Connect with us

Politics

Drama as Fawad jumps out of car to rush back into IHC to avoid arrest

Published

on

ISLAMABAD: Minutes after his release, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Fawad Chaudhry evaded arrest as the police made a move to detain the former information minister as he was leaving the Islamabad High Court (IHC). 

After securing bail from IHC, Fawad had just sat in his car and had barely moved when he saw Anti-Terrorist Squad personnel moving towards him.

As soon as he saw the cops moving towards him the PTI leader ran out of his car and into the premises of the IHC to evade arrest. He is currently back in the court room along with his lawyers.

Interestingly, the police made a move to arrest the PTI leader despite him submitting an undertaking in the IHC of not violating the section 144 and taking part in protests. 

Earlier today, the IHC had declared the arrest of PTI leaders Fawad, Shireen Mazari and Senator Falak Naz under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Ordinance (MPO) “illegal”.

The orders to release the PTI leaders were issued by Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb’s court while hearing separate pleas.

During Fawad Chaudhry’s hearing, Islamabad Advocate General Barrister Jahangir Jadoon appeared before the single-judge bench.

“I want to place some facts before the court,” he said, informing the court that the copy of the court’s order was not given to the IG office and law officers. He added that the biometric verification of the PTI leader was also not done on the petition.

At this, the judge rebuked the lawyer saying that he wasn’t the judge and it was the court’s authority to see whether the biometrics had been done.

Moving on, the AG contended that Fawad Chaudhry had not been arrested in any case. He would have been required to be presented in court if the arrest had been made under a case.

Barrister Jadoon further argued that Fawad through his conduct had to prove whether he is a peaceful citizen or not. He added that the nation incurred losses of billions due to the incidents of May 9.

At this, Justice Aurangzeb remarked that the court had not barred the authorities from taking action on those incidents.

However, Jadoon mentioned that the court while stopping Imran Khan’s arrest had mentioned the MPO separately. If they had stopped arrest in cases only, the arrest could have been made under MPO, he added.

At this, the court asked who had advised that the arrest could be made under MPO.

To the court’s query, the AG responded that no one had advised them, however, they were unaware of the court order against arrest.

The government lawyer then presented a tweet by Fawad, posted on May 10, saying that it was a video of the PTI leader inciting workers to join the protests.

The government lawyer stated that Fawad in his tweet had said that it was liable to the PTI workers to take part in protests following Imran Khan’s arrest.

On this point, Babar Awan argued that the deputy commissioner must have known about the high court’s order on the arrest by now. He urged the court to extend its order stopping authorities from arresting Fawad and his client be given time to contact the relevant court.

The court then asked if the police had shown any documents to the PTI leader at the time of his arrest.

“When the order was read, the police officer said he did not know English,” said Awan. He added that his client was arrested based on material that does not exist.

To this assertion by the PTI lawyer, Justice Aurangzeb responded that the incidents that occurred after Imran Khan’s arrest should be taken seriously.

“Fawad Chaudhry is an important person, a former federal minister, does he not know the mob of Pakistan?” asked Justice Aurangzeb.

“When Fawad asked people to come out did he expect only law-abiding citizens to come out?”

“If the district magistrate does not pass this [detention] order on the matter then what should be done?” asked Justice Aurangzeb. He further added that the court had summoned Fawad so that he could be released.

“It had not seen the material shared by the advocate general today.”

The court had then reserved the verdict.

IHC declares Shireen Mazari’s arrest illegal

Earlier, Justice Aurangzeb while hearing a plea ordered the release of PTI leader Shireen Mazari and declared her arrest under Section 3 of Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) illegal.

The former human rights minister’s daughter Imaan Mazari had approached the IHC for the release of her mother.

During today’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel Zainab Janjua informed the court that the district magistrate ordered Shireen Mazari’s arrest fearing that she may harm the law and order situation. She added that the former minister was accused of inciting PTI workers.

However, the counsel explained to the court that her client was in court since May 9 and had not even issued any public statement. She added that the former ministers’ location at home can be checked through the CCTV footage and call data record.

“Tell us what is the age of Shireen Mazari,” asked the court upon hearing this.

Janjua told the court that the PTI leader was 72 years old and has medical issues as well.

At this point, the deputy commissioner, who was acting as the district magistrate, appeared in court.

However, the DC’s failure to come up with the record irked the court and it ordered the official to appear with the material on which basis the detention order was issued.

The court then took a break.

Once the hearing resumed, the high court declared the former human rights minister’s detention illegal.

The bench also ordered the release of PTI Senator Falak Naz who was arrested under the same law as Mazari.

Latest News

Today, 190 million pounds in NAB reference cases and cypher will be heard by the IHC.

Published

on

By

The founder of Pakistan, Tehreek e Insaf (PTI), has filed a bail petition against a 190 million-pound NAB reference, and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to hold a hearing today.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC and Justice Tariq Mehmmod Jahangiri, the other member of the two-member bench, will hear the matter promptly at 12 p.m.

