Judge chose the hardest penalty:
Sheikh Saqib Ahmed, a legal professional, said:
However, Section 174 of the Elections Act of 2017 offers even a “alternate sentence” because the word “or” was used there.
translates to “means that a sentence of imprisonment of three years is ‘not mandatory’ and that the accused may only be ‘sentenced to payment of fine’ only, leaving the decision to the court.”
After considering the evidence against Imran Khan, the judge “opted for the maximum punishment, exercising his broad discretionary powers,” he said. “The sentence will be suspended by the Supreme Court(s) and [Imran Khan] will be released on short bail,” he added, adding:
The current “radical game” for Khan is to be removed from office and even lose his party leadership, which might be the last straw for the PTI ahead of the 2018 elections.
Elections will be polarizing because of the verdict:
Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir, a human rights activist and attorney, stated: “This is the same sort of pre-poll rigging that we have seen before in our history where you try to eliminate politicians through processes that are not democratic, implying people do not have the right to decide who they want to elect and who they will remove from power.”
She predicted very contentious elections if they took place in October or November, even though she didn’t think they would. She made this prediction while on the phone with Geo.tv.
The advantage of any “lapses in safeguarding the accused due process” should go to the accused because they are the “favourite child” of the law, she continued.
Imran Khan will be granted rights:
The activist claimed that “the trial was conducted by the court and dealt with the counsel for the accused person in a manner that demonstrated bias against the accused person, demonstrated partisanship also in a manner the speed at which the case proceeded, is not usually seen in the district courts every day.”
She noted that, in comparison to the Panama case, the only distinction is that Imran Khan has been given the chance to appeal today, whereas Nawaz Sharif has not received the same privilege.
Act of retaliation:
The PTI leadership’s attorney dismissed claims that the sentencing was motivated by retaliation.
as “wrong in many respects” the decision.
He claimed that the former prime minister had not had a fair trial as required by the law, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance.
“The Islamabad High Court’s own judgement, which was rendered yesterday, is rather ambiguous, but […] this [regulation] also necessitates the judge in question determining jurisdiction. The verdict was obviously revealed on the same day, but the defendant should have had opportunity to present his case, he continued.
“Judgements once contested will be overturned or at least upheld, because even in other ways, any sentence of five years or less is typically upheld,” claimed PTI’s main attorney. on the initial
