The hearing for the Cipher case in Islamabad has been postponed until September 12 at the request of the Chairman of PTI, who objected to the hearing taking place at Attock Jail.
Justice Aamir Farooq, Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court, presided over the hearing. The Chairman of PTI was represented by lawyer Sher Afzal Marwat. During the proceedings, lawyers from the FIA requested an additional week to submit their response.
Chief Justice Amir Farooq inquired about the next date for the Cipher case. Lawyer Sher Afzal responded by raising the question of whether a new notification would be issued on September 13. Prosecutor Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi stated that they would seek instructions and update the court accordingly.
The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of keeping the court informed about this matter and mentioned that the case had been moved from the F8 court to the judicial complex, with the Ministry of Home Affairs now handling it. He questioned how the Ministry of Law had issued the notification.
Lawyer Sher Afzal requested that any notification for the next hearing be postponed. In response, the Chief Justice indicated that they had scheduled the case for a hearing before the next date. The lawyer proposed issuing the notification on September 10 instead of September 12, to which the Chief Justice questioned the significance of the change.
The Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court instructed that, during the next hearing, information should be provided regarding the authority under which the Ministry of Law issued the notification. Lawyer Sher Afzal requested that arguments be presented on the same day, but the Chief Justice noted that they had initially expected the application to be withdrawn. The lawyer expressed the desire to proceed with arguments.
Advocate Sher Afzal informed the court that the bail plea at the trial court had not been heard due to this application, which might lead to the Chairman of PTI remaining in jail for an additional six days.
The Chief Justice clarified that the application in the High Court did not impact the trial court’s proceedings. The trial court had been restrained from proceeding when the High Court issued its order.
Prosecutor Rizwan Abbasi informed the court that a similar application was pending in the trial court. The Chief Justice emphasized that the trial court should decide on this matter, as the High Court had not prevented it from doing so. If the trial court made a decision, any party aggrieved by it could appeal.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing of the case until September 12, with the possibility of a decision on the same day if arguments were completed.