Hours later, he was arrested in the Al Qadir Trust case. The case was irrelevant to his supporters and the development was expected — nevertheless, Imran Khan was “a red line” and so, protests erupted almost immediately. But within hours, they turned into riots that lasted more than 24 hours across Pakistan.

When the smoke from torched vehicles and tear gas finally cleared, condemnations poured in and a chase ensued. Nearly 500 first information reports were registered. Thousands were arrested, of whom 105 were handed into military custody weeks, if not days, later.

What happened on May 9

At least 10 people lost their lives and hundreds sustained injuries, while approximately 40 public buildings and military installations were damaged, including Lahore Corps Commander’s House (Jinnah House) and Askari Tower in Lahore, General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Office in Faisalabad, FC Fort in Chakdara, Radio Pakistan building in Peshawar, Toll Plaza at Swat Motorway and the Mianwali Air Base.

In total, 62 outbreaks of violence were documented, inflicting a loss of Rs2.5 billion on the country, of which, according to the State, Rs1.98 billion in losses were suffered by the army.

To this day, the military says the events were a coordinated attack by the PTI leadership.

“Nothing is hidden about May 9. The public, the army and we all have irrefutable evidence. All of us saw this incident unfolding, we all saw how everyone was [brainwashed] against the army, its leadership, agencies and institutions through lies and propaganda,” Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) director general, Maj Gen Ahmed Sharif, said two days before the first anniversary of the May 9 riots.

He added that “some political leaders” had issued orders to their supporters on May 9 to selectively target military installations.

PTI, meanwhile, is demanding a judicial inquiry into May 9 for the “real culprits” while Imran Khan remains behind bars.

Battleground Cantt

Between roughly 2:30pm and 3pm, when Jasmine* (female, age 35-40) received instructions to go home from her office, she opted to return to her house in Cantt, considering it to be the “safest” place in Lahore.

“Normally, there would be army personnel at the entrance to Cantt, but that day there was no one there when my car passed through,” she recalled.

Another resident of Cantt, Shazia* (female, age 65-70), was at home when she learnt about Imran’s arrest. Her younger sister, who lived nearby, was out shopping at Liberty Market and called her to inform her that shops were closing.

“I was really worried, so I kept calling her to know her whereabouts,” she said. Her sister told her that when she entered the gated society between 3:30pm and 4pm, there was no one present at the checkpoints.

Shazia, residing close to Rahat Bakery on Sarwar Road, started hearing the clamour of cars, and screams and shouts of people around 5:30pm.

Around 6:15pm, she and her husband went outside their residence to find the source of the nearby commotion. “We had no inkling of what was about to unfold; we were simply standing at Rahat Bakery Chowk out of curiosity,” she explained.

Shortly after, she observed two buses arriving, packed with police officers. They disembarked and then proceeded towards the Corps Commander’s House. Merely five minutes later, she saw the officers rushing back.

“There were a few young boys and girls coming from the direction of the Corps Commander’s House. They even threw stones at the police,” she stated.

In the midst of this, Shazia witnessed Tayyaba Raja stepping forward and throwing her dupatta near the chowk, a scene which was captured and shared on social media widely. “The moment she did that, a police officer approached and dragged her by the hair from the chowk towards Shabbir Road,” she recounted.

She saw a protester in the driver’s seat of a police van while two others were pushing the vehicle towards the chowk. “At the chowk, they set fire to the police van,” she recounted.

Ahmed* (male, age 25-30), a Cantt resident who lives further away from the military installations, was at home that day when calls for protests surfaced online. “My friends and I did go around 2pm or 3pm but then we rushed back when things appeared to be getting out of hand around 5pm to 6pm,” he said. “It seemed as if Lahore had become a war zone.”

Upon returning home, Shazia and her husband continued to hear the commotion until 5am. “We could still hear the sound of gunshots, and there was so much tear gas that even after closing all our windows, my husband had trouble breathing due to his asthma problems.”

Not too far away from them, Jasmine also felt her eyes burning around 7pm. Her house was a few minutes’ walk away from the Corps Commander’s House. “I couldn’t understand why my eyes were burning,” she recalled. Through her work group on WhatsApp, she learned of protests erupting inside Cantt.

“I was terrified after that day,” said Shazia.

For Ahmed, the scenes from May 9 stayed long beyond the day with him; whenever he ventured towards Jinnah House, he felt as if he was being followed. He shrugged it off as paranoia.

Families of the accused

All of the 10 families that Dawn.com spoke to said the same thing; after the arrest by police and subsequent transfer into military custody, there was silence on the whereabouts of the suspect for at least one or one-and-a-half months.

Tariq*, a resident of Lahore, was at work in Lahore’s Gulberg II area when television channels, almost in unison, broke the news of Imran’s arrest on May 9. He barely paid any attention to it though. “We all knew it was going to happen sooner or later.”

“But then,” he recalled to Dawn.com, “they started running footage of the protests; everything was burning and within a few minutes, we were told to go back home.”

The first thing Tariq did was call his younger brother. The duo, hailing from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Shangla, has been living at a hostel in Lahore for the past few years; one earns while the other studies.

But the phone kept ringing. Tariq grew more anxious as dusk settled atop the walled city. After a dozen unanswered calls, he made his way to Liberty Chowk — the nucleus of Lahore and the protests that day — but his brother was nowhere in sight.

After a search of four days — which felt excruciatingly longer — he received a call from an unknown number. In the brief conversation that Tariq said skipped the formalities of an introduction, he was told to come to the Lahore Anti-Terrorism Court the next day. Feeling unsure and helpless, he made his way to the overcrowded ATC on May 14. Despite the swarm of families, Tariq spotted his younger brother who stood subdued in a queue of young men. But he couldn’t get close enough to talk to him.

In the coming days, Tariq would make multiple visits to the court for his brother but return home alone. And then one day, he got a call from a policeman informing him that his brother was being held at the Camp Jail.

“But when I visited the prison the next day, the officials said he wasn’t there anymore. Upon my insistence, one of the jail officials retrieved a list from his pocket and said my brother had been handed into military custody,” he recalled. “They said he was implicated for attacking the Lahore Corps Commander’s House.”

This was the last time he heard about his brother for several days.

Salima*, another resident of Lahore, said her son was arrested by “Punjab Police officials and plain-clothed men” from a hospital on the night of May 18. “They said his call data record from May 9 showed he was near the Lahore Corps Commander’s House.

“He had just gone out to get some groceries that day,” she insisted.

Salima said her son was taken to the Factory Area Police Station after the arrest and presented before an ATC the next day. “He was then shifted to the Camp Jail. But when we went to meet him there, we were told that he had been handed over into the custody of the army,” she told Dawn.com.

Then came the silence.

Sultan*, whose son has been in military custody for more than 352 days, said he feels more helpless every passing day.

“I searched for him tirelessly … went from one police station to the other. And then I thought that ’agar zinda hoga to wapis ajayega (he will come back if alive)’,” the father said.

He eventually found out that his son was arrested on May 21 for allegedly attacking the FC Fort in Lower Dir. “The police said they had a photograph of him inside the building,” Sultan said, adding that he didn’t hear about his son for over a month after the arrest.

“I have been driving cement trucks for a year to make ends meet … I am tired now,” the octogenarian father said.

Military calls

Both Tariq and Salima, like other families Dawn.com spoke to, received a call from the military more than — at least — 30 days later after the accused was handed into military custody for investigation. They were given a time and location for a meeting with the accused and told to engage a lawyer.

“We were allowed to meet for 15 minutes in the presence of uniformed officers,” Tariq said**. “My brother looked very weak … sunken eyes and a bony face … I could barely recognise him.”

The meeting, he described, was held inside a small room with a few chairs and a desk. “When my brother was brought inside the room, his face was covered with a black cloth and his hands were cuffed at the back. The cloth eventually came off and so did the handcuffs, but the officials never left the room.”

Hamza*, a resident of KP’s Chakdara, recalled a similar setting from the first meeting with his brother, who is in military custody in Malakand**.

He was led towards a room after meandering his way through the checks. “A few minutes later, two officers brought my brother — his face covered with a black cloth — inside. He had lost a lot of weight and his usually trimmed beard now resembled a bush,” Hamza told Dawn.com.

His brother was arrested from outside their family’s shop on May 22 for allegedly attacking the FC Fort in Lower Dir and was handed into military custody a week later. “The police said they had a video in which he could be seen inside the building … he had not even touched or damaged anything,” he insisted.

Sultan got a call 33 days after his arrest, and found out his son was in Peshawar. Soon afterward, the father and son were reunited, albeit briefly, as their meetings began** — first in Timergarah, now in Malakand.

Recalling their first meeting, Sultan said his son had lost weight, had dark circles and an overgrown beard. “My heart was crying when I saw him,” he said.

These meetings, as the families told Dawn.com, have since continued once a week. Sometimes, video calls are also allowed. Initially, food from outside the prison was not allowed, but that restriction has been removed now.

On April 8, the federal government revealed to the Supreme Court that 20 persons who were arrested and convicted for their involvement in the May 9 violence had been released so that they could celebrate Eidul Fitr with their families after they served a major part of their sentence while the remaining period of their punishment was remitted by the army chief.

