Azima's preliminary motions were filed after the deadline: State

The state has made the statement that the former Legal Affairs Minister in the President’s Office Azima Shakoor, filed her preliminary motions after the deadline expired in the case of perjury and facilitation of money laundering raised against her.

A hearing of the case was held at the Criminal Court on Thursday.

Even though the Thursday’s hearing was held to continue the unfinished part of the motions filed by Azima, the prosecution counsel raised a procedural point at the hearing.

The prosecution at the hearing stated that Azima Shakoor's pre-trial motions were filed later than the deadline stipulated in Article 117(h) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

According to Article 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, period of not more than 15 days may be granted for preliminary motions.

At an earlier hearing held on March 27, 2022, the presiding Judge, Ali Adam gave 15 days to submit the motions before April 18.  However, Azima's motion was filed on 1 June.

Therefore, the prosecution requested that Azima's motions be dismissed and said the judge had no discretion to grant a deadline of more than 15 days.

Furthermore, the prosecution stated, the fact that there are ongoing appeal hearings in the High Court and the Supreme Court, does not prevent the preliminary motions from being filed within the time limit.

Noting that even in the case where the judge may decide to adjourn the trial, the state prosecutor said that it is not possible to accept the preliminary motions filed after the deadline.

Furthermore, the state prosecutor noted that the judge had previously decided not to accept the prosecution's documents because they had not been submitted within the deadline. The rule states that a judge other than the judge who filed the motion must file a written reply to the motion within two days of the filing of the pre-trial motion.

However, replies to motions filed by Azima on June 30 last year was filed in August. That was 2 months after the motions were filed. Therefore, the court decided not to accept the documents.

Hence, the prosecution requested the same rule to be followed in this case.

Regarding the prosecution's procedural point, Azima's counsel said the lawyer in charge of the administrative matters was not present at the hearing due to illness and requested an opportunity to respond to the prosecution's arguments.

Therefore, the judge gave two days to respond in writing. The judge said he would decide on the prosecution's procedural point at the next hearing.

However, the judge did not announce a specific date for the next hearing.