‘Imran only wants revolution against institutions’

PTI-P chief says PTI can be proven a ‘criminal party’ and ‘face a ban’


News Desk August 27, 2023
Former Khyber-Pakhtunkha chief minister and chief of the newly-launched Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Parliamentarians (PTI-P), Pervez Khattak. Photo: File

print-news

PTI-Parliamentarians (PTI-P) chief Pervez Khattak claimed on Saturday that former prime minister Imran Khan only wanted to “bring about a revolution against institutions”.

The PTI-P founder made this claim while leveling allegations against the PTI chief during a media talk in Peshawar.

Imran lacked a strategy to address the challenges confronting the nation when he was in power and “used to tell us to lie to such an extent so that it appears to be the truth,” Khattak alleged.

The PTI terminated the basic party membership of Khattak in July after he failed to respond to a show-cause notice for “inciting” members to leave the party.

Speaking to journalists today, he said, “Whatever happened on May 9 was not right”.

He also appreciated former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa, whom Imran had blamed for a “conspiracy” that resulted in his ouster from the top office through a vote of no-confidence.

Ex-army chief Bajwa “supported us a great deal”, Khattak said while recalling the time he was in the PTI. “But in the end, he too gave up and said he cannot do more.”

He claimed that former spymaster Lieutenant-General (retd) Faiz Hameed and Bajwa had “created an environment for elections, but Imran did not agree”.

The PTI-P leader did not elaborate on the context of these remarks.

Moreover, he continued, “I was the one who had brought around 60 per cent of electables in the party (PTI).”

Khattak further said the PTI could be proven a “criminal party” and “face a ban”.

He pointed out that four cases — Toshakhana, cipher, Al-Qadir Trust case and May 9 riots — could present challenges for the PTI chief.

 

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