Among them, four belonged to KP while all other 16 hailed from Punjab. It said 20 persons were awarded sentences of one year, of which 17 had served a period of 10.5 months and three persons had served a period of 9.5 months. While none of the persons served a full period of one year, upon confirmation of their sentence, the remaining period of their punishment was remitted by the chief of army staff (COAS) under Section 143(1)(i) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.

This development has given families of the remaining persons in custody hope while battling their frustration.

Trials under the Secrets Act

The trials of Hamza and Tariq’s brothers as well the other accused have concluded. According to Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, military courts have completed recording of evidence and have to announce orders, but can not do so in view of the restraining order passed by the apex court to not convict or acquit any suspect until the pendency of government-instituted intra-court appeals.

The families, however, have no knowledge of what went on inside the military courts nor have they been provided with any case-related documents.

“No paper/file was allowed to enter or exit those fenced boundaries,” said Rehana*, whose husband has been in the army’s custody in Lahore for almost a year now.

The reason behind the secrecy surrounding the trials is the Official Secrets Act, a colonial-era law that deals with the disclosure of information and espionage under which the accused have been charged. This was corroborated by the request for custody of civilians sent to courts by the military.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act grants the military powers to try civilians accused of “seducing or attempting to seduce any person from duty or allegiance to government” or having committed an offence under the Official Secrets Act. But before that, permission needs to be taken from a court for custody, as mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Those written applications which Dawn.com has seen, submitted by the military in courts seeking custody of civilians, stated that the suspects “are found guilty of offences under sections 3, 7 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952”.

The courts had subsequently accepted the request under Section 549(3) of the CrPC and directed the jail authorities to hand over the suspects to the army.

Before the military trial of a civilian commences, the commanding officer (CO) submits a request to the sessions judge seeking the custody of the suspects.

“An investigation report, prepared by the police, is also presented in court after which the judge approves the transfer of custody,” retired Lt Col advocate Inamur Rahim said, elaborating that the general officer commanding (GOC) of the area — who already has a warrant issued by either the army chief or the federal government — then constitutes the military court.

Under the Army Act and Article 10A (right to fair trial) of the Constitution, the accused is supposed to be given the choice to appoint a counsel, who is provided a charge sheet and “summary of evidence” 24 hours before the trial begins. Similarly, during the trial, the prosecution’s witnesses appear in court and the defence has the right of both cross-examination and presenting witnesses.

Once the proceedings conclude, the verdict is reserved. The president then puts it down on paper with the sentencing. The accused is told “guilty or not guilty” in the next hearing. The document is then sent to the convening authority for confirmation after which the accused, in the final hearing, is told the sentencing.

Advocate M, who has represented three accused in military custody, elaborated further on the covertness of the trial. “Before the proceedings began, I was given clear instructions that the details of the hearing could not be disclosed in public,” he said.

This is also mentioned in Section 14 (Exclusion of public from proceedings) of the Official Secrets Act, which states: “In addition and without prejudice to any powers which a Court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings if, in the course of proceedings before a Court against any person for an offence under this Act or the proceedings on appeal, or in the course of the trial of a person under this Act, the application is made by the prosecution, on the ground that the publication of any evidence to be given or of any statement to be made in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the safety of the State, that all or any portion of the public shall be excluded during any part of the hearing, the Court may make an order to that effect, but the passing of sentence shall, in any case, take place in public.”

Same is the case with documents. No one, not even the lawyers, is supposed to be given the case file — which includes the charge sheet and evidence. “We were shown the papers but were not allowed to take them home, get photocopies or even take pictures,” Advocate M recalled.

“At most, they allow you to take important notes in a diary. But that is it,” he said.

All the 10 lawyers Dawn.com reached out to recounted a similar experience. They shared that when first called by the military, the defence counsels were asked to bring three documents with them: identity card, power of attorney and bar licence.

None of the lawyers Dawn.com spoke to commented on the proceedings due to procedure.

Advocate A, who represented two people in military custody in Lahore, said the accused and their families were asked if they wanted to appoint a lawyer. “If they said no, the army appointed an ‘accused’s friend’, a major who would represent the civilian in the trial.

“But for those who chose to get a lawyer of their choice, they provided the names of the same to the CO who would then call the nominated counsel and ask them if they were willing to represent the accused. Upon saying yes, we were given a time and location where the trial was going to be held,” he said.

At the location**, he continued, the lawyers were first given a briefing on the rules and regulations of the trial after which the proceedings commenced.

The rest of the procedure, the lawyers said, was almost similar to that of a civilian trial.

“On the first day of the hearing, charges are read out loud and the accused is asked if he pleads guilty or not. Even if the latter’s response is guilty, the trial commences on the presumption of innocence,” Advocate A told Dawn.com. Next comes the cross-examination of witnesses following which the final arguments occur and the verdict is then reserved.

But unlike civilian courts where cases are generally drawn out, these military trials were speedy and were wrapped up in less than 10 hearings, with the verdicts now awaited.

Most of the families and lawyers Dawn.com reached out to claimed that the accused were met with stringent conditions behind bars. Unlike civilian jails where prisoners are allowed outside their cells from sunrise to sunset, the people in military detention were only taken out of their cells twice a day, for 15 minutes, in the presence of a military personnel.

It should be noted that during Supreme Court hearings on military trials in June and July, the AGP had told the court that all those in custody were being provided health facilities and were “kept in military units, not with hardened criminals”.

Advocate R, who represented three persons in military custody, stated that all of the accused wanted to be shifted to civilian prisons.

He also claimed that most of the accused persons were those whose videos or photos inside army installations had gone viral. “Most of them were never involved in arson or rioting in the first place,” he alleged. Advocate M backed the claim that people handed over into military custody were not directly involved in the acts of violence.

Advocate X, who has fought cases in military courts, gave a “simple explanation” for the way people were handed over into military custody. “It needs to be understood that a military court is not meant to try ordinary civilians; it is either for the enemies or the army’s own people suspected of treason.

“It appears that the military did not have SOPs for civilians on such trials, so they followed the same procedures that are used to try their own men,” he said.

Interestingly, the Official Secrets Act was amended in August 2023, nearly two months after most of the arrests had been made.

On August 1 last year, the coalition government, just days before the completion of its five-year term, quietly got a bill to amend the century-old Secrets Act approved by the National Assembly. It was tabled in the lower house of the Parliament through a supplementary agenda on private members’ day — when bills are moved by members in their personal capacity and not ministers alone — through a supplementary agenda and was passed the same day despite protests from both sides of the aisle.

The bill was subsequently tabled in the upper house of the Parliament the next day where it was again met with fierce opposition. However, the Senate chairman referred it to the relevant standing committee even though lawmakers demanded that the proposed legislation be put to vote as they wanted to reject it.

Finally, on Aug 6 — a Sunday — the bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1923, was passed by the Senate, albeit with a few changes to the original amendments made by the standing committee.

After securing the approval of the Senate, the ‘amended’ bill was again presented in the NA on Aug 7. This time, it sailed through the lower house. Now, the bill only needed the president’s assent to become a law.

On Aug 19, it had emerged that the president at that time, Dr Arif Alvi, had given his assent to the bills to amend the Official Secrets Act and the Army Act. However, in a startling turn of events, Alvi denied assenting to the changes in the laws in a post on social media platform X.

“As God is my witness, I did not sign Official Sec­rets Amendment Bill, 2023 and Pakistan Army Ame­ndment Bill, 2023 as I disagreed with these laws,” the president said in his tweet.

Hours after Alvi’s statement, a gazette notification issued by the Senate Secretariat surfaced, stating that the two bills were “deemed to have been assented by the president”.

Alvi’s allegations, on the other hand, stand where they are. They haven’t been taken up in any court yet.

It must be noted that Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, which appears to be the main provision under which the accused in military custody have been charged, was renamed from “penalties for spying” to “offences”, with the addition of photography through drone cameras of prohibited areas as a crime.

Other changes made to the law included the broadening of the definition of military installations and bringing digital and modern means of communication into the act’s ambit. Moreover, clauses related to prohibited areas were also amended and it would be an offence if someone was to “access, intrude, approach or attack any military installation, office, camp office or part of building”.

Earlier, the offence was restricted to such movement during the time of war only; however, the amendment has expanded this to peacetime as well.

Similarly, the definition of “enemy” introduced in the law states: “Any person who is directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally working for or engaged with a foreign power, foreign agent, non-state actor, organisation, entity, association or group guilty of a particular act… prejudicial to the safety and interest of Pakistan.”

The new amendments also empowered the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and officials of intelligence agencies to investigate suspects for violation of the Official Secrets Act. It states: “An investigating officer under this act shall be an officer of the Federal Investigation Agency not below the rank of BPS-17 or equivalent. The said officer shall be designated by the Director General [of] FIA for the purpose of investigation. If the Director General [of] FIA deems necessary, he may constitute a joint investigation team (JIT), convene by such officer and consisting [of] such other officers of intelligence agencies as he may appoint.”

The JIT is supposed to complete the investigation in 30 working days and the challan would be submitted to the special court through a public prosecutor.

