The Special Court for Anti-Terrorism Tuesday dismissed two petitions filed by defence lawyers in the May 9 arson attack case until the High Court decided on a plea to transfer the trial to a jail court.
The court also rejected a request for footage from CCTV cameras of the September 19 judicial proceedings. The judge remarked that the defense had every right to challenge the court’s orders but proceedings cannot be halted until the High Court issued any directives.
After recording statements from eight prosecution witnesses, the court summoned two more witnesses and adjourned the hearing until September 27.
During the proceedings, former PTI chairman appeared via WhatsApp link, while his lawyers Faisal Malik and Salman Akram Raja were present in court. Special prosecutors Zaheer Shah and Ikram Amin Minhas were also present.
The two applications filed by PTI, one seeking footage from the September 19 court proceedings and CCTV cameras, and the other requesting a halt to proceedings until the High Court verdict on the transfer to jail trial, were rejected.
The defence counsel argued that they did not intend to participate in the proceedings without consulting their client, to which the court said that consultation was allowed in the previous hearing but the proceedings were boycotted.
The court directed the defence lawyers to challenge the WhatsApp communication arrangement in the High Court. The counsel said that they had already challenged the WhatsApp call in the High Court, as it cannot be considered a video link.
They requested for some time to challenge the previous court order, and the judge said that the decision challenging in other courts, could go ahead but proceedings would not be stopped.
The prosecutor pointed out that the defence lawyers boycotted the previous hearing and the court was not bound to entertain their questions.
He accused them of inconsistent behavior, skipping court one day and seeking adjournment the next day, saying that such tactics were delaying the trial and wasting court time, especially since prosecution witnesses needed to be recorded.
He emphasized that no law allowed halting the trial, and questioning prior orders amounted to contempt of court.
Salman Akram Raja responded that courts operate under the Constitution, and it is inappropriate to present a person confined in a cell, via WhatsApp call.
The judge repeated that the right to challenge exists, but proceedings cannot be paused without High Court intervention.
The defense sought permission for client consultation; the court recalled that lawyers were previously allowed to to do so. Salaman Akram Raja claimed they were not permitted to meet the former chairman. The court affirmed that a trial court cannot ignore High Court directives.
After hearing arguments, the court dismissed both petitions. Subsequently, statements were recorded from witnesses including PEMRA Additional Director, FIA Technical Assistants and PID Deputy Directors Muhammad Tariq and Hasnain Wazir, former Assistant Commissioner Islamabad Muhammad Abdullah, Awaid Arshad Bhatti, and Interior Ministry Section Officer Bilal Ahmad, who presented their respective reports. This brings the total recorded witness statements in the arson and attack case to 41.
The court summoned additional prosecution witnesses for the next hearing.
Separately, the IHC on Tuesday issued notices to respondents on a petition seeking a private meeting between Imran and his wife in jail.
The court instructed the respondents to file the answer till next week.