Has PTI Chief's disqualification ended? PTI Lawyer Intezar Panjutha's Big News

ARY NEWS

#ChairmanPTI #ToshakhanaCase #IntezarPanjutha #11thHour #WaseemBadami  Follow the ARY News channel on WhatsApp: https://bit.ly/46e5HzY  Subscribe to our channel and press the bell icon for latest news updates: http://bit.ly/3e0SwKP  ARY News is a leading Pakistani news channel that promises to bring you factual and timely international stories and stories about Pakistan, sports, entertainment, and business, amid others.  Official Facebook: https://www.fb.com/arynewsasia  Official Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/arynewsofficial  Official Instagram: https://instagram.com/arynewstv  Website: https://arynews.tv  Watch ARY NEWS LIVE: http://live.arynews.tv    Listen Live: http://live.arynews.tv/audio  Listen Top of the hour Headlines, Bulletins & Programs: https://soundcloud.com/arynewsofficial #ARYNews  ARY News Official YouTube Channel. For more videos, subscribe to our channel and for suggestions please use the comment section.

Transcript

00:00 Are you a bit disappointed because some of your leaders are saying that they are expecting a decision?

00:26 Yes, overall the scenario is that the decision that was to be made today,

00:30 has already been suspended.

00:36 So the major part, the operating part of the judgement,

00:39 has been suspended.

00:41 So this was a clerical mistake,

00:43 which you can say that verbally,

00:46 when the last date of hearing, when the sentence was being suspended,

00:50 the court had asked to suspend it as well.

00:53 But that was missed.

00:55 But you don't think that this was a big mistake on your legal part,

01:01 which you are calling a clerical mistake,

01:03 when you know that each point has so many implications,

01:06 so at that time you are requesting for death penalty,

01:08 you are writing a sentence,

01:10 but you are not writing a sentence and order,

01:12 which is being repercussed.

01:13 It was a big mistake on your part.

01:15 See, initially, they made a mistake,

01:18 Khwaja Aariz had drafted this,

01:21 but that same doctor...

01:23 - Was it your fault?

01:25 - He is a professional lawyer, I will not say anything.

01:28 - So it was a mistake, he is a human being.

01:30 - It happens.

01:31 - Was there any malice?

01:32 - No, I will not go there, he is a senior.

01:34 - You are not saying that you are going to the court,

01:35 but you are saying that you are not going there.

01:36 - No, I am not going there.

01:37 But the point is that this mistake was not that big,

01:40 and it was a timely point out.

01:43 We had requested the court at the same time

01:45 when the sentence was to be suspended.

01:47 We had asked them before that.

01:49 - But it was not written in this order, right?

01:52 - No, the court has the authority.

01:54 We said that we will write it down.

01:56 They said that we will see.

01:57 When they said that we will see,

01:59 after that, we did not see.

02:01 The court also overlooked.

02:03 Then we gave a foreign application.

02:05 While the application was being heard,

02:07 that is, the sentence was suspended on 30th August,

02:10 and till today it is coming,

02:12 sometimes one request comes from the Election Commission,

02:15 and sometimes someone else comes.

02:17 So there is no point.

02:18 The major operating part of the judgment

02:21 has already been suspended by the same court on 30th August.

02:26 - Were you expecting a decision today?

02:28 - Of course, we were.

02:30 - Is it coming in the future?

02:31 - Today we requested,

02:33 because it is for us and for the democracy of the country.

02:36 Our arguments today were that

02:38 if the biggest political party is not a part of the democracy,

02:42 then the democracy of the country is in danger.

02:45 The democracy of the country is in danger,

02:47 that is, Pakistan is in danger.

02:49 - Being a lawyer, you also understand,

02:51 whatever your political affiliation is,

02:53 but you are a student of law primarily,

02:55 so you understand that,

02:56 in principle, as a result of any punishment,

02:58 it is wrong to deprive a person of his own party's leadership,

03:02 whether he was with Nawaz Sharif yesterday or with Imran Khan.

03:05 Either you understand that he was right, or this is wrong.

03:08 - Look, I will talk about the law.

03:10 - Yes.

03:11 - The intention in the law is to file an appeal.

03:15 When you are in an appeal,

03:17 then there is a continuity of your trial.

03:19 When a trial is going on against you,

03:21 then you are not disqualified.

03:24 So it means that when you are in an appeal,

03:26 then you should not be.

03:28 So this is a settled principle of law.

03:30 Today Imran Khan is there, tomorrow Nawaz Sharif,

03:32 Zardari Sahib, Bilawal, whatever.

03:35 But the principles of law remain the same.

03:37 I, being a student of law, will say that

03:40 this principle should be applied equally for everyone.

03:44 - So if Nawaz Sharif is also a member of the party,

03:47 then Imran Khan should also be there.

03:49 Because the principle should be applied equally.

03:51 - No, no. The case of Nawaz Sharif is a little different.

03:53 It is different in that the disqualification against him

03:56 was done directly by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

03:58 - From 621(f)

04:00 - Yes. In that, there is some kind of appeal,

04:03 which is now on the stage,

04:05 a trial took place, the trial was right, it was wrong.

04:08 - Then we went to Islamabad High Court.

04:10 - Then we went to Islamabad High Court.

04:12 This is the continuity of our trial till then.

04:15 And these rights are available to us,

04:17 which were available during the trial.

04:19 - They say that we have been unfair.

04:21 Not in the case of Ahteesab Adarat,

04:23 that was done by Al Azizia Flagship and Ebenfield.

04:27 But in the case of Akama, they say that

04:29 we have been unfair that the Supreme Court took it directly.

04:32 So we have no panel, no forum left to appeal.

04:35 Imran Khan is lucky enough that he has so many forums to appeal.

04:38 - Let me remind you of one thing.

04:40 The Supreme Court asked the lawyers of the time.

04:43 - He had a lawyer, Khwaja Aariz, right?

04:45 His name is Khwaja Aariz.

04:47 - This one.

04:48 - This is the same Khwaja Aariz, right?

04:50 - Yes, this one.

04:51 - And who is the lawyer for the military courts?

04:55 - He is the lawyer of the federal government.

04:57 - Yes, okay.

04:58 Subhanallah.

04:59 I said, just say Subhanallah.

05:01 - Look, at that time, they were asked and they gave consent to the court

05:06 that you should decide on this case on our behalf.

05:11 So when a consent was given, it could have been brought down for additional evidence.

05:16 But at that time, the decision was taken there and it was taken by the newlyweds.

05:19 The statements of their lawyers are on record.

05:22 So when you surrender this before the Supreme Court,

05:25 then you will have to agree.

05:27 - It was his choice.

Category

Transcript

Recommended