The law also deals with the admissibility of the evidence and states: “All material collected during the course of inquiry or investigation, including electronic devices, data, information, documents, or such other related material, which facilitates the commission of any offence under this act, shall be admissible.”

A mere perusal of the amendments suggests that they were drafted while keeping in mind the May 9 violence. “A person cannot be charged and punished under a law in retrospective effect,” Advocate B said. “These trials undermine civilian courts and trust in the judiciary. It will set an extremely dangerous precedent if allowed.”

Anchorperson Hafeezullah Niazi, father of prominent PTI leader in military custody Hassaan Niazi, was of a similar opinion. “How can it be that the judge, jury and the prosecutor are all from the army?” he asked.

“We don’t know what to do, or who to reach out for appeals. My son is stuck in this tug of war between the military and Imran Khan,” the father rued.

Scope for appeal

The lawyers Dawn.com spoke to said that the verdict can be challenged in an army appellate court within 40 days of the judgment. The army chief or an officer of the brigadier rank (assigned by the COAS) decides on the appeal. Once a decision is taken there, the aggrieved can approach the high court but with a petition that challenges the constitutionality/framework of military trials.

There is no scope for a direct appeal.

Section 133B of the Army Act says: (1) Any person to whom a court-martial has awarded a sentence of death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment exceeding three months, or dismissal from the service after the commencement of the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 5 [1992], may, within forty days from the date of announcement of finding or sentence or promulgation thereof, whichever is earlier, prefer an appeal against the finding or sentence to a Court of Appeals consisting of the Chief of the Army Staff or one or more officers designated by him in this behalf, presided by an officer not below the rank of Brigadier in the case of General Court-Martial or Field General Court Martial or District Court-Martial or Summary Court-Martial convened or confirmed or countersigned by an officer of the rank of Brigadier or below as the case may be, and one or more officers, presided by an officer not below the rank of Major General in other cases, hereinafter referred to as the Court of Appeals:

Provided that where the sentence is awarded by the court-martial under an Islamic law, the officer or officers so designated shall be Muslims: Provided further that every Court of Appeals may be attended by a judge advocate who shall be an officer belonging to the Judge Advocate General’s Department, Pakistan Army, or, if no such officer is available, a person appointed by the Chief of the Army Staff.

(2) A Court of Appeals shall have power to —

(a) accept or reject the appeal in whole or in part; or

(b) substitute a valid finding or sentence for an invalid finding or sentence; or

(c) call may witness, in its discretion for the purpose of recording additional evidence in the presence of the parties, who shall be afforded an opportunity to put any question to the witness; or

(d) annul the proceedings of the court-martial on the ground that they are illegal or unjust; or

(e) order retrial of the accused by a fresh court; or

(f) remit the whole or any part of the punishment or reduce or enhance the punishment or commute the punishment for any less punishment or punishments mentioned in this Act.

(3) The decision of a Court of Appeals shall be final and shall not be called in question before any court or other authority whatsoever.

However, in his press conference on June 26, the army’s spokesperson, Maj Gen Ahmed Sharif Chau­dhry, had said that the accused being tried by the military were entitled to legal rights, including the right to have a lawyer of their choice and the right to appeal before the high courts and the Supreme Court.

Retired Lt Col Rahim told Dawn.com that while an appeal against the verdict can be filed within 40 days, the process was not as simple; the army’s court of appeal is established under its own hierarchy. For example, if a brigadier or major general has announced a verdict, the head of the appellate court would be a lieutenant general.

However, he continued, it is high time now that an “independent” court of appeals comprising “judicial minds” is formed.

“When the British Army returned from India after World War II in 1945, they were given a right of appeal. For that, a court of appeals comprising retired judges was formed. The army could indeed punish its own, but the appeals would be heard by an appellate court comprising people of judicial minds because military courts are command-oriented.

“Naturally, even members of the appellate courts look towards the command for their career development. And if the command has given a decision, it would be very difficult for them to say something different than that. Therefore, it was decided that the appellate court should be independent of the command,” he elaborated.

This practice, Rahim said, was also adopted by other Commonwealth countries.

Supreme Court’s Justice Ayesha A. Malik, in her concurring note in the military trials case, terms the absence of an independent right to appeal one of the “glaring issues that arise within a military, from which it is clear that there is a lack of impartiality and independence within a military trial and the concept of fairness and due process is missing from the procedure”.

“The basic principle of the independence of the judiciary is that everyone is entitled to be tried by the ordinary courts or tribunals established under the law and the trial of a citizen by a military court for an offence which can be tried before the courts established under Article 175 (Establishment and Jurisdiction of Courts) of the Constitution offends the principles of independence of the judiciary and of fair trial,” she highlighted.

“In terms of the constitutional guarantee of fair trial and due process, the trial of a civilian before a military court does not meet the requirements” of the fundamental right provided under Article 10-A of the Constitution, Justice Ayesha noted.

Prolonged detention

According to Inamur Rahim, who was also formerly attached with the military’s JAG [Judge Advocate General] branch, the trial of an accused person, as per the military rules, should begin within eight days of being handed into custody.

“If, for some reason, the trial doesn’t begin, then the commanding officer [every area/jurisdiction has a CO] has to prepare an ‘eighth-day delay report’ and give reasoning. If eight more days pass, then the brigade commander has to write a report.”

Section 74 of the Army Act states: “Every commanding officer shall take care that a person under his command when charged with an offence is not detained in custody for more than forty-eight hours after the committal of such person into custody is reported to him, without the charge being, investigated, unless investigation within that period seems to him to be impracticable having due regard to the public service. Every case of a person detained in custody beyond a period of forty-eight hours and the reason therefore shall be reported by the commanding officer to the officer to whom application is to be made to convene a general or District court martial for the trial of the person charged: Provided that in reckoning the period of forty-eight hours all public holidays shall be excluded.”

Section 75: “In every case where any such person as is mentioned in Section 73 (Custody of offenders) as is not on active service remains in custody for a longer period than eight days, without a court martial for his trial being ordered to assemble, a special report giving reasons for the delay shall be made by his commanding officer in the manner prescribed and a similar report shall be forwarded at intervals of eight days until a court martial is assembled or such person is released from custody.”

Rahim said “if the trial still does not begin for some reason, then the matter will go to the General Officer Commanding (GOC) who will write a report after 24 days”.

“If the trial doesn’t begin after 32 days, a report titled ‘32 days delay report’ is prepared … the commanding officer will go to the accused and prepare a petition on the latter’s behalf which would be sent to the judge advocate general,” explained Rahim.

“The judge advocate will go through the petition and, if he deems it fit, will order the accused’s release subject to re-arrest,” he added.

In the case of the May 9 trials, while at least 102 people were in custody of the military by June 23, the trials hadn’t begun according to the AGP on June 27 as the “cases were at the investigation stage”.

These comments were made during a Supreme Court hearing after several petitions challenging the trials of civilians in military courts were brought to the apex court by former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, Imran Khan and others.

Former CJP Khawaja argued that Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Pakistan Army Act were inconsistent with constitutional fundamental rights and should be invalidated, seeking a suspension of proceedings against civilians based on these sections. Ahsan aimed to prevent civilians arrested for involvement in the May 9 violence from being tried in military courts. Imran sought a declaration against the arrest, investigation, and trial of civilians under specific laws during peacetime.

Earlier the same month, a nine-member bench, headed by then-CJP Umar Ata Bandial, was formed to hear the pleas. After Justice Qazi Faiz Isa expressed dissatisfaction with the bench’s composition, a seven-member bench resumed hearing the petitions. The revised proceedings concluded with Justice Bandial directing the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan to provide a list of individuals detained under various laws relating to the May 9 violence.

On June 23, the AGP informed the court that 102 individuals were held in military custody, adding that no women, juveniles, advocates, or journalists were among them.

Dawn.com reached out to the AGP for further understanding, but he said he could not comment because the matter is sub judice.

On June 26, Justice Bandial said: “I expect that no military trial [of civilians] will be conducted while proceedings are ongoing.”

ISPR DG Maj Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, on the other hand, in a presser later in the day, mentioned that proceedings against the 102 people handed over for trial under the army act were already underway. He also revealed the military had sacked three officers — including a lieutenant general — and concluded disciplinary proceedings against 15 officers, including three major generals and seven brigadiers, over the events of May 9.

However, when the court reconvened the following day on June 27, the AGP informed the court that trials of civilians in military custody had not yet commenced as the cases were still under investigation. He assured the court that none of them would face charges that could lead to capital punishment or lengthy sentences.

Subsequently, CJP adjourned the hearing indefinitely.

The hearing resumed 20 days later on July 18.

A day before the hearing, the federal government asserted that trying individuals involved in May 9 incidences under the Army Act was an “appropriate” response.

However, CJP Bandial observed that subjecting civilians to military courts’ procedures contradicted their constitutional rights, highlighting concerns about the lack of transparency and judicial review in military court verdicts.

Even though, in the next hearing on July 19, the apex court allowed the AGP to seek new instructions from the government regarding the provision of appeal against sentences handed down by military courts to those found guilty, the CJP stated that military trials should not start without informing the SC — a point the AGP assured the court of on August 3.

