PM Shehbaz Sharif argued that Imran Khan’s legal team was prematurely delving into arguments best left for the final phase, not mid-examination disruptions
News Desk
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday resumed proceedings in the high-profile Rs10 billion defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan. The case, which has lingered for years, witnessed a rare virtual appearance by Shahbaz Sharif himself, as the courtroom briefly turned into a stage for sharp legal exchanges and procedural tussles.
Appearing via video link, the prime minister faced direct questions from Imran Khan’s legal team. One particular moment drew attention when Khan’s lawyer asked Shahbaz whether he had the case documents with him during the testimony. Shahbaz candidly admitted that he did not. In response, he requested the court for a short break, informing the judge that his legal team was in the process of sending him the relevant documents via WhatsApp.
The court allowed a recess to facilitate the request. Upon resumption, Shahbaz’s counsel stepped in with a pointed intervention. He argued that the line of questioning being pursued by Imran Khan’s legal team should be reserved for final arguments rather than introduced mid-examination. He reminded the court of civil procedure rules, underlining that once the defendant’s opportunity to present their case concludes, the reply to the original claim is also deemed final—implying that no fresh defence arguments could be introduced through cross-examination.
While Imran Khan himself remains incarcerated in Adiala Jail, his legal team has been actively contesting the claim, which stems from remarks made by Khan in 2017. At the time, the former prime minister accused Shahbaz Sharif of offering Rs10 billion to silence him in the Panama Papers case—a charge that Shahbaz has categorically denied, terming it baseless and defamatory.
The court adjourned the case until May 24, when Shahbaz is expected to continue facing cross-examination. Though largely procedural, Friday’s hearing once again highlighted how defamation suits involving political heavyweights often straddle the line between courtroom theatrics and legal complexity.
The case also underscores the broader political climate, where legal battles continue to mirror—and sometimes escalate—the bitter rivalry between two of the country’s most dominant political forces. With general elections behind them but political tensions still simmering, this defamation suit may yet play a role in shaping public perceptions and the evolving contest for narrative control.
