Imran says PDM attacking judges as its 'petrified of elections'

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on Saturday criticized Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) Senior Vice President Maryam Nawaz's “attacks” on Supreme Court (SC) judges saying that the purpose behind this narrative is to “run away from elections”.

The former prime minister took to Twitter where he lashed out at the PML-N chief organizer stating that by “attacking the SC they [Pakistan Democratic Movement - PDM] are damaging the federation and ensuring law of jungle prevails in Pakistan”.

“Petrified of elections”

In a separate tweet, the PTI chief continued his tirade against the PDM and said that the coalition parties are “petrified of elections”.

Read: Asif accuses judiciary of double standards

“PDM leadership seen challenging us to dissolve KP & Punjab assemblies if we want elections! Now, when confronted, they are petrified of elections knowing they will be decimated,” said the former prime minister.

He added that the ruling government is “maligning the SC judges and are ready to violate the Constitution to avoid elections”.

The remarks by the PTI chairman come just days after Maryam fired a broadside against Imran Khan, Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed besides four serving and former judges of the Supreme Court in an address to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) workers’ convention.

The chief organiser and senior vice president of the PML-N trained all guns at the PTI chairman, saying that Imran was thrown into the garbage bin but the judges were picking him up.

Also read: Govt seeks recusal of SC judges in polls delay case

It is pertinent to note that the statements by the leaders of the political parties come as Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesday stepped in and took suo motu notice of the delay in holding polls in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa as the election process remains virtually paralysed by tensions between the stakeholders who disagree on the electoral law.

Justice Bandial constituted a nine-member larger bench to adjudicate on the matter and said there was an apparent lack of clarity on the matter.