The court then postponed further proceedings for an indefinite period.

Finally, on Oct 23, in a widely hailed judgement, the apex court declared the military trials of civilians, for their alleged role in attacks on army installations, unconstitutional by a majority of 4-1.

Led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the bench emphasised that such cases should be tried in criminal courts. The ruling deemed provisions of the Pakistan Army Act related to these trials as “unconstitutional” and without legal effect.

The people, however, remained in military custody until Dec 13 when the SC suspended the operation of its previous Oct 23 order that had deemed the military trial of 103 civilians unconstitutional, in a majority decision of 5-1.

This allowed the trials to begin. The appeals, seeking suspension of the earlier order, were filed by various federal and provincial authorities.

According to Advocate B, as soon as the SC declared military trials of civilians unconstitutional, “the custody of the civilians by law should have been immediately handed over to ordinary courts”.

“During the two-month period, a number of writ petitions were filed in the Lahore High Court by various family members seeking the transfer of these suspects into civilian custody. But the high courts said they could not decide on them because the matter was being heard in the SC.”

All eyes on SC

Earlier this year, on January 28, a six-judge bench resumed hearings on civilians’ military trials. A petition was filed to bar governments from hiring private counsel while Justice Sardar Tariq Masood referred appeals in the military court case back to a three-judge committee for a larger bench reconstitution due to concerns about bench formation under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

The court ordered the AGP to furnish the details of the verdicts reserved by the military courts by March 28 after former CJP Khawaja, one of the petitioners challenging the military trials, requested an early hearing of the appeals, contending that the continued presence of civilians in military custody was “beyond compensation”.

On March 28, SC conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts, directing that judgements be announced in cases in which the nominated suspects could be released before Eid.

In the most recent hearing on April 24, the apex court referred a set of appeals back to a three-judge committee to form a larger bench.

Senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui also requested the court to order the federal government to place on record the orders passed by the military trial court for the perusal of the apex court, adding that 85 accused were still under detention and therefore it required urgent hearing into the matter to decide their fate.

More than 365 days later, when the country witnessed one of the most widespread agitation against the state in its modern history, the highest court in the country is deliberating on the constitutionality of military courts, the families of the remaining 85 accused are desperately awaiting some good news, and the rest of Pakistan is watching with almost a pin-drop silence around these trials.

The question remains: what will these trials come to mean for the country’s judicial system?

The post Special report: May 9, mayhem and military trials — a year on appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Imran and Bushra Bibi were sentenced in the Toshakhana reference by an Islamabad accountability court on January 31, days before the general elections. According to the verdict, Imran and Bushra were barred from holding any public office for 10 years and slapped with a fine of Rs787 million each.

A day later, Imran and Bushra Bibi were also sentenced to seven years in jail in a case related to their marriage during the latter’s Iddat period. Prior to this, a special court established under the Official Secrets Act had also sentenced Imran and his foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi to 10 years in prison for the breach of state secrets.

The reference in question was filed against the two by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in December for retaining a jewelry set received from the Saudi crown prince against an undervalued assessment. The anti-graft watchdog had alleged in the reference that during his term as prime minister, Imran and his wife had received a total of 108 gifts from different heads of state and foreign dignitaries.

Bushra Bibi had challenged her conviction on February 17 — a day after Imran did the same in the cipher and Toshakhana cases. The former first lady also challenged a government notification that declared her Banigala residence as a sub-jail following the verdict.

On February 27, the IHC had admitted the appeals against their conviction and had requisitioned records related to the trial court proceedings by March 7.

The IHC division bench had also taken up applications seeking suspension of their sentences till the final adjudication of the main appeals against their conviction. At the outset, the bench overruled the objections to the petitions raised by the registrar’s office.

Earlier in March, the IHC had asked if the authorities had sought permission from Imran before converting his Bani Gala residence into a sub-jail for Bushra Bibi.

Following today’s hearing, Imran’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar said the IHC “delivered justice”, adding that the “scales of justice have started heading in the right direction”.

Speaking to the media outside the IHC, he said, “The courts are standing upright for justice. The entire nation is standing with the courts.”

He contended that there was “no evidence” behind the conviction and that the jail trial was “unlawful as our counsels were not allowed to appear”. “Our lawyers were made to leave the jail and were not allowed to cross-examine either,” the PTI lawyer said.

“Such cases are considered mistrial and unconstitutional in the history,” Zafar said. He asserted that Imran could not remain in custody in the Toshakhana reference anymore, terming the case “baseless”.

The hearing

Today’s hearing was presided over by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb. Barrister Zafar appeared as the counsel for the ex-premier and his spouse while NAB prosecutor Amjad Pervaiz was also present.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Farooq told Zafar that his arguments would only be heard if they pertained to the suspension of the Toshakhana sentence and not to the appeal against the conviction. He said that as the appeal against the conviction was already sub judice, both pleas could not be heard concurrently.

The IHC chief justice said the appeal against the conviction would be fixed for hearing after Eidul Fitr.

Here, the NAB prosecutor said, “We have reviewed the verdict. This is a case of sentence suspension.”

At this, the court observed that the “NAB’s stance is highly commendable”.

Zafar again urged the court to hear his arguments in the Toshakhana appeal as well, contending that both were “entirely different cases”.

However, Justice Farooq said the cipher appeal proceedings would conclude within the next or two hearings, after which the Toshakhana one could be heard. “We can hear your petition seeking suspension of the sentence,” he stated.

At one point during the hearing, Justice Aurangzeb asked if the NAB wanted to present any stance on suspending the sentence. To this, the prosecutor replied, “There is no objection to the suspension of the sentence [but] the appeals cannot be heard right now.”

Here, Imran’s counsel requested the court to suspend the conviction along with the sentence, at which Justice Aurangzeb observed, “That matter is before the Supreme Court; let’s leave it for now.”

Subsequently, the court suspended the sentences of Imran and Bushra in light of the NAB prosecutor’s statement.

Accountability court verdict

Judge Moham­mad Bashir had already closed the right of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and asked Imran and his spouse to record their statements under Section 342 (power to examine the accused) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

While Bushra Bibi had recorded her statement in the case, Imran could not. During that hearing, Imran’s legal team had requested the court to restore the right of cross-examination but was turned down by the judge.

While the PTI founder had been presented during the hearing where the sentence was pronounced, his wife had not appeared before the court at the time.

Following the verdict’s announcement, Bushra arrived at Adiala Jail, where the NAB team was already present, to surrender to the authorities following the court’s directives. Subsequently, she had been taken into custody by the anti-graft watchdog.

How­ever, she was moved to Imran’s Bani Gala home after it was declared sub-jail in a late-night notification.

Her shifting to the residence has been under discussion for weeks as she and her husband denied submitting any application to declare the residence as a sub-jail.

In an earlier hearing, the Adiala Jail administration had opposed moving her back to the prison, claiming that overcrowding posed security threats for the former first lady.

The post IHC suspends Imran, Bushra Bibi’s sentence in Toshakhana case appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

PTI, unable to contest recent elections due to a ban on their electoral symbol, instructed its candidates to join the right-wing fringe religious party in order to extend their numerical strength in the National Assembly.

In its 22-page judgment issued on Monday, the five-member electoral body decided 4-1 that the SIC failed to submit a party list for reserved candidates before the ECP’s deadline of February 22, two weeks after the February 8 election.

Pakistan’s National Assembly has a total of 70 reserved seats which are distributed among parties based upon their performance in the general elections. Similarly, the four provincial assemblies have a combined total of 149 reserved seats that are similarly distributed.

A majority of these reserved seats have already been allocated — around 77 remain vacant, for now.

PTI has criticised the ECP judgement, calling it an attack on democracy.

“This is the last assault on the heart of democracy,” Senator Ali Zafar of PTI, and a senior party lawyer said during a speech in the Senate, the upper house of the assembly on Monday after the decision was announced.

The ECP’s decision opens the door for a prolonged legal battle, as PTI has announced it will challenge the decision in higher courts.

However, if the party fails to overturn it, it could further dent its position in the lower house of parliament, potentially allowing the ruling coalition to gain a two-thirds majority in the 336-member National Assembly.

What are reserved seats — and why do they matter?

Pakistan’s general elections for the National Assembly take place on 266 seats. But there are an additional 70 reserved seats (60 for women and 10 for minorities) which give the body a total size of 336 seats.

To achieve a simple majority to form a government, a total of 169 seats is required. However, a two-thirds majority — or 224 votes — is necessary to make any constitutional amendments.

Reserved seats are allocated only to political parties that win seats in the National Assembly, and the distribution is done based on their proportional representation after the general elections. Similarly, reserved seats are allocated in provincial assemblies based on the parties’ proportionate performances.

According to regulations, any political party contesting the polls must submit a list of their nominations for reserved seats prior to elections, as per the schedule given by the ECP. However, after the polls, if a party has over-performed and needs to submit additional names for reserved candidates, it has two weeks to do so. 

Independents have three days after their win announcement to declare their affiliation with a party in the assembly.

