ISLAMABAD: Accountability Court’s verdict in £190 million Al Qadir Trust case drew mixed reaction from the legal community.
Some of them see it as a straightforward case deserving punishment, while others contend that the verdict highlights a troubling pattern of political victimisation.
Shahzad Shaukat, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, says that from the outset, this case was tightly closed, which is why the punishment was harsher than anticipated.
“The evidence was crystal clear, making the outcome predictable.” When asked about pre-verdict speculations, he remarked, “Considering the daily proceedings, it was clear that the maximum penalty would be 14 years. It was a calculated assumption.”
He added that an objective analysis of the merits of the case raises a serious question: Why was money that should have been in the State’s exchequer deposited elsewhere?
Shaukat, however, supported Imran Khan’s right to appeal, though he cautioned, “Due to the evidence, it will likely be a challenging case.”
Ashtar Ausaf, ex-attorney general of Pakistan and a seasoned lawyer, analysed the ruling, stating that when cases are fought on political grounds rather than in court with solid evidence, outcomes like this occur.
The PTI’s legal team, he said, is competent, but its focus seemed more on portraying this investigation as an act of vengeance. He elaborated that this case was straightforward. The cabinet had given approval for actions that had already been planned, he said.
Ausaf went on to add that the case was structured in such a way that left no room for a defence, which led to this level of conviction.
ALSO READ: PTI hints at challenging Imran Khan’s conviction
An advocate Raja Khalid chimed in, stating, “This was an open-and-shut case. The £190 million was laundered from Pakistan to the United Kingdom, and that sum should have remained in the Pakistani government’s account.”
Another legal expert, Aziz Nishtar said that the ruling was predictable given the circumstances—a staggering £190 million that was misappropriated and subsequently seized by a foreign government, only to be handed back to the “very thief.” “It’s disheartening those judicial authorities were entangled in this process, which is utterly condemnable.”
The situation was further muddied by the involvement of the Al-Qadir Trust and University, straying from the core issue at hand, he said.
“Prosecutors should have reflected on the fact that the money, once seized, was returned to the same individual who initially stole it. PTI has every right to seek recourse, and they will undoubtedly appeal in the High Court,” he contended.