s counsel and two amicus curiae argued for the disposal of the show-cause notice.
A five-member larger bench of the IHC, led by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, said Khan’s written response was “not satisfactory” and then adjourned proceedings for two weeks.
The hearing into the contempt of court case against Khan came amidst stringent security, with the PTI chairman declaring he had “never before seen so many police” when he reached the courtroom. According to Islamabad police, 788 cops were deployed to the IHC to ensure security during Khan’s appearance in court.
As proceedings resumed, Khan’s lawyer Hamid Khan said he agreed with the observations given by the court during its last hearing and wished to place some requests before the court. “We wish to conclude this matter,” he told the judges, referring to a detailed reply submitted in court a day earlier.
“The offense is serious in nature,” said the chief justice. “We had explained it the last time, but you did not understand,” he said, questioning whether it was a viable defense of a former prime minister to claim he was unaware of the law. In his second submission, the PTI chief had claimed he was unaware that the case of his aide, Shahbaz Gill, was sub judice and had commented on it in ignorance.
“The respect and morale of the subordinate judiciary is linked to this case,” remarked the chief justice. “We are the defenders of freedom of expression but incitement cannot be allowed,” he stressed.
Reiterating the written submission’s contention that the two verdicts referred to in last week’s hearing—contempt cases of PMLN’s Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry—were not applicable on Imran Khan, counsel Hamid Khan argued that his client’s case was “totally different.”
To this, the chief justice said there were three kinds of contempt—judicial, civil and criminal—and noted that Khan’s case fell into the realm of criminal contempt because it specifically sought to terrorize a sitting woman judge. This is very serious, he remarked.
Noting that a legal procedure existed to appeal against the decision of any judge, CJ Minallah said it was very important to note who voiced “insulting” words and where they were said. “Our society is so polarized right now that political supporters harass their opponents in public,” he said, questioning what would happen if such people did the same to the woman judge named by Khan. “Tell me, would you have submitted the same response if you had used the same tone and words to refer to a judge of the Supreme Court?” questioned the CJ, adding the submitted response appeared to be justifying the PTI chief’s remarks. To this, Hamid Khan said his client had only sought to provide an explanation, not justify his remarks.
The chief justice said the difference between Supreme Court and subordinate judiciary judges is that the latter works under very difficult conditions. “You wrote that you are ashamed if you have hurt the feelings of the woman judge; a judge does not have any sentiments, they only work to ensure the rule of law,” Minallah added.
In response, Hamid Khan said he and his client respected all judges, whether that of the Supreme Court, High Court or the subordinate judiciary. The chief justice stressed that an untoward incident could result from incitement against the woman judge while she’s travelling. “Do you want this to happen?” he questioned adding the court is trying to explain the severity of the situation to the PTI chief. “Imran Khan’s statement has created a risky situation for the woman judge,” he said. “The words used were threatening,” added Justice Sattar.
The judges also questioned the wording of the written submission, noting it had described the alleged torture against Gill as “fact” without specifying it was a mere allegation. When Hamid Khan read out the supplementary response to justify this, the chief justice said he was “justifying” that torture had taken place.
Justice Babar Sattar said the ousted prime minister had stood up in a rally, threatened a judge and said she should be ashamed of herself. “If we give a decision against you, and you don’t accept it, will you stand up at your next rally and say you will take action against us?” he questioned, as the PTI chair kept shaking his head in the negative.
Referring to the harassment of government ministers in Madina, allegedly by PTI supporters, the chief justice said Khan’s entire response was justification for his speech, and directed Hamid Khan to complete his arguments.
To Khan’s claims of Gill being tortured in police custody, Justice Tariq Jahangiri noted a medical board had been formed on the PTI’s request. None of the medical reports proved torture, he said, with CJ Minallah saying the written response should have contained the word “alleged.”
“Should all [judicial] decisions now be based on perceptions?” the CJ questioned, as another of Khan’s lawyers said he wished to discuss the alleged violence against Gill. “Do not discuss this matter, you will make your case even more difficult,” the CJ responded, noting the case was still being heard in the IHC at the time of Khan’s speech.
“My client has written that he was unaware of the case,” said Hamid Khan. The CJ said this argument was not supported by the PTI chief’s own written submission.
Hamid Khan sought to argue that his client had expressed remorse because he had no intent to threaten the sitting judge. “Imran Khan has always stood for women’s rights,” he claimed, with the CJ saying this was not an issue of women’s rights, but the rights of a judge of a subordinate court.
Referring to the submitted response, Justice Sattar said it had said Khan knew an appeal would be filed against the woman judge’s ruling. “Was Imran Khan trying to influence the court with this statement?” he questioned, with the CJ questioning if it was also an attempt to influence the IHC.
Attorney General of Pakistan
Taking the rostrum, Attorney General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali said Imran Khan had in 2014 apologized to the Supreme Court in a similar contempt of court case, and been acquitted, noting the PTI chief appeared to believe he could do the same thing over and over again and be pardoned every time. “Imran Khan wasn’t just issued a notice this time, it was a show-cause notice,” he stressed, noting the PTI chief had not submitted an affidavit with his response, and there was no “answer” without it.
Amicus curiae Munir A. Malik argued that while contempt had occurred, Imran Khan’s conduct with the court proved he was remorseful and had made a “mistake.” He said all contempt cases could be ended in one of two ways: through an apology or display of conduct. He then urged the court to dispose of the contempt case against Khan and discharge the show-cause notice, claiming the proceedings had sent a message that such commentary would not be tolerated in future.
Amicus Makhdoom Ali Khan, meanwhile, argued in favor of the freedom of expression, saying contempt laws did not exist to ensure respect for judges, but rather to punish interference in judicial matters. To this, CJ Minallah noted that former U.S. president Donald Trump had been banned from Twitter for “incitement” and freedom of expression had limits. He also reiterated that standards were higher for national leaders.
“We gave a chance to Imran Khan during the previous hearing,” said Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb. “The court does not see any change in his conduct today,” added CJ Minallah, noting the response the judges had hoped for was not provided. He said Makhdoom Ali Khan’s arguments were sound, but questioned if the amicus believed pardoning the PTI chief would ensure this would never happen again. He also reiterated that the issue was not that of criticizing a judge, but intimidating a judge of the subordinate judiciary.
Earlier, after reaching the court for the hearing, Khan told journalists he would become “more dangerous” if the government placed him under arrest. A few hours before the hearing resumed, the PTI chief also filed a new miscellaneous plea seeking permission to submit further written arguments. Arguing that the high court could not exercise suo moto jurisdiction as per the Constitution, the petition pleaded that arguments on the inadmissibility of the case should be on record. “The written arguments will also be explained in the oral arguments during the course of the proceedings,” it added.