The party they join gets a boost in the number of reserved seats it gets, commensurate with the number of independents that join it.

In the National Assembly, the ECP has already allocated at least 40 out of 60 seats to different political parties for their reserved quota for women. Similarly, seven out of 10 seats reserved for the minorities quota have already been allocated in the lower house of the parliament. The rest are currently vacant.

What happened in the current elections?

Forced to contest the recent general elections on February 8 without its party symbol – the cricket bat – due to violating election rules, PTI fielded candidates as independents.

Despite facing a nationwide crackdown for nearly two years, with its leader, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, imprisoned since August last year, and its candidates unable to campaign freely, PTI still emerged as the single largest bloc, with its candidates winning 93 seats.

While the party claimed widespread rigging across the country and alleged a “stolen mandate”, its rivals, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), managed to cobble together a ruling alliance, with 75 and 54 seats respectively, in coalition with other smaller parties.

Even though they won the most seats, the PTI leadership, under orders from Imran Khan, decided not to form a government with any of the major parties and instead joined hands with a fringe, right-wing religious party, the SIC, to claim reserved seats.

Complicating matters further was the fact that the SIC, despite being a registered political party, did not contest the general elections. Its leader, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, chose to contest independently, winning his seat from Faisalabad city in Punjab province.

What does the ECP verdict say?

In its verdict, the ECP stated that the SIC was not entitled to claim the quota for reserved seats due to a “violation of a mandatory provision of submitting a party list for reserved seats, which is a legal requirement”.

It also said that the currently vacant seats in the national assembly — 23 — “will not” remain vacant and will be distributed among other parties based on the elected seats they won.

The commission criticised the SIC by reminding them that they were given a specific timeframe to submit a list of nominations, which the party did not.

“Every political party, while making any decision regarding crucial steps concerning matters of the political party required under law, should be aware of the potential consequences they may face in the future,” the ECP wrote.

What are the consequences of the ECP decision?

On March 3, Shehbaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) was elected the country’s new prime minister by the National Assembly, securing 201 votes. Omar Ayub Khan, the PTI leader backed by the SIC, managed to secure 92 votes.

The biggest beneficiary of the ECP decision will be Sharif’s PMLN, along with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which won the most number of seats in the general elections, with 75, 54 and 17 respectively.

In case PTI’s legal challenge fails to bring them any relief, it is a certainty that the ruling coalition will cross the magic figure of 224, which is required to achieve a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.

However, if PTI manages to get the ECP decision reversed, it can expect to get 23 further seats in the National Assembly, in addition to extra seats in other provincial assemblies where they have done well. That might limit the governing coalition to just below the two-thirds mark.

What does the legal fraternity think, and what’s next?

The ECP decision has been widely criticised by lawyers, with many calling the order a “farce” or even “unconstitutional”.

Constitutional expert Asad Rahim says the ECP verdict aligns with its previous decisions that, he alleged, have disenfranchised the people of Pakistan.

“There are precedents expressly barring the minor technicalities on the basis of which the ECP barred the largest party,” the Lahore-based lawyer told Al Jazeera. “However, an even greater subversion of the democratic mandate is its division of the remaining seats among the smaller parties.”

Another legal expert, Rida Hosain, also questioned the decision to distribute the unallocated seats to other, smaller parties. She argued that no legal or constitutional provision permitted this “absurd” distribution.

“The entire framework of the Constitution and law dictates that a political party should receive reserved seats through a system of proportional representation. It is entirely undemocratic for other political parties to get a share of reserved seats beyond their proportional strength of general seats in the National Assembly,” Hosain told Al Jazeera.

Islamabad-based lawyer Salaar Khan also noted that the ECP decision lacks any “convincing justification” for allocating the unallocated seats to other parties.

“However, the impact may well be granting the coalition government a full two-thirds majority in the National Assembly,” he told Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, lawyer Mian Dawood argued that the SIC was clearly at fault for failing to submit their list within the deadline.

“This is the first instance where a political party like the SIC has not submitted its list for reserved seats as required by law, yet now demands them on grounds of morality and the law of necessity,” Dawood told Al Jazeera.

Abdul Moiz Jaferii, a constitutional expert and lawyer, viewed the ECP verdict as another “technical knockout” suffered by PTI.

“The PTI perhaps themselves opened the door to this by not standing their ground with the ECP regarding their own reserved seat lists and maintaining that they are still a political party, albeit without a symbol,” he told Al Jazeera.

Lawyers also expressed pessimism regarding PTI receiving any favourable verdict from the superior courts.

“The PTI seems to have decided to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of election laws is, of course, what landed the PTI here to begin with,” lawyer Khan said, referring to the Supreme Court verdict in January this year upholding the ECP decision to strip the party of its cricket bat symbol.

The post Why is Pakistan’s PTI fighting for reserved seats in parliament? appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Even if it was plain as daylight that the path had been paved by Pakistan’s military establishment that had once helped Sharif’s political rival Imran Khan rise to power at Sharif’s expense. Even if that same establishment had not once, but twice, been Sharif’s tormentor — first when he was removed as PM in a 1999 coup by Pervez Musharraf, and then when he was forced out of office in 2017 and subsequently sentenced in corruption cases.

The tables appeared to have turned, with relations between Khan and the military souring, and the cases against Sharif being dropped.

More than 24 hours after I started visiting polling stations and talking to voters, one thing has become clear to me: The outcome of this election is anything but clear. Whatever the eventual results, this election has been closer than analysts had predicted on poll eve.

The early results bear that out. Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party has been denied the use of its election symbol, the cricket bat. The charismatic Khan, former cricket captain and philanthropist, was sentenced on multiple counts days before the election. He has been in jail since last August.

Still, as of 11:30am local time (06:30 GMT) on Friday, the PTI was running neck and neck with Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), even though candidates from Khan’s party were forced to contest as independents. Candidates affiliated with Khan’s PTI had won nine seats, while the PMLN had won 10, with the third major contender, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), had won six.

After what I saw and heard on Thursday, I’m not entirely surprised.

It all started with my phone. Despite all advance warnings by the government and a hunch I had, it was still a bit of a shock when I found out that mobile internet connectivity was switched off. Security concerns were the official reason, but clearly, those in power were concerned that the script they had planned needed tech interventions.

My first stop was at Lahore’s upscale locality of Model Town, also the area where Nawaz Sharif’s younger brother Shehbaz Sharif, himself a former prime minister, was expected to vote.

A polling station in Lahore’s Model Town on Thursday, February 8, 2024 [Abid Hussain/Al Jazeera]

With 15 minutes to go before the polling started at 8am (03:00 GMT), two small queues were forming, one each for female and male voters.

Saadia, a 29-year-old doctor was the first in line on the female side. Wearing a face mask, she told me that despite suffering from a bout of flu, it was very important for her to come out and vote.

“It is our national duty and a responsibility,” she said in a determined manner. “If we don’t do our bit, we won’t have a right to complain.”

The group of women behind also seemed enthusiastic and eager to vote, but as one of them had just started to express her support for Khan and the PTI, a male member of her family intervened.

“We don’t want to talk to any media. We don’t trust who you are,” he told me brusquely, and instructed the women of his family to avoid talking as well.

This was the first inkling about the kind of day I was about to witness.

As I traversed diverse constituencies and polling stations, nearly two dozen, a stark reality emerged: A muted roar replaced the usual election day fervour.

The PTI faithful, though seemingly fewer, were vocal. Young families, men and women, even a frail 72-year-old in a wheelchair, rallied behind Khan.

“If the PMLN will come, we know how they can ruin the economy and everything else. But Khan is clear-eyed. He has done wonders for us in the world, and increased our respect by his speeches,” a bespectacled 19-year-old Ahmed Malik told me.

Another group of young men was playing cricket behind the iconic Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, near a polling station. When I asked one of them, Zafar, if he had voted he nodded in negative.

“We had a match in the morning, but once we finish, we will all go together,” he said, pointing towards the rest of his teammates. “We have to vote for skipper [in reference to Khan, who was captain of the Pakistan cricket team],” he added.

Young men playing cricket behind the iconic Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan, on Thursday, February 8, 2024 [Abid Hussain/Al Jazeera]

Their conviction painted a stark contrast to the PMLN’s quiet confidence, bordering on complacency.

Two days before the polling, on the last day of campaigning, I did not meet a single PMLN party person canvassing for votes in Lahore’s older neighbourhoods. One of the party officials who did speak to me confided that the party had “completed” its campaign and was confident that people would come out to vote for it.

This almost sounded like hubris.

However, on February 8, the numbers shared by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) officials at some polling stations, particularly in the middle-class and working-class neighbourhoods, showed a voter turnout which ranged between 20 and 30 percent.

Officials belonging to the special branch for investigations deployed at the polling stations told Al Jazeera it appeared that the removal of the cricket bat symbol for the ballot papers and the crackdown on Khan might have convinced PTI supporters to not come out.

When I asked about how that might reflect in the results, one of them said: “We will see when it comes that. Our responsibility was to ensure a smooth, free and fair election.” All said without a hint of irony.

Across Lahore’s different localities, I noticed that PMLN supporters, while coming out to vote, appeared to lack the organised voting push that parties keen to come to power usually rely on.

