ISLAMABAD: On Wednesday, the Islamabad High Court questioned why the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) was questioning Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the foreign minister, and former prime minister Imran Khan for their failure to return the diplomatic cipher, while sparing other recipients who complied.
The comment was made by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, a member of the IHC division bench chaired by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, during the appeals hearing for Mr. Khan and Mr. Qureshi challenging their convictions in the cipher case.
The secret diplomatic cable at the center of the cipher trial against the two PTI leaders, according to defense attorney Barrister Salman Safdar, was forwarded to eight high-ranking positions, including the president, prime minister’s principal secretary, foreign secretary, army chief, director general of inter-services intelligence, chief justice of Pakistan, and cabinet secretary.
Justice Aurangzeb questions why the FIA used a “pick and choose” strategy and did not notify other cipher recipients.
But none of the recipients gave the diplomatic cable back to the Foreign Office when the investigation started in October 2022, he continued.
The FIA might have sent notices to the Senate chairman, the then-army leader, and other recipients, the attorney claimed, but in this instance, the agency had only selected Mr. Khan and Mr. Qureshi.
Imran Khan’s attorney, Barrister Safdar, produced a memo from the foreign ministry that detailed the cipher’s journey. As to the report, the majority of the recipients retained their copies for more than a year and only gave them back when the legal actions against the former prime minister and his foreign minister started. Judge Aurangzeb inquired as to whether the FBI was aware that the copies were not returned by the other receivers.
In response, Barrister Safdar said that the FIA had to give call-up notifications to each and every recipient.
Judge Aurangzeb questioned him about the rationale behind the investigating agency’s pursuit of the two recipients while ignoring the others.
In response, Barrister Safdar said that the evidence demonstrated “defective investigation, political victimization, colored exercise of power, and selective prosecution.”
Judge Farooq made the observation that it seemed to be a “pick and choose” situation and inquired about the relevant legal precedents.
A senior foreign ministry officer who was also the record custodian produced the evidence that proved the cipher was moved, the counsel told the court.
Barrister Salman responded negatively to Justice Aurangzeb’s question on whether the defense counsel had cross-examined the official, stating that the state-appointed lawyer had done so.
Judge Aurangzeb observed that the advocate general had not assigned anyone to assist the court, despite having requested permission to appear before the Sindh High Court the day before. He voiced his dissatisfaction and threatened to send a letter to the federal government pointing out that the advocate general is not providing enough support.
Barrister Safdar contended that Mr. Khan and Mr. Qureshi were also accused by the prosecution of sabotaging Pakistan’s cordial ties with the United States. He did, however, draw attention to the fact that the prosecution had not provided the court with any supporting documentation for the charge.
