PTI Chairman Imran Khan requested the Supreme Court to end the contempt of court proceedings related to the events of May 25, 2022, which transpired during the party’s first long march. The former prime minister’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja submitted a 23-page reply to the Supreme Court. The court had sought an explanation from the PTI chief earlier this month in the contempt case. Khan, in his reply, said he did not disobey the Supreme Court’s order deliberately and that he was unaware of the order related to the May 25 events. Imran maintained he was not made aware of the “detailed contents of the verbal order made by this honourable court at about 6:05pm” on May 25. He said after a perusal of the order, it was clear that the court had directed the interior ministry secretary, Islamabad and Punjab inspectors general of police and the Attock deputy commissioner to facilitate a meeting between the “designated PTI leadership in Islamabad”, including his counsel Babar Awan, and him. “No such meeting was facilitated,” he said. The PTI chairperson further stated that his statements on May 25 while addressing his supporters at 6:45pm and in the following two hours “reflected the communication of the verbal order received by him from political workers”. He linked the communication lapse to jammers installed in his container for security purposes, saying the devices “make direct communication through cellular phones impractical. “Any inadvertent overstepping his sincerely regretted.” Assuring the court of having directed his party members to carry out political activities in a dignified manner, he contended that an incomplete recording of his statements made at Chach Interchange in Attock in May 25 was played in the court, and an incomplete transcript of the same was submitted. Based on the information he had received, Imran said, he had “relayed to the people of Pakistan the good news that this honourable court had directed [the] removal of obstructions to the exercise of the constitutional rights of the people as regards to movement and assembly”.
He maintained he had “called upon families (women and children) to attend the protest gathering at D-Chowk in the sincere belief that such a gathering would be peaceful and not in violation of any order of this honourable court.” Moreover, Imran added, that his cavalcade was subjected to “obstruction and intense tear gas shelling at the behest of the provincial government and other involved agencies” upon reaching Chach Interchange in Attock. It was in view of this “continuing brutality” that Imran had called upon PTI supporters and members to assemble at “what is known as ‘D-Chowk, Islamabad’ in order to register a peaceful protest against the unconscionable and unconstitutional violence perpetrated by the state authorities,” the PTI chief explained.
He contended that the call for D-Chowk was meant for holding “an immediate protest against the unprovoked violence” and that it was distinct from the planned political assembly, the permission for which was sought at the ground between G-9 and H-9 sectors along with an assurance that the party won’t cause any obstruction in the city.
Imran went on that when his lawyer Faisal contacted Umar, the later was in Islamabad, adding that Umar instructions were to reiterate PTI’s right to hold a “peaceful assembly” in the capital. “Umar also expressed resolve that all the political activities held on the part of PTI would be peaceful. However, he pointed out, the answering respondent could not be contacted because of jammers. The PTI chief also clarified that Umar’s instructions were consistent with the party policy.
“Umar travelled from Islamabad to Wali Interchange, near Mardan in a helicopter and joined Imran’s cavalcade at 3pm on May 25,” Imran said, adding that henceforth there was not contact between Umar and the PTI lawyers. He added that the court passed verbal orders on May 25 which were not or could not be directly communicated to the PTI and the written order was only issued on May 26 – the day after the march. “However, various news channels carried reports regarding the court’s orders between 6:05pm and 6:45pm.