Rana Abdul Qudoos, a 41-year-old businessman, said that for him and his family, the inspiration for Nawaz Sharif and his party went much beyond the party promises.

“He has done tremendous work for the business community, no doubt. But for us, it is also the fact that he is our neighbour, and God has asked us to do well by our neighbour,” he told Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, I also found in the queues both determined PTI supporters who cast their vote as a sign of protest against the treatment meted out to their leaders, and politically agnostic voters who had decided to back Khan’s party in solidarity.

“I voted PTI in the centre as a protest against the constant interference by the establishment, not because I like or align with PTI,” said a 33-year-old male voter in Lahore’s upscale locality, requesting anonymity. “I don’t think they will form the next government but I hope they realise the importance of staying inside the parliament to be an effective opposition.”

Most other areas in Lahore I visited had a low turnout. But as the clock ticked closer to 5pm, the designated closing time for voting, I stopped by at another polling station in Lahore’s upper-class locality, where some commotion was ongoing.

It was, as I found out, a rush of mostly women who were arriving to cast their votes before time ran out.

Female voters lined up in an NA-122 polling station minutes before the end of polling time [Abid Hussain/Al Jazeera]

The constituency, NA-122, was won by Imran Khan himself in the 2018 election and is considered one where the leader had a large following and support.

Among those in the queue was Ramsha Sikander, a 22-year-old student who was there to cast her first-ever vote.

Sikander said that she got late since was tending to her grandmother who was unwell, but she always wanted to come and cast her ballot.

“I see Khan and the PTI as the only hope for bringing some change in our country. Their promises, their drive, and of course, the charisma of Imran Khan. My entire family is a PTI voter,” she told me.

However, Sikander was rather cynical about the future of the country in case the results showed a winner other than Khan.

“I do not have any expectations of other leaders we are left with. I have no hope in the country if they end up winning,” she said.

But for Azka Shahzad, a 27-year-old dentist, it was this “emotional, rabid” support for the PTI which was one of the key reasons she deviated away from the party.

“I was such a big PTI fan in 2018. I even canvassed for them in elections. But now looking back, I consider that vote a mistake,” she told me.

So much so, that she almost considered skipping the exercise this year altogether. Shahzad, in fact, arrived at the polling station merely 20 minutes before the time ended.

“I spent my morning contemplating if I really should come, and even if I do, who should I vote for even,” she said.

Agreeing that PTI had been the target of state-led suppression, the dentist said while she unconditionally condemns what has gone on with the party, she is irked by what she called the “righteousness” of its supporters.

“Look, there were other parties in the past who went through as much, if not more, and this is their turn now,” Shahzad said, as she walked out of the polling station. “I just hope they learn some humility and introspection to do better in future.”

The post As early results come in, could Pakistan election spring a surprise? appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Born in Lahore in 1952, Imran first rose to fame as a cricketer, leading the national side to its only ODI World Cup victory in 1992. Following his retirement from the sport, in addition to ramping up his philanthropic activities, he founded the PTI in 1996 but only saw limited political success till 2011, when he started gaining the attention of youth disillusioned by massive corruption and an unemployment crisis.

Following the 2013 elections, Imran alleged widespread rigging, leading a months-long sit-in in Islamabad in protest, but called it off after the deadly attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar.

Imran’s popularity continued to rise ahead of the 2018 elections, so much so that he was dubbed the “prime minister in waiting” albeit with some help from powerful quarters. Following a controversial victory in the general elections, he formed a coalition government and took oath as the country’s 22nd prime minister on August 18, 2018.

Historic ouster and the blame game

Elected on promises to ensure accountability and create a social welfare state, Imran soon found himself beset by serious challenges, including the Covid-19 pandemic, unprecedented inflation, rising deficits as well as differences with his own allies.

His relations with the establishment, which his rivals claimed had brought him into power, also soured, with a standoff between the government and the military leadership over the appointment of the new spymaster in October 2021.

To oust him from power, opposition parties joined forces and launched the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) which soon tabled a no-confidence bill. After some of his party members dissented during the crucial vote against him, Imran’s premiership came to an end shortly after the clock struck midnight on April 10, 2022.

Subsequently, Imran directed his party members to resign from their seats in the National Assembly and announced the dissolution of the provincial assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in a bid to force the ruling PDM coalition to hold early elections — a tactic that did not bear any fruit.

Increasingly frustrated, Imran lashed out at the US and former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa, accusing them to conspire against him. In the months following his removal from office, the former PTI chief managed to evade arrest several times in a slew of cases, including the Toshakhana case, in which he was accused of illegally selling state gifts.

In October 2022, Imran launched a long march to Islamabad for Haqeeqi Azadi (true freedom), heavily criticising Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Chief Lt Gen Nadeem Anjum and calling for the resignation of two other intelligence officials.

On November 3 of that year, as the PTI’s convoy reached Wazirabad, an assassination attempt was made on the party chief, who suffered multiple bullet injuries in his leg. The then-PTI chief called off the march later, claiming he did so to avoid “imminent bloodshed”.

Imran continued to up his ante in 2023, doubling down on his claims that a serving intelligence official was behind the attempt on his life and Bajwa, who he dubbed “super king”, was solely responsible for his ouster.

Arrests, conviction and disqualification

On May 9, 2022, Imran was arrested from the premises of the Islamabad judicial complex in the Al-Qadir Trust case, with violent protests erupting immediately afterwards.

The violence — which was called a “black chapter” by the military — lasted for two days as enraged PTI supporters came out on the streets and also attacked various military installations, including the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence.

The state’s reaction was swift, with several PTI leaders arrested in the following days, some of whom remain in jail. While Imran was subsequently released on bail on the Supreme Court’s order, the party’s downfall had begun.

He was arrested again on August 5 in the Toshakhana case, in which he was convicted and sentenced to three years. He was also disqualified by the Election Commission of Pakistan for five years and stripped of party chairmanship.

The Islamabad High Court later suspended his sentence, but Imran remains in jail while facing other cases, including the cipher case, in which he and party vice president Shah Mehmood Qureshi are accused of violating the Official Secrets Act.

Imran filed nomination papers for two National Assembly seats for the upcoming elections — NA-89 (Mianwali) and NA-122 (Lahore). However, his papers were rejected due to his conviction in the Toshakhana case.

After seeing his appeals turned down by the Lahore High Court, Imran is expected to approach the apex court. But if he finds no relief there as well, it would signal an end to the former premier’s hopes — at least for the 2024 elections.

Key stances

• Imran has repeatedly stated his desire to turn Pakistan into an Islamic welfare state based on the model of Riyasat-i-Madina. During his tenure, the PTI launched several Ehsaas programmes and expanded the Sehat Insaf Card scheme.

• He has been a vocal critic of Pakistan’s role in the US war on terror in Afghanistan, terming it a “self-inflicted wound”. He also infamously said Pakistan would “absolutely not” allow US bases or use of its territory for any sort of action in Afghanistan.

• The former PTI chairman has also revealed that his government had planned to settle former Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) fighters in the country’s tribal areas.

• He has also been accused of sexist remarks and blaming rape victims. He allegedly stated that journalist Gharida Farooqi was asking to be harassed online as she was “invading male-dominated spaces”. In separate interviews, he blamed social media and “vulgarity” to increasing rape cases.

• Following his ouster from power, Imran blamed the US for “conspiring” against him, though he later walked back on his claim.

• Imran has also vociferously criticised the military and intelligence leadership for his ouster and the assassination attempt.

• Imran has repeatedly termed overseas Pakistanis the country’s “biggest assets”, and went as far as moving the Supreme Court to grant them the right to vote.

• After coming into power, Imran promised “ruthless accountability”, with the government forming a ‘Recovery Unit’ to bring back looted wealth from abroad. However, the opposition claimed the accountability drive was a “blatantly one-sided, politically motivated witch-hunt”.

The post Imran Khan — out of sight but not out of mind appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

He made the remarks as a three-member Supreme Court (SC) bench, comprising the CJP, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah, began hearing PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s plea against his arrest in the Al-Qadir Trust case.

At the outset of the hearing, one of Imran’s counsels, Hamid Khan, appeared on the rostrum and informed the apex court that his client had approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking pre-arrest bail.

His lawyer said that Imran was in the process of getting his biometrics done when he was arrested. “Rangers misbehaved with Imran Khan and arrested him,” the lawyer said.

CJP Bandial observed that court records showed that the case had not been fixed for hearing. The lawyer told the court that the appeal could not be filed without completing the biometric process.

Here, Justice Minallah observed that Imran had indeed entered the court premises. “How can anyone be denied the right to justice?” he asked.

CJP Bandial said that there is a certain “respect” for the court. Recalling a past incident, he said, “The NAB had arrested a suspect from the Supreme Court’s parking. The court had then reversed the arrest.”

The CJP then asked Imran’s counsel about the number of Rangers personnel who arrested the former premier. Imran’s lawyer responded that “100 rangers personnel entered court premises” in order to arrest the PTI chief.

“What dignity remains of the court if 90 people entered its premises? How can any individual be arrested from court premises?” he asked.

