Peshawar High Court warns govt, ECP over ‘curbs’ on PTI
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday warned if the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf wasn’t allowed to carry out political activities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it would call the province’s caretaker chief minister and the chief election commissioner for explanation.
“Both the chief minister and CEC will be asked about their failure to fulfil the responsibility of holding polls in a free and fair manner amid the PTI’s complaints of restrictions on its activities in the province,” Justice Ijaz Anwar observed during a hearing into the petition of former prime minister Imran Khan’s party for contempt proceedings against the provincial government and the administration of Mansehra district.
Justice Ijaz, who was part of a two-member bench along with Justice Syed M. Attique Shah, wondered that if the security situation was so delicate thatPeshawar’s deputy commissionerwas not allowing a political party to hold a public meeting, then how the Election Commission of Pakistan would hold general elections.
AG Aamir Javed told the court that additional chief secretary (home) of the province Abid Majeed had called a meeting of deputy commissioners from across the province to examine the security situation and evolve a joint course of action for administrations regarding political activities.
Wonders if Peshawar’s security situation doesn’t allow public meetings, how ECP will hold elections
He sought two days’ time for producing a report about the outcome of that meeting, insisting the government would act on the matter in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
The bench fixed Nov 23 (Thursday) for next hearing into the PTI’s contempt petition against the caretaker government and Mansehra’s district administration for “not allowing the holding of a workers’ convention despite the court’s orders.”
The petition was filed by PTI provincial president Ali Amin Gandapur, its provincial legal coordinator Mashal Azam and Insaf Lawyers Forum provincial vice-president Malik Arshad Ahmad, requesting the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the relevant officers, including the provincial chief secretary, Mansehra DC and DPO, and others.
Lawyers Shah Faisal Uthmankhel, Ali Zaman, Inam Yousafzai and others appeared for the petitioners and said a high court bench had disposed of on Oct 26 a plea of their clients after allowing the PTI to carry out political activities in the province.
They added that the advocate general had assured the court that there was no restriction from any quarters on the holding of the PTI’s workers convention and election campaign in the province, but the party wasn’t allowed by the Mansehra administration to hold a workers convention on Nov 5.
The bench told the AG that during the hearing into the main petition, he had claimed there was no bar on the PTI’s activities.
The AG replied that he stood by his statement but insisted that political parties had to follow “certain requirements” of the law for holding activities.
Justice Ijaz Anwar observed that ground realities spoke otherwise and it appeared as if the ECP and the provincial government had not been fulfilling their responsibilities.
Advocate Ali Zaman claimed that they had submitted an application with the DC seeking permission to hold a workers’ convention here on Nov 26.
He, however, said the DC had issued an order on Nov 20 under section 144 CrPC placing a ban on gatherings of more than five persons, which was aimed at stopping the PTI from the said convention.
The lawyer said while all other political parties had freely been carrying out political activities, the PTI had been prohibited from doing the same.
He claimed that a police party of around 11 vehicles had visited the residence of the lawyer who had given an application for holding the workers’ convention so as to harass them. He added that the police officials claimed that they were having orders from above.
The AG contended that the district administration gave permission to political parties in accordance with certain standard operating procedure.
He pointed out that the order was issued by Peshawar’s DC on Nov 20 under Section 144 of the CrPC for only a week as there was a serious security issue in the provincial capital.
The AG also produced certain documents on the basis of which the said order was issued.
However, the bench observed that apparently, those documents raised no serious issue.
Published in Dawn, November 22nd, 2023