Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

ISLAMABAD: Incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan

has sought personal appearance and live streaming of the


Supreme Court proceedings on his petition seeking to set aside
the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance
(NAO) introduced by the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)
government.

ADVERTISEMENT

A week earlier, he appeared before the top court via video link as
a petitioner in the matter, but did not get a chance to speak.

Mr Khan submitted an application to the court in this regard


through Adiala jail authorities, his counsel told media persons
on Wednesday.

Talking to the reporters after the hearing of GBP190 million


corruption reference, the PTI founding chairman said: “I have a
match on May 30 in the Supreme Court.”

He said he was convicted thrice before the Feb 8 elections, but


people voted for the PTI despite all the negative propaganda.
“They were thinking that the PTI would avoid the elections;
however, the returning officers of Islamabad were on the run,”
he said, claiming that his party had won the elections in
Islamabad with a huge margin.

The former premier argued that election tribunals should have


delivered their verdicts by now, given that it has been over three
months since the general election.
He also denounced the Punjab government’s introduction of the
defamation law, calling it an attempt to silence the media and
restrict freedom of the press.

He alleged that the PTI is being intimidated and prevented from


holding public gatherings, while the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
government, in contrast, has not falsely implicated anyone in
legal cases.

Mr Khan said he is aware of who was responsible for the attack


on Raoof Hassan, and this incident reveals that the system is
being controlled through force and intimidation. He called upon
his party to prepare for street protests in response to the attack
on PTI leader.

Mr Khan explained that the PTI is exercising restraint due to the


fragile state of the economy, which cannot withstand large-scale
protests. However, he hinted that the party will react during the
upcoming budget session.

He lambasted Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for seeking


sacrifices from the nation, asserting that a leader can only make
such a request if he has made personal sacrifices for the country.
He accused the Sharif family and Asif Zardari of stashing their
wealth in foreign countries and demanded that they bring back
their money to Pakistan.

He commended the judges for upholding the rule of law and


observed that the judiciary is finally breaking free from the
shackles of fear, demonstrating its independence and
commitment to justice.

Mr Khan said he used the funds generated from selling


Toshakhana gifts to construct the Banigala road.
He welcomed the release of PTI Central President Chaudhry
Parvez Elahi and paid tribute to his resilience. However, he also
noted that Mr Elahi’s release would have come much sooner if he
had chosen to sever ties with the PTI.

Cipher case

The Islamabad High Court could not conclude the hearing on


Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mehmood
Qureshi’s appeals against their conviction in the cipher case due
to the absence of Special Prosecutor Hamid Ali Shah, who was
unable to appear before the court because of his mother’s illness.

An IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq


and Justice Minagul Hassan Aurangzeb resumed hearing of the
appeals.

Meanwhile, another Special Prosecutor, Syed Zulfiqar Abbas


Naqvi, submitted an application to the court, seeking to place
additional evidence on court’s record.

He argued that since the appeals hearing is a continuation of the


trial, the prosecution has the legal right to present additional
evidence, including documents received after the trial
concluded, as permitted by law.

Justice Aurangzeb remarked that the application was apparently


moved to delay the hearing by another two to three months.

Justice Farooq directed the prosecution to conclude their


arguments

You might also like