“In the past, action has been taken against lawyers for vandalism inside the court,” he observed. “If an individual surrendered to the court, then what does arresting them mean?”

The petition

On Wednesday, an accountability court in Islamabad handed Imran over to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for eight days in connection with the Al-Qadir Trust case.

Subsequently, he approached the apex court to set aside the warrants issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman on May 1 for his arrest and to challenge the Islamabad High Court’s decision to declare the arrest “unlawful”.

The appeal, which was filed on behalf of Imran through his counsel Raja Aamir Abbas, expressed apprehension about an imminent threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner.

It argued that the warrants appeared to be in violation of Article 10-A (a provision that guarantees the right to a fair trial), as the proceedings initiated by NAB and Imran’s subsequent arrest were intended to deprive the political party and its leadership of participating in and carrying out election campaign.

The petition contended that while the IHC held that by arresting the PTI chairman on the court premises on May 9, grave illegality had been committed, the court did not issue directions for his release from “unlawful custody”.

The court only issued contempt notices to the interior secretary and Inspector General of Police, Islamabad, the petition pointed out.

While citing a 2009 judgement of the apex court, the petition argued the arrest made on court premises was illegal as the premises was the only sanctuary that citizens approach for redressal of their grievances and protection of their constitutional rights. Thus, it regretted, the entire proceedings initiated by NAB authorities and the arrest made thereunder in collusion with the present government, on the face of it was made with mala fide intention only to harass and damage the reputation of the petitioner.

The petition further argued the warrant issued by the NAB chairman under Section 24(i) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was “unlawful” also because warrants could only be issued during the investigation of a case or under Section 24(a)(i) when a suspect was intentionally or wilfully not joining the investigation after “repeated notices”. However, it claimed, not a single notice was issued to the petitioner after the inquiry against Imran was turned into an investigation on April 28.

The appeal recalled Imran in connection with his pre-arrest bail application was present inside the high court premises where the biometric procedure was being carried out when the Rangers personnel along with other officials broke in and shattered the windowpanes of the office to ‘unlawfully’ arrest the petitioner.

Subsequently, the matter was agitated before the IHC, which declined to declare the arrest “unlawful”, the petition recounted the events during and after the arrest.

The SC was further apprised that the issuance of warrants was unlawful since it was mandatory under Section 18(c) of the accountability ordinance that the inquiry report should be provided to the suspect before the commencement of the investigation in order to turn an inquiry into the investigation. But no such report was ever prepared or handed over to Imran, the petition said.

In his petition, Imran claimed that the alleged amount of Rs190 million had already been deposited in the Supreme Court account apparently in relation to its May 4, 2018 judgment involving the grant of 9,385-acre land by the Malir Development Authority to the Bahria Town Karachi in 2015 — about 9km from Karachi toll plaza on the superhighway.

The post Imran’s plea against arrest: CJP asks how someone can be arrested from court premises appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Khan called off a rally of his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the eastern city, the capital of the Punjab province after the police used tear gas and water cannon on his supporters for defying a government ban on public gatherings.

“The government and its backers are petrified of elections because so far in the last eight months, out of the 37 byelections, my party has won 30 out of them,” Khan told Al Jazeera on Tuesday.

“They want to either arrest or disqualify me because they are scared [of the fact] that my party is one of the most popular in Pakistan’s history,” he said from his residence in Lahore.

The PTI was scheduled to hold a rally to kick off its campaigning for the provincial election set for April 30. But authorities banned the event just a few hours before it was due to start “to avert any untoward incident”, local media reported.

“Police had given permission and approved the route of the rally, but suddenly this morning the permission was taken away. Heavy contingent of police was deployed and people coming to attend peaceful rally were hit with tear gas shells and water cannon,” the former prime minister said.

Police officers detain a supporter of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, during clashes before an election campaign rally, in Lahore, Pakistan March 8, 2023 [Mohsin Raza/Reuters]

Khan has claimed party supporter Ali Bilal was killed while in police custody. Al Jazeera could not confirm the veracity of the claim and the police have yet to confirm the death.

Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, called the police crackdown on opposition supporters as “unnecessary and brutal”.

“There was a massive police deployment to try to prevent PTI workers from attending the rally.

“There are all the indications that the federal government is trying to delay the elections in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,” Gul said speaking from Islamabad.

Polls in Punjab, as well as in neighboring Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – due on April 30 – were announced after the dissolution of the provincial assemblies of both regions which together account for 70 percent of the country’s population.

The two assemblies were governed by Khan’s PTI party. Khan had called for their dissolution in a bid to force early national elections in Pakistan which are scheduled for October.

The government of his successor, Shehbaz Sharif, has dismissed Khan’s demands, saying the vote will take place as scheduled later in the year.

“It is clear that the government does not want an election,” Khan told Al Jazeera, adding that he called off the rally for fear that his supporters’ lives were in danger.

Police officers detain a supporter of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan in Lahore [KM Chaudary/AP photo]

‘My life is under threat’

In April last year, Khan, 70, became the only Pakistani prime minister to be removed from power through a no-confidence vote in parliament. He is facing a slew of cases against him ranging from “terrorism” and attempted murder to money laundering since losing power.

Khan dismissed all the cases as “frivolous” saying that the accusations are “just one another way to have me out of the way to contest the elections”.

“Is just a question on how do you deal with 76 cases – how many court appearances do you make?” Khan said, stressing that he had to stop showing up to court due to injuries suffered from an assassination attempt.

“For four months I had three bullets in my legs so I couldn’t walk,” he said.

Supporters of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan run for cover as police fire tear gas shells to disperse them in Lahore [KM Chaudary/AP Photo]

Khan has been living in Lahore since November when he was shot in the leg by a gunman during a protest rally. Since then, he has only once traveled to Islamabad – last week – for court appearances in other cases against him.

Khan said that he has repeatedly asked for security during his court appearances, but it was never granted.

“My life is under threat because the people who tried to assassinate me are in power … The question is how do I campaign and secure and safe environment? How do I go to court? I made three court appearances and unfortunately there was just no protection there,” he added.

Pakistan Prime Minister Sharif has denied that he was behind the assassination attempt on Khan.

On Tuesday, the Islamabad High Court suspended an arrest warrant against Khan in a case related to the alleged illegal purchase and sale of gifts given to him by foreign dignitaries while he was in office.

A single-judge bench of the court ordered the police to not arrest Khan until March 13. The court also ordered the former prime minister to appear before the concerned court on March 13 in the foreign gifts case.

Police on Sunday tried to arrest Khan from his residence in Lahore, but the cricketer-turned-politician evaded them.

Police officers fire tear gas shells to disperse the supporters of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan in Lahore [KM Chaudary/AP Photo]

The post Imran Khan says Pakistan gov’t ‘petrified’ of losing elections appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Imran Khan delivered the statement during a video conference on the uprising of insurgency in Pakistan. He claimed that the pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan had mismanaged the situation, which counted as the main factor in the rise of local terrorism in Pakistan, Samaa cited.

He added that after the Taliban (IEA) came into power, they asked the Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to return to Pakistan, which was the time when a peaceful settlement was needed the most. At the same time, Imran Khan Government had decided not to interfere in Afghan affairs; whereas the present government did, he pointed out.

Last month, in the same manner, the PTI leader blamed Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for the terrorist attack in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other parts of Pakistan. He pointed out that despite running our economy to the ground, the government failed to deal with the cross-border attacks by security forces of a friendly Afghan government, Geo News reported.

Recently the security situation in Pakistan has been worsening, and the Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief asked their fighter to resume their attacks against the Pakistan army, leading figures of coalition parties who run the government and other vital targets.

He cautioned that Pakistan cannot withstand another wave of terrorism and urged the government to devise a solution for the evolving situation.

The post Imran Khan Accuses Pakistan’s Government of Rising Terrorism appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

The government ministers, led by his traditional political arch rivals — the Sharifs — and the military generals have been caught in a quagmire, unsure of how to deal with the chaotic political situation. The assassination bid against Khan is incurring a heavy political cost.

By naming Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah and a senior security official of the ISI as the perpetrators behind his murder conspiracy, Imran has declared his warpath. With such accusations, Imran seeks to further weaken the government and drag the establishment directly onto the political battlefield.

Not very long ago, Imran and his government enjoyed unprecedented support from the establishment, unlike civilian governments of the past.

The establishment of Imran Khan

During the 90s, Pakistan was on a rollercoaster ride with successive governments of Sharif and Benazir Bhutto toppled, in popular perception, at the behest of the establishment. The decade culminated in Gen Musharraf’s bloodless coup against Nawaz Sharif in 1999. At the time, it seemed the rule of either the Sharifs or the Bhuttos would never be acceptable to the establishment again. They lived in exile, while Musharraf became the darling of the West for making Pakistan a frontline state in the war on terror.

The winds changed when Musharraf imposed a national emergency by suspending the Constitution and his popularity nosedived. Facing a mass movement for the restoration of the judiciary, Musharraf was compelled to negotiate the return of his political rivals.

