Govt moves SC for contempt proceedings against Imran

Says apex court had restrained PTI chief from holding Azadi March in its May 25 order


Hasnaat Malik October 14, 2022
Imran Khan addressing a lawyers convention in Lahore on Wednesday, September 21. PHOTO: PTI/SOCIAL MEDIA

ISLAMABAD:

The federal government has approached the Supreme Court for initiating contempt proceedings against former prime minister Imran Khan for violating its May 25 order wherein the PTI was restricted from holding its Azadi March near Peshawar Mor between the H-9 and G-9 areas of Islamabad. However, Imran and his supporters did make their way towards D-Chowk, prompting the government to call in Pakistan Army for the security of the capital's Red Zone.

Later, a five-judge larger bench of the apex court led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial took up an application filed by Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali over the violation of the court’s May 25 order.

However, the majority judges showed restrain and on June 1 sought reports from director-generals of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Intelligence Bureau (IB), as well as IG Islamabad, interior secretary and others over the alleged involvement of the PTI leaders in instigating party workers to reach Islamabad's D-Chowk in violation of the court’s order.

Read more: Jail is nothing, ready to sacrifice life for ‘real freedom’: Imran

However, Justice Yahya Afridi, while dissenting with the majority order, observed that contempt proceedings should be initiated against PTI Chairman and deposed premier Imran Khan for instructing party activists and supporters to proceed towards D-Chowk in violation of the SC's May 25 order.

Later, the law enforcement agencies had submitted their reports, which are still pending in the apex court.

Now, the interior ministry submitting a fresh application has stated that agencies reports unequivocally established that Imran flouted the court’s May 25 directions and persisted in exhorting the PTI supporters and workers to reach D-Chowk and that he will also reach D-Chowk.

"The message to speech made after the Orders of the honourable Court have already been submitted to the honourable judges in chamber.

Also read: Imran says ‘someone else’ called the shots during his govt

"The reports further divulged that the PTI worker's march towards D-Chowk was organised and supervised. It is thus evident that at all times, even after the order passed by this honourable Court, the PTI leadership was bent upon reaching D-Chowk as per the directions of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. Even the court in its order dated 26.05.2022 observed with anguish that ‘we are disappointed to note that the bona fide effort made by the Court was disrespected’."

The ministry states that that it’s not the first instance that Imran has cast serious aspersions against state institutions.

"He has a history of insulting state institutions including the judiciary. In 2013, he was reprimanded by this Honourable Court for labelling the conduct of the judiciary 'sharamnak'.”

The government states that unfortunately, Imran has glamourised a trend of maligning the judiciary and state institutions, a campaign in which his party members have followed suit.

"He is the Chairman of a political party garnering considerable following of the public, who are swayed by his remarks. His party members follow suit. They too indulge in smear campaigns against the judiciary and state institutions, to no disapproval or condemnation of the PTI chairman.

"The facts narrated above and the reports submitted by the law enforcement agencies upon direction of this Honourable Court proves to the hilt that Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi has intentionally and wilfully disobeyed, disregarded and flouted the order of this Honourable Court. He is, therefore liable to be proceeded against for committing grave contempt of this Honourable Court," the application says.

“It is prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against Imran Khan for committing contempt of this Honourable Court by intentionally violating the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by this court.”

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