‘May 25th verdict was ‘unknowingly violated’
TERENCE J SIGAMONY
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan informed the Supreme Court that its order of May 25, wherein, the PTI’s previous long march was restricted from entering Islamabad’s D-Chowk, was “unknowingly violated”.
Advocate Salman Akram Raja on Wednesday filed the former prime minister’s detailed reply in the contempt of court case, wherein, assured the Court of his absolute commitment to the rule of law and respect for, and faithful compliance of its judgments and orders. Advocate Babar Awan and Faisal Fareed Hussain have also submitted their detailed replies.
A three-member judge bench will hear the case today (Thursday).
The bench in the last proceeding had expressed its disappointment over the PTI chief, Babar and Faisal’s replies for violating the court’s trust about the May 25 order, and sought detailed replies from them.
A three-member judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, will hear JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza’s petition, wherein, had sought court’s directions to the federal and provincial governments to devise comprehensive guidelines for holding of public rally, meeting, and sit-in in Islamabad.
Imran Khan’s reply further said: “In its order, the SC also asked lawyer Babar Awan to meet with me. Despite the court order, the administration did not facilitate the meeting.”
The PTI chief added that on May 25 at 6:45 pm the video message given to the workers was released on the information of the political workers.
Imran also stated that during the protest, it was impossible to contact his lawyer by phone because of jammers and said that he apologises for the step taken unknowingly.
“In any case, the written order of 25 May, 2022, does not specifically mention D-Chowk,” says Imran in his reply submitted through his advocate.
The reply also stated that the acts of violence that occurred during the evening of 25 May 2022, at various parts of Islamabad, including on Jinnah Avenue, were the consequence of continued state brutality. “No act of violence was either intended or encouraged by the PTI,” he maintained.
“Individuals facing violence by the state, including tear gas shelling, responded on their own in self-defence and in order to mitigate the damage caused by teargas,” the PTI chief said.
During the hearing, CJP Bandial had noted that the court had moved carefully in this case. “Even now we are exercising great restraint,” he added. The chief justice had further remarked that the judges did not want their pen to be “misused”.
Faisal Fareed’s reply refuted the assertions in para-3 of the Criminal Original Application of the federal government for being surmises and conjectures. The federation submitted that Faisal voluntarily furnished appearance before the Court on behalf of Imran Khan. He submitted that neither the PTI chairman instructed him nor he volunteered appearance on behalf of Imran Khan.
Faisal further submitted that on the directions of the Court he contacted Secretary General PTI Asad Umar between 1300 to 1330 hours and verbally conveyed to him the bench’s concerns regarding the situation that appeared to be developing in Islamabad.
The apex court on May 25 had issued clear instructions to the PTI to hold its Azadi March protest near Peshawar Mor between the H-9 and G-9 areas of Islamabad. However, Imran and his protesters had made their way toward D-Chowk, prompting the government to call in the army for the security of the federal capital’s Red Zone.
