Imran Khan’s legal representative argued in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that Azam Khan, the ex-principal secretary to the former premier, provided an unreliable testimony in the cipher case after altering his statement.
The attorney emphasized that Azam’s deposition was made in the capacity of an accused rather than a witness, rendering it legally insignificant since it wasn’t sworn testimony.
This point was made by Salman Safdar, Khan’s lawyer, during the proceedings of appeals against the sentencing of Khan and another leader from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Shah Mahmood Qureshi, related to the cipher case at the IHC.
The appeals were reviewed by a two-member IHC bench, led by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb, concerning the convictions handed down on January 30 of the current year.
In the session, the IHC’s chief justice inquired about the procedural validity of a witness’s testimony, specifically if it had been subjected to cross-examination after being recorded initially by a magistrate and subsequently in court.
Safdar responded by distinguishing between Azam’s initial statement to the investigating authority and his later statements, indicating that the changes made were in favor of the defendant, Khan.
Addressing queries from the chief justice about Azam’s account concerning allegations that the cipher was misrepresented, Safdar negated claims that Azam accused Khan of intentionally misplacing the cipher. Instead, he highlighted that Khan had instructed his military secretary to locate it.
Moreover, Safdar noted that the prosecution had withdrawn an accusation in the initial police report that implicated Khan in displaying the document at a public event on March 27 and plotting a conspiracy in a meeting the following day, March 28, charges Azam was alleged to have been involved in.
