- PTI names PM Shehbaz in contempt plea but omits Naqvi.
- PTI names interior secretary instead of Interior Minister Naqvi.
- Barrister Gohar says case should focus on enforcing SC order.
ISLAMABAD: The decision to name Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif but omit Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi from PTI’s contempt petition over the non-implementation of the Supreme Court’s order for Imran Khan’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital has triggered questions within the party and outside, with sources saying the move was contrary to the position taken by PTI’s chairman in the parliamentary party meeting.
The controversy centres on a fundamental question whether the contempt petition was intended primarily to enforce the Supreme Court’s August 18 order or to seek punishment of those allegedly responsible for its non-implementation.
Sources familiar with the proceedings said the issue was discussed at a PTI parliamentary party meeting, where the party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan strongly emphasised that the matter should not be turned into a political exercise and should instead be left to the party’s lawyers to pursue strictly on legal and professional grounds for the benefit of the jailed leader.
According to the sources, the stated objective was to ensure implementation of the Supreme Court’s order directing that Imran be shifted to Shifa International Hospital and provided treatment under the arrangements specified by the court.
The sources said the chairman argued that the purpose of the contempt proceedings should not be to punish political personalities but to secure enforcement of the court’s order.
It was also pointed out during the discussion that in proceedings aimed at enforcement of a judicial order, the focus could be placed on the relevant administrative heads responsible for implementation, including the interior secretary and the principal secretary to the prime minister, rather than making senior political figures respondents.
The argument, according to the sources, was that naming both the prime minister and interior minister could give the proceedings an overtly political character and potentially divert attention from PTI’s primary objective of implementation of the court’s order.
However, when the petition was subsequently prepared, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was named a respondent while Naqvi was left out. Why it was done, the parliamentary party has no idea.
The omission has since become a subject of discussion in political circles and media.
PTI’s legal team has publicly offered a different explanation. Barrister Salman Akram Raja said there had to be evidence linking an individual to the decision not to comply with the Supreme Court’s order before that person could be named. He said this was why the interior minister had not been made a respondent, while the interior secretary had been nominated.
The petition, filed by Imran Khan’s sister Uzma Khan through lawyer Uzair Karamat Bhandari, names the prime minister, law and information ministers, Islamabad’s chief commissioner, the interior secretary, the Punjab inspector general of prisons and the Adiala Jail superintendent. It seeks contempt proceedings as well as immediate measures to enforce the Supreme Court’s direction regarding Imran’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital.
The government, meanwhile, has challenged the Supreme Court’s original order while maintaining that PTI workers created a security situation that prevented Imran’s transfer to Shifa. He was instead taken to PIMS for a medical examination and subsequently returned to Adiala Jail.
The developing controversy now goes beyond the omission of one minister’s name. It raises a larger question about the character of the contempt proceedings whether the party is seeking a mechanism to enforce a judicial order or pursuing action against those it believes were responsible for violating it.
For PTI’s leadership, sources