Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq remarked on Thursday that former prime minister Imran Khan should be provided security according to his status as an ex-prime minister.
The high court heard the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief’s plea regarding being provided security after Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah "threatened" him.
At the outset of the hearing, the court inquired about the current security rules, as well as how much security Imran was being given. The court maintained that an order would be issued after the requisite details were submitted.
Imran’s lawyer told the court that the ex-premier could not appear before the IHC, to which Justice Farooq said that Imran did not need to come to court in this case as it was only about provision of security.
The IHC CJ questioned what the law stated about security for a former prime minister. Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal told the court that adequate security would be provided. The AAG maintained that the law stated that the security notification for a former premier should be issued through a special gazette.
Justice Farooq inquired if any security had been provided to Imran. The AAG stated that Imran was given a bulletproof vehicle. He continued that after the 18th Amendment provision of security was a provincial matter.
A representative of the interior ministry said that lifetime security was supposed to be given, but the notification detailing it had not been issued. He added that the federal government provides security to the extent of Islamabad, whereas provincial governments have to manage it provincially.
The representative further said that the deputy inspector general (DIG) of security looks after it in Islamabad, while the Inspector General (IG) of Punjab is responsible for security provisions in the province.
“As long as Imran was in Islamabad, he was given foolproof security,” he said.
On the CJ’s inquiry into the current situation, the ministry representative reiterated that security had been provided to Imran.
Read IHC seeks govt reply on Imran’s plea for security
Justice Farooq then asked what the order was for the petitioner as a “generalised order for security” had to be made. He once again questioned who would provide security to Imran in Islamabad.
Imran’s lawyer stated that the Wazirabad incident – where the PTI chief was shot in an assassination attempt – and the case of Salman Taseer were before everyone.
The chief justice remarked that the law was the law, and security should be provided according to what it stated.
“Whatever the rule of law is, submit it to the court. A prisoner has rights if he is in prison,” he added.
Justice Farooq furthered that every person had rights, and today's judges would not be judges tomorrow. He continued that the West was “ahead of us” because they had rules in place. The IHC CJ maintained that the law would not change if the opposition became the government in the future.
He inquired where “foolproof security orders” were as the matter had been heard before the court two to three times beofre.To this, AAG Duggal said that the letter was presented in court.
The chief justice replied that the letter given to the court was a “general letter” that mentioned a “former prime minister”. He asked for the letter that specifically named the petitioner.
Imran’s lawyer told the court that there was no security plan and requested security to the satisfaction of the petitioner.
Justice Farooq remarked that it was a “pity” that the government did not look after these small matters by itself and that the court had to be involved.
“With regard to threat alerts, you should conduct a security assessment over time. Whoever has a legal right should get security,” he said.
The CJ stated that the former prime minister should get security according to his status.
While seeking the security rules given for former prime ministers, the court remarked that it would issue appropriate orders when the rules were submitted.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