ISLAMABAD: Opposition Leader in the Senate, Shibli Faraz, filed a contempt of court petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against Adiala Jail superintendent.
Faraz, on Thursday, filed the contempt of court petition for not allowing him and the other PTI leaders to meet Founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan in Adiala jail.
Faraz moved the petition through advocate Shoaib Shaheen and cited Adiala Jail Superintendent Abdul Ghafoor Anjum, Secretary Interior and Home Secretary Punjab as respondents.
He stated that due to non-cooperation of Adiala Jail superintendent and political victimisation, the PTI founder and his focal person filed writ petitions before this court for visitation but despite the orders passed by this court, the respondents paid no heed towards the same and didn’t allow the advocates and party leadership/friends to consult with the petitioner on different dates.
The counsel added that this court was pleased to pass an order in writ petition No622/2024 titled, “Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi versus Federation of Pakistan and others”, wherein, the following order dated 26.02.2024 was passed. Relevant Para No3 and 8 are reproduced hereunder for kind perusal of this court.
It said that Rule 265 speaks of letters, interviews, and visits. The three are obviously not synonymous. While writing letters and interviews twice a week is permitted, the visits can occur daily for superior class prisoners. It is admitted by the State that the prisoner is a superior class prisoner.
It is clarified that this order is passed to remind, reiterate and preserve the values and traditions of our legal system and has little to do with the identity of the petitioner alone. These values and traditions must apply across the board irrespective of who the petitioner is, but, it goes without saying, they acquire greater prominence when any prisoner in question happens to be not only a political leader with substantial following but also the erstwhile holder of the highest executive office of the nation.
He mentioned that subsequently, the respondents assailed the order before the Division Bench of this Court through Intra Court Appeals, which were fixed for hearing on 13.03.2024, wherein, this Court vide consolidated judgment dated 13.03.2024 has directed to the respondents to chalk out some parameters or standard operating procedures (SOPs) within the ambit of Jail Manual or Prisons Rules to
accommodate the requests made by the persons who wish to visit the founder chairman.
He also mentioned that afterwards, in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, the respondents on 28.03.2024 formulated SOPs, whereby, only two days i.e. Tuesday (two sessions) for family and advocates and on Thursday for friends/colleagues was scheduled for visitation with the prisoner Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi.
The counsel added that in spite of the facts that two days i.e. Tuesday and Thursday are allowed for visitation with Imran Khan Niazi but the respondents are not allowing the party leadership/friends/ colleagues to consult/visit Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, which is illegal, unlawful, un-constitutional and not only against the order passed by this court but also against the SOPs formulated by the respondents for visitations with Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi.
He argued that with the foregoing in view, and subject only to meticulous compliance with the unconditional undertaking given by the respondents that in the future there will be no violation and the orders will be complied with immediately in letter and spirit, this court is letting it go for the last time, noting that in the future any such violation will straight away lead to the framing of the charge and holding of the trial for contempt.
He pointed out that according to the directions of this court and the settlement, the coordinator Salman Akram Raja ASC gave the names of lawyers to visit Imran Ahmad Khan Naizi prisoner for a scheduled meeting on Tuesday i.e. 25.03.2025, but advocates, Hamid Khan and Uzair Karamat Bhandari were not allowed to visit. Similarly, for 27.03.2025 (Thursday) the list was given to jail authorities for visitation, but no one was allowed despite waiting for several hours outside the jail premises.
Shaheen said that all these acts of the respondent No 03 (Superintendent Adiala Jail) are intentional disobedience of the order passed by this court and contrary to the undertaking given before this court, hence, this petition is being filed bona fidely for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments