Imran says witnesses’ statements in Toshakhana case recorded in his absence

ISLAMABAD, AUG 01 (DNA) — Former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan said on Tuesday that witnesses’ accounts in the Toshakhana reference were recorded in his absence and his representative’s statement was also not jotted down properly.

Speaking at District and Sessions Court in Islamabad during the hearing of the reference, he argued that since the law did not allow that witnesses’ statements were recorded in the absence of the defendant, therefore, these statements could not be read out in front of him in the court.

Imran told the court that he was provided copy of these statements during the Ashura holidays. He further said he had provided to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) details of his assets between 2017 and 2021.

“In this National Assembly speaker had sent a reference to the ECP, which was done with a mala fide intent,” he said, adding this was because the relevant law was not correctly interpreted in the reference.

PTI chairman went on to say that in the reference there was a mention of the properties he owned between 2017 and 2019. “But the election commission later also had an access to details of my assets which were of latter years which shows bad intention on the part of the present government,” he added.

He told the court that he had never said he deposited Rs58 million in a private bank. Furthermore, Imran said, it was not mandatory to give details of gifts since there was no column on the ECP’s Form-B for the purpose.

He complained he was not consulted at a time when documents related to gifts were being prepared. “I would like to say just one thing that there can be no mention of these documents in the questionnaire,” he said.

Moreover, Imran said, the man who had provided these documents did not appear in the court as a witness. “And this does not stop here as none of these documents was attested,” he said.

He regretted that at no stage he was asked about the documents related to the gifts which were mentioned in the ECP’s decision. “And although documents spread over 160 pages, the complainant failed to produce a single witness,” former premier said, adding, “Neither the complainant produced any person who had witnessed preparation of these documents. Hence these documents could not be presented in the court as a proof.” — DNA