Lahore High Court Clears Imran Khan of Involvement in May 9th Attacks Due to Lack of Evidence
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has declared that there is no audio or video evidence whatsoever linking former Prime Minister Imran Khan to the attacks on state installations that took place on May 9, 2023. This declaration was part of a written order unveiled by the LHC in response to Imran Khan's petition against the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) order that remanded him in police custody for 10 days on July 15, 2023, in connection with 12 cases related to the May 9 incidents.
Court Proceedings and Decision
A division bench of the LHC, comprising Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh and Justice Anwaarul Haq Pannun, heard Imran Khan's petition on July 18, 2023. The court subsequently set aside the ATC order on July 25, 2023. In its 5-page written order, the LHC emphasized the constitutional protections against illegal restrictions on an individual's freedom and underscored the necessity for judicial magistrates to thoroughly review charges before remanding a person to custody.
Lack of Evidence
The LHC's written order stated that there was no audio or video evidence on record to substantiate the allegations that Imran Khan aided and abetted the incidents on May 9. It further noted that Imran Khan was not arrested in any of the twelve cases even more than a year after the incidents of vandalism and rioting. The prosecution, according to the order, failed to present any material evidence against Imran Khan beyond the statement of a government officer. The report stated:
“Astonishingly, the police has not shown any reason for making any request to the court to seek physical remand of the accused [Imran Khan] in the said twelve cases during a period of more than one year…”
Supreme Court Guidelines on Remand
The LHC highlighted that the physical remand granted to Imran Khan did not comply with the Supreme Court's guidelines on remand procedures. The Lahore High Court noted that the physical remand of Imran Khan was granted solely based on a police report alleging that he orchestrated a criminal conspiracy disseminated through modern devices like mobile phones and audio or video clips. The court criticized the learned Judge for failing to consider or discuss any incriminating material provided by the prosecution that would justify the offense of abetment against Khan, thus necessitating his physical remand. Despite extensive arguments from the Prosecutor General, Punjab, no incriminating statements from Khan were presented, aside from the statement of Inspector Asmat Kamal. Kamal claimed to have overheard the alleged conspiracy, but this information was not disclosed until well after the incident, and there was no audio or video evidence to support these claims. As a result, the physical remand granted to the petitioner in the twelve cases was declared null and void.
“We have also noted that physical remand of the accused [Imran Khan] has been merely granted on the ground that as per police report he is named for hatching a criminal conspiracy… We are afraid that the judge failed to discuss any incriminating material available with the prosecution constituting the offense of abetment against the accused/petitioner necessitating his physical remand.”
The Lahore High Court emphasized that under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with the law, and Article 10 provides safeguards regarding arrest and detention. The court underscored the necessity for judges to consider these constitutional guarantees when deciding on police custody remands. The court highlighted that a magistrate must ensure sufficient incriminating evidence exists before granting remand and must not do so mechanically at the police's request. The judgment also referred to the Supreme Court's criticism in Majid and another vs. Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah (1995 SCMR 429) of judges who grant remand orders without proper judicial consideration, stressing that such conduct should be firmly discouraged.
"This Court expects the presiding officers to perform their duties with their eyes and ears open as required under the law and pass orders after judicial application of mind and not in perfunctory and slipshod manner allowing room for mistakes because these mistakes whether they are inadvertent or not reflect upon the conduct of the Judge and can be considered as a minus point. We disapprove and deprecate such conduct of the presiding officers, and it should be discouraged in true sense as far as possible." – Supreme Court, Majid and another vs. Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah (1995 SCMR 429)
This context reinforces the legal protections against arbitrary detention and emphasizes the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberty.
Only Logical Conclusion
The LHC's decision to set aside the ATC order and the lack of concrete evidence against Imran Khan bring significant developments in the legal proceedings surrounding the May 9 incidents. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional protections and judicial guidelines in criminal investigations and remand processes. The Lahore High Court's declaration that there is no audio or video evidence linking Imran Khan to the May 9 incidents serves as compelling proof that the prosecution lacks substantial evidence against the former Prime Minister. This judicial finding, coupled with the prosecution's inability to present any material evidence beyond a single government officer's statement, underscores the politically motivated nature of the relentless cases against Khan. The court's decision to set aside the remand order further highlights the misuse of legal processes for political gain, aiming to undermine Khan's influence and credibility.