IHC seeks assurance against govt machinery use in PTI’s Sept 27 march
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday sought affidavits from the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary and inspector general of police stating that government machinery would not be used for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) September 27 long march.
The court also directed the two officials to appear at the next hearing on Monday and sought rebuttal arguments from the parties. Officials from the other provinces were not required to appear at the next hearing.
The PTI last month announced a September 27 march in Islamabad to demand the release of Imran Khan, with caravans from across the country expected to converge on the federal capital. The party also planned protests, shutdowns and demonstrations along major highways in cities, including Lahore, Karachi, Hyderabad and Quetta.
The petition, filed by citizen Waqas Ahmed, argued that the PTI’s planned September 27 protest and long march could affect his business in Islamabad. His lawyer raised concerns over the possible use of government machinery and referred to the party’s previous attempt to enter the capital in 2024.
Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, heading a larger bench comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif, heard the petition.
K-P Advocate General Shah Faisal requested that the PTI and the chief minister be made respondents in the case and be given an opportunity to respond. He also challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the IHC’s jurisdiction was limited to Islamabad and did not extend to Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan or K-P.
Also Read: IHC seeks record of action against past court order violators ahead of PTI Sept 27 march
“If the Islamabad High Court had jurisdiction over the entire country, why was its jurisdiction limited to Islamabad in the law?” he asked. He argued that allowing one high court to interfere in matters falling within the jurisdiction of other provinces would render the 18th Amendment ineffective.
The advocate general also questioned whether the petitioner was an aggrieved party and urged the court to first satisfy itself on the question of jurisdiction before proceeding with the petition.
During the hearing, the advocate general said the audio was not clear and asked the court to forgive him if he made a mistake. “If you make a mistake, I do not forgive you, but I will explain it to you,” Chief Justice Dogar remarked.
The advocate general replied that it was the chief justice’s right and called him “the king”. “There is no need to say that I am the king. This is a court, and the court fulfils its responsibilities,” the chief justice responded.
The court also questioned whether the political party itself was organising the long march. “First, the party should be made a respondent in the petition and be given an opportunity to respond,” the advocate general replied.
Chief Justice Dogar asked whether the advocate general had consulted the K-P chief minister about the case. The advocate general replied that the chief minister was not organising the long march, but was both the provincial chief minister and a member of a political party.
The chief justice observed that this meant the chief minister was “wearing two hats” — one as chief minister and the other as a political party member.
Read more: IHC forms larger bench to hear petition challenging PTI Sept 27 protest
On the court’s direction, the K-P advocate general read out the chief minister’s oath. “The chief minister should be more loyal to the state,” Chief Justice Dogar remarked.
The advocate general responded that the chief minister was “very loyal to the state” and had made no statement against the Constitution, law or state. “Why do these protests always come towards Islamabad?” the chief justice asked.
The advocate general said protests were political activity, to which the chief justice responded, “Is storming the federal capital political activity?”
The K-P chief secretary told the court that a notification had been issued last year prohibiting political activity and the use of government machinery.
The advocate general also argued that court orders concerning Adiala Jail had not been implemented for two years and questioned whether citizens did not have the right to protest against this.
Also read: PTI finalises strategy for Sept 27 march
Chief Justice Dogar said the matter concerning contempt of court was between the person committing contempt and the court, adding that the scheduling of cases was an administrative matter for the court.
The K-P advocate general also referred to a statement by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz that the threat of terrorism came from K-P rather than India, questioning whether such a statement amounted to an attempt to undermine his province.
Meanwhile, Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zafarullah said he was a strong supporter of citizens’ freedoms. “I have seen shelling in Punjab, and I have seen police officers being martyred,” he said.
He added that Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz was not a party to the case and said the remarks concerning her were inappropriate.
The advocate generals of Sindh and Balochistan said their respective provinces would fully comply with any order issued by the court.
The court sought rebuttal arguments and adjourned the hearing until September 14.Read More