Last week, the Islamabad High Court issued a halt order to the planned in-prison trial of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who is currently held on judicial remand in the high-security Adiala prison in Rawalpindi. The court is now questioning the details surrounding the extraordinary circumstances that led to the decision to conduct the trial within the confines of the prison.
This order was issued following an intra-court appeal against the approval of Khan’s jail trial. The Attorney General, on behalf of the state, stated that the federal cabinet had sanctioned the in-prison trial, temporarily assuaging concerns by promising to provide a copy of the approving notification. However, the court took a firm stance, expressing their intent to review the notification and stressing the need for transparency about the events leading to the decision.
Khan, who served as the prime minister from August 2018 to April 2022, is accused of violated the Official Secrets Act, which was brought to the attention of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in August following alleged mishandling of a diplomatic cable from the Pakistani embassy in Washington back in March 2022. Since his removal from office through a no-confidence vote in April 2022, over 150 cases have been filed against Khan, all of which are currently under consideration.
The Pakistani Constitution of 1973 explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial in Article 10-A, emphasizing the entitlement to due process in any criminal charge or determining civil rights. The former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Tom Bingham, shed light on the principles of a fair trial in his book “The Rule of Law”, stating that trials should be predominantly held in public, culminating in a public judgment.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has upheld the principle of a public, open trial as a cornerstone of unbiased judicial proceedings, asserting that closed-door or in camera proceedings often lead to suspicion and lack of trust in the judicial process. The court pointed out that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. Similar sentiments were echoed by the US Supreme Court, which emphasized the public’s distrust of secret trials, deemed as tools of suppression that overlook the accused’s right to a fair trial.
As the Islamabad High Court scrutinizes the legality of the planned in-prison trial of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, there is an undeniable need for transparency and preservation of principles of open justice. As the proceedings continue, all eyes are on the court, a critical juncture that will inevitably shape the trajectory of fair, open trials within Pakistan’s legal framework in the future.
Read more about this development over at JURIST – News.