The General met with Benazir Bhutto in a palatial residence in the Gulf state, with the meeting said to be brokered by his own close aide, the then chief of ISI, Gen Pervez Ashfaq Kyani, who later succeeded him as COAS. Kyani had previously served Benazir as her military secretary when she was prime minister. Subsequently, the, Saudis pressured the military ruler to accept Nawaz Sharif, who was in exile in Saudi Arabia after the coup.

Benazir’s tragic assassination paved the way for Musharraf’s ouster and Bhutto’s party coming into power. During those days, rumours were rife that the establishment believed Pakistan needed a third force to counter the Sharifs’ PML-N and Bhuttos’ PPP. Imran, who was then struggling to find political momentum, thus became an alternative choice for the establishment.

He was nurtured as a political poster boy, tapping into his acclaimed fame in the cricketing world and his heroic image among the younger generation after winning the 1992 World Cup. He gained support among many Pakistanis for setting up a cancer hospital in Lahore, which earned him the image of a social reformist.

Agent of change

Imran’s political persona blossomed after he received the establishment’s support. His party emerged as a major political force in the 2013 polls, attracting a large number of youngsters and many who were disillusioned by other politicians.

In the years that followed, Imran probably hit a jackpot as his own bitter political rival, the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif chose Gen Bajwa as the new army chief, superseding other more senior generals.

Gen Bajwa, himself a cricket lover, was already in awe of Imran’s cricketing accomplishments. The two bonded over a common vision, with Gen Bajwa reportedly inspired by Imran’s passion for the elimination of corruption and in turn, Khan sharing Gen Bajwa’s views on what was required for the country’s stability. The ‘one-page’ mantra echoed across the public domain.

In keeping with Pakistan’s generic and consistent political turbulence, things did not remain the same for long. The partnership was dented, the trust turned into mistrust and promises were broken.

The breakup

Differences surfaced when Gen Bajwa wanted to transfer Lt Gen Faiz Hameed — one of the main proponents of the ‘one-page’ narrative — from the post of ISI chief to the head of the Peshawar corps. Khan not only opposed the move but delayed the process, saying it was his discretion to appoint a new ISI chief. What was interesting was that Imran had not intervened on the two previous occasions when the ISI chief was appointed in his own tenure. So Khan’s stance was merely seen as wanting Lt Gen Faiz around to fulfil his ‘political whims’ and to make him the next army chief.

The alliance of opposition parties, PDM, found the space they had been looking for to increase the wedge between the establishment and Imran’s regime. They feared that if Imran were to appoint Lt Gen Faiz as the next army chief, he would secure election outcomes in the PTI’s favour and Imran’s rule be secured for the next 10 years. Thus came about the efforts to oust Khan through a vote of no confidence.

The falling out

Subsequently, Imran launched a countrywide protest campaign against his ouster. He built a narrative of an alleged conspiracy of regime change, though the National Security Council found no evidence of such a conspiracy. Imran’s peddled theory helped him make inroads into various layers of society. His protest meetings swelled manifold and his party defeated political rivals in the majority of seats in by-polls.

The former premier has recently gained massive support, but in the process, his aggressive posturing has probably burnt bridges with the establishment. Be it the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif, the recent by-elections or the alleged custodial torture of his close aide, Shahbaz Gill, Khan targeted elements within the establishment.

Imran’s accusations intensified to the point that in an unprecedented move, the ISI chief appeared before the press along with the DG ISPR to deny the accusations and termed them false. The ISI chief, while responding to a question, said there is a consensus among ranks and file and future leaders of the institution that it shouldn’t get involved in politics. Some critics called the presser counterproductive, but others saw it as an official disassociation with Imran.

When Imran didn’t find space for his main demands, he chose to march towards Islamabad, only weeks ahead of the army chief’s appointment. Imran claims only the new government with a fresh mandate should be allowed to appoint the new army chief.

What next

Imran idealises Erdogan and believes he could rule like him after securing a two-thirds majority in the next polls. He feels powerful vis-à-vis the establishment, now drawing political legitimacy from massive public support and silencing his detractors’ claims that he was a puppet with no autonomous power or support. He is likely to become more aggressive in his protest campaign and so far, it is clear to see that his confrontational approach is working for his support base.

The attack on Imran’s life has sparked anger among his diehard supporters who are already protesting on the roads, triggering fears of widespread violence. Amid the unrest, Khan appeared in a wheelchair from the hospital, his legs in casts, urging supporters to continue to protest until the three, including PM Shehbaz Sharif, and the senior security official whom he accused, step down.

The wounded Imran wants to convey a message: either face the fury of protests or hold early polls and meet his previously stated demand of putting the appointment of the military chief on hold. If Khan cannot appoint the new army chief in accordance to his liking, he feels that at the very least, he can make the government cautious about who it selects or make the appointment controversial.

Imran’s demands will likely not be acceptable to either the government or to the establishment. The government doesn’t want to hold early elections because Imran has gained considerable popularity since his ouster. And for the current guardians of the establishment, it’s akin to surrendering the state before Imran who proved unpredictable, and they feel he betrayed them and is trying to taint the image of the institution.

Imran, the government, and the establishment seem to have taken extreme positions, leaving no room for rapprochement for the time being, plunging Pakistan into political chaos.

The post The wounded Khan, worried Generals and political chaos appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

The police case comes a day after the country’s top media regulatory body imposed a ban on Khan’s speeches for “spreading hate speech” against “state institutions and officers”, escalating political tensions in the country.

He has been holding mass rallies across the country seeking to return to office since he was removed from power in April in a no-confidence motion. The cricketer-turned-politician has alleged his removal was a result of a “foreign conspiracy”.

In his speech on Saturday, Khan promised to sue police officers and a female judge as he alleged that a close aide had been tortured after his arrest.

He doubled down on his criticism of state institutions at another rally on Sunday, saying the police acted under pressure from “neutrals”, a common euphemism for Pakistan’s military establishment.

“On May 25 when police perpetrated violence against us, I was told by insiders that police acted under orders by above, which means they were under pressure by the neutrals to thrash PTI [Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf] workers,” he said at the rally in Rawalpindi.

“Are the neutrals really neutral?” he asked.

Khan could face several years in prison for the new charges, which accuse him of threatening police officers and the judge. However, he has not been arrested on other lesser charges against him during his recent campaigning against the government.

Khan has been granted protective bail until Thursday when he is likely to appear before an anti-terrorism court in the capital Islamabad.

Under Pakistan’s legal system, the police usually file a first information report (FIR) about the charges against an accused to a magistrate judge, who allows the investigation to move forward. Typically, police then arrest and question the accused.

The report against Khan includes testimony from Judge Ali Javed, who described being at the Islamabad rally and hearing Khan criticize the inspector general of Pakistan’s police and another judge.

Khan reportedly said: “You also get ready for it, we will also take action against you. All of you must be ashamed.”

Khan’s PTI party posted videos online showing supporters surrounding his home apparently to stop police from reaching it. Hundreds remained there early on Monday.

“If Imran Khan is arrested … we will take over Islamabad with people’s power,” a former minister in his cabinet, Ali Amin Gandapur, threatened on Twitter, as some party leaders urged supporters to prepare for mass mobilization.

Khan speaks during a news conference in Islamabad [File: Rahmat Gul/AP]

The return of street violence?

Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said the return of street violence was a strong possibility.

“If Imran Khan gives the call to his supporters to come out in large numbers, there is fear that they [the government] will clamp down hard, which will definitely evoke a reaction from the people,” Hyder said. “People across the country are angry.”

The Pakistani judiciary also has a history of politicization and taking sides in power struggles between the military, the civilian government and opposition politicians, according to the Washington, DC-based advocacy group Freedom House.

Khan came to power in 2018, promising to break the pattern of family rule in Pakistan. His opponents contend he was elected with help from the powerful military, which has ruled the country for half of its 75-year history.

The opposition alliance had accused him of economic mismanagement amid soaring inflation and sliding value of the rupee before it moved the no-confidence vote in April.

The former prime minister has alleged he was deposed in a US-led plot, dubbing the succeeding government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as an “imported government”. But he has not provided proof in support of his allegations.

Washington and Sharif have denied the allegations.

Khan has been carrying out a series of mass rallies across the country, trying to pressure Sharif’s government.

Al Jazeera’s Hyder said the current situation could lead to a dangerous escalation that could further complicate Pakistan’s economic woes and bring its politics to a virtual standstill.

“The people of Pakistan want a fresh election. They do not recognize this 13-party coalition, which has been unable to deliver. Inflation is at an all-time high. Prices of fuel and electricity have also shot up. There is a lot of unease.”

On Sunday, global internet monitor NetBlocks said internet services in the country blocked access to YouTube after Khan broadcast a live speech on the platform despite a ban by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority.

Police arrested Khan’s political aide Shahbaz Gill earlier this month after he appeared on the private television channel ARY TV and urged soldiers and officers to refuse to obey “illegal orders” from the military leadership. Gill was charged with treason, which under Pakistani law carries the death penalty. ARY also remains off-air in Pakistan following the broadcast.

Khan accused police of abusing Gill in custody. Police say Gill suffers from asthma and has not been abused in detention.

The post Former Pakistan PM Imran Khan charged under ‘anti-terror’ law appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.