On Tuesday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) declared the Tyrian White case against former Prime Minister Imran Khan inadmissible, emphasizing that it had already been adjudicated.
A larger bench, led by Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri and including Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Riffat, reviewed the case. The case sought the disqualification of the PTI founder for not declaring his ‘daughter’ in his nomination papers. Lawyer Hamid Ali Shah represented petitioner Mohammad Sajid. He mentioned that PTI counsel Salman Akram Raja had sought an adjournment. At this juncture, PTI lawyer Naeem Haider Panjotha intervened.
He stated that the verdict had been announced on May 10 of the previous year and was posted on the court’s website. He also noted that six IHC judges referenced this case in their letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) concerning interference by intelligence agencies in judicial matters.
Justice Jahangiri highlighted that two of the three judges had declared the application inadmissible and questioned the impact of such a decision. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the high court’s chief justice had not signed the order, but Justice Jahangiri reiterated the significance of the order signed by the two judges.
Hamid then requested two to three weeks to prepare his arguments. However, the judge questioned the feasibility of scheduling a hearing for a case that had already been dismissed. Despite Hamid’s plea for more time, the court ruled the case inadmissible.
As the IHC addresses Tyrian White case inadmissible, the PTI denounced the proceedings as an unfair attempt to keep Imran Khan imprisoned. A PTI spokesperson described the move as a desperate and unfounded effort by Imran’s adversaries, who had already suffered defeats in other legal challenges, including the Toshakhana, cipher, and Al-Qadir Trust cases.
The spokesperson accused the IHC chief justice of bias, arguing that forming a new bench to hear the Tyrian case, despite an existing verdict by a three-judge panel, showed partiality against the PTI chairman. They condemned the continuous filing of what they termed “bogus cases,” including the Tyrian and Iddat cases against Imran.
Previously, in a peculiar development, the opinion of two of the three IHC judges who heard the petition seeking Imran Khan’s disqualification for allegedly concealing his daughter was briefly posted on the court’s website before being removed. A three-judge bench led by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir had reserved its verdict on March 30, 2023.
In a reply submitted to the court on February 1, 2023, Imran Khan argued through his lawyer Salman Akram Raja that the case was “not maintainable” on legal grounds. He contended that the IHC could not examine any affidavit he had issued as he had already resigned from the National Assembly and thus ceased to be a member of parliament.
