Court extends Swati’s remand by a day

Special prosecutor says tweet was sent from PTI leader’s verified account


Our Correspondent October 16, 2022
PTI leader Azam Swati. PHOTO: PPI

ISLAMABAD:

A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Saturday extended the physical remand of PTI leader Azam Swati for another day and handed him over back to the FIA in a case pertaining to tweet against the state institutions.

At the outset of the hearing, the PTI leader was presented by the FIA before judicial magistrate Muhammad Shabbir.

Counsels Babar Awan and Ali Bukhari represented Swati while special prosecutor Rizwan Abbasi appeared on behalf of the government.

As the courtroom was jam-packed with PTI supporters, the judicial magistrate ordered the crowd to be dispersed.

The PTI also asked its supporters not to raise slogans in the courtroom.

Special prosecutor Abbasi argued that the tweet was sent from Swati’s verified account. He said the case was registered under Section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).

He said the words used in the tweet were wrong and maintained that the court could give a 15-day remand of the PTI leader.

He noted that the suspect had been tweeting similar messages in the past too, adding that they were on record.

The special prosecutor told the court that password (of Swati’s mobile) was to be recovered and said that the suspect was not cooperating during the investigation.

Abbasi presented before the court the record of Swati’s tweets and requested the court to extend the PTI leader’s remand for eight days.

Swati’s counsel Awan said they admitted that the PTI leader client had tweeted the message, adding “but there is also a cover in the law”.

“You can see the wounds on Swati’s body. The doctors are not being allowed to write anything,” he observed.

Subsequently, the court reserved its verdict on FIA’s plea. It then extended Swati’s physical remand by a day.

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