Khawaja Haris, the PTI’s ace lawyer, has parted ways with the party’s legal team, deciding not to represent its chief Imran Khan anymore in different cases against him in the courts, a private TV channel reported. Imran Khan will be represented by senior lawyer Latif Khosa and others – particularly in the Toshakhana case to be heard by the Islamabad High Court on Friday (today). Reports that the senior lawyer decided to part ways due to reservations over “discipline” within the PTI chief’s legal team. The insiders said advocate Haris had advised the PTI’s legal team against raising objections over Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq who is hearing the Toshakhana case. However, other members had called for raising objections on the bench hearing Imran’s petition challenging the trial court verdict. Reports said Haris was apparently not happy over the interference of other legal team members in the decisions taken by the former as the lead counsel of the PTI chief. They said Haris has returned the files of all cases to the PTI chief’s legal team and he will not appear for the Toshakhana case hearing in the IHC. The PTI chief had hired Khawaja Haris to represent him in Toshakhana, NAB amendments, and other cases in the Supreme Court, IHC, and other courts. The development two days after PTI announced that it would file a reference against IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) after a bench headed by the judge refused to suspend former prime minister Imran Khan’s sentence in the Toshakhana case. In a statement, the PTI Core Committee, which is handling the party matters due to the incarceration of the party chairman, condemned the adjournment of the case by IHC till Thursday. “It has been decided to file a reference against Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq in the Supreme Judicial Council to ensure the independence of the judiciary,” the party said. It also urged Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial to take notice of the manner in which the IHC CJ issued the decision.