Presenting the arguments before the court will be the prosecutor from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) during the hearings.

In addition, today is scheduled for the hearing of the petitions filed by Shah Mehmood Qureshi and PTI founder Imran Khan opposing indictment in the cypher case.

At precisely 2 pm, the cypher case hearing will be presided over by a second two-member bench made up of CJ Aamer Farooq and Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb.

Here, the prosecution’s arguments will be made in front of the bench by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) prosecutor.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

To discuss privatisation with the government, Bilawal establishes a committee.

Published

on

By

Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has formed a committee to discuss privatisation concerns with the government.

Sherry Rehman, Syed Naveed Qamar, and Saleem Mandviwalla are among the committee members, according to a notification released by the PPP Chairman’s Secretariat.

The coalition administration has already established a panel to actively pursue the privatisation of state-owned firms (SOEs), such as Pakistan Steel Mills and Pakistan International Airlines.

To allow the government to sell PIA’s fifty-one percent of the company, the Privatisation Commission called for bids from interested parties in April.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

Supreme Court halts PHC and ECP decisions regarding reserved seats

Published

on

By

On Monday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Peshawar High Court (PHC) were suspended by the Supreme Court, even as they accepted the plea of the Sunni Ittehad Council for a hearing. The ECP had decided to award the reserved seats of SIC to other political parties.

Judge Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the people’s mandate should be appropriately represented in the Parliament as the proceedings resumed following a short interim.

Let me explain what the Election Commission has truly done, stated the Council of the ECP. We only dispersed the reserved seats once. No new distribution of them was made.

The court, Justice Shah said, was more interested in following the Constitution than in what the Election Commission had done. Giving other parties more seats isn’t it against the idea of proportionality, Justice Shah questioned.

Seats were unfairly awarded to other parties, according to Justice Athar Minallah. Even after losing the electoral symbol, a party could still run for office, according to his observation.

In order to determine whether the case would be handled by the same bench or a larger bench would be established to hear it, the Supreme Court then forwarded the reserved seat subject to the Judges Committee.

The Pakistani Election Commission received applications from the opposing parties on March 4 and decided to utilise a proportional representation process to assign seats to political parties based on the number of seats each party won. This meant that seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain empty.

The PTI-backed SIC lost 77 reserved seats as a result of the development, including two women’s seats in the Sindh Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the National Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, and twenty-seven women’s seats in the Punjab Assembly; all totaling twenty-three seats.

Additionally, pleas for women’s and minorities’ reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) were denied by the Peshawar High Court.In its challenge, the party said that SIC should not have been granted reserved seats for women and minorities by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Previous steps

In a case involving the refusal to provide the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) reserved seats, the appeal court had previously dismissed the federal government’s challenge to the three-member bench.

An appeal for reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council is being heard by a three-judge panel led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah.

The federal government asked the court to form a larger bench so that more people could hear the matter when the hearing got underway. Adviser General Aamir Rahman, speaking for the federal government, stated that the appeals could only be heard by a larger bench. But the objection on the bench was dismissed by the court.

Situated on reserved seats, the female parliamentarians expressed disapproval of the bench as well. Under the Practice and Procedures Act, only a five-member bench could hear the issue, according to the attorney for the female parliamentarians. The dispute involved the interpretation of Article 51 of the Constitution.

Under Article 185 of the Constitution, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the current case was being handled as an appeal. Under Article 184/3, the current case was not filed. Court decisions on the admissibility of appeals were left up to the court, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

In addition, he said, a larger bench may be assembled to hear the case if it was determined that the case could be maintained.

Arguments made by Faisal Siddiqui the Advocate

Prominent Sunni Ittehad Council lawyer Faisal Siddiqui began putting forth the points. Following the February 8 general elections, Siddiqui announced that PTI’s returned candidates became members of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

There were still seven candidates in the National Assembly who had independent status, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
If PTI was a registered political party, Justice Athar Minallah questioned.

Siddiqui, the advocate, confirmed that PTI was a legally recognised political party. Although it wasn’t present during the election, Justice Shah noted that it was a registered political party.

Can you tell me how many days independent members have to join a party? said Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. A political party must be joined by independent members of the National Assembly within three days, according to Siddiqui. Justice Minallah asked,

“Will candidates of a political party forfeit their right to represent if the party lacks an electoral symbol?” A political party might transform into a parliamentary party by running for office, Siddiqui informed the court.

There is also the case where a political party holds elections yet does not allow its successful candidates to leave. What mechanism is used to allocate reserved seats among political parties, Justice Shah inquired?

Justice Shah enquired, “Will the political party take reserved seats according to the number of seats won or can it take more? According to Siddiqui, no political party is allowed to have more reserved seats than their share.

After upon, the Supreme Court quickly postponed the case hearing till 11:30 while summoning Election Commission representatives with documentation.

Continue Reading

Trending