By Asif Naveed
RAWALPINDI: The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Rawalpindi on Friday dismissed a plea filed by PTI founder Imran Khan seeking permission to personally appear in the courtroom in the May 9 GHQ attack case. The court upheld the Punjab government’s notification directing that the former premier would attend proceedings via video link.
The ATC also turned down a request to transfer the trial from jail to the court, observing that the jail trial order was issued under the executive authority of the Punjab government and could only be reviewed by a constitutional court.
During the hearing, the court summoned 10 witnesses from the FIA, PEMRA, PID, Interior Ministry, and internal security, adjourning proceedings until September 23. On Friday, two prosecution witnesses — Sub-Inspectors Salim Qureshi and Manzoor Shahzad — recorded their testimonies and submitted five USB drives containing 40 videos, CCTV footage, and newspaper clippings related to the May 9 violence. Video clips featuring Omar Tanvir, Sadaqat Abbasi, and Sikandar Mirza were also presented.
The prosecution argued that, under amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 2016 and the powers vested in the ATC under sections 15 and 21 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the accused could lawfully be produced through video link. They stressed that Imran Khan’s insistence on appearing physically was an attempt to delay and obstruct the trial.
Conversely, Khan’s legal team maintained that his personal appearance was essential to ensure a fair trial, as they needed to meet and receive instructions from their client directly. They also objected to the accused being presented over WhatsApp, terming it unlawful, and argued that only the official video link mechanism was recognized under the law.
Rejecting these objections, the prosecution contended that the law applies equally to all and no separate regulations could be made for a former prime minister. The prosecutor added that if the defence was dissatisfied, they should approach the superior judiciary, but the trial would not proceed on the defence’s terms.
Concluding the day’s hearing, the court ruled that the purpose of producing the accused via video link was to ensure his presence during proceedings, which would continue in accordance with the law.
