Chairman PTI protests ‘poor’ jail conditions during cipher case hearing

RAWALPINDI/ISLAMABAD, Oct 09 (SABAH): Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan on Monday protested against the treatment meted out to him in Adiala jail during the hearing of the cipher case and asked he be treated like any other prisoner, said his lawyer Barrister Salman Safdar.

Barrister Salman Safdar was speaking to the media after attending a special court hearing of the cipher case held in the Adiala jail.

“The chairman protested that he was provided with a room where it was difficult to live, it is also difficult to move or walk in the cell,” said Safdar. He added that he felt that the PTI chief’s blood pressure was high during Monday’s hearing.

“The PTI chief strongly protested during the hearing in the court,” said Safdar.

Moreover, the lawyer asked that the trial of the case be conducted in an open court so the public could be aware of it. He added that it was not “right” to hold the trial in jail.

Meanwhile, the PTI chief’s other lawyer Sher Afzal Marwat disclosed that the PTI chief and his deputy Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi were presented in a “cage type” place for the hearing. Not even terrorists are presented in such a manner, said the lawyer.

Marwat also expressed annoyance over the judge’s attitude, claiming that Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain’s had adopted a confrontational style during the hearing.

Imran Khan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi to be indicted on Oct 17

In today’s hearing, the special court announced that PTI chairman and vice chairman will be indicted in the cipher case on October 17.

The PTI chief and his deputy were presented before special court Judge Zulqarnain in the court set up in Adiala jail where both leaders are locked up.

The date for the indictment was set after the copies of the challan, submitted to the court by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), were provided to the counsels of the accused.

After setting the date of the indictment, government witnesses were also issued notices by the court. Following this, the hearing was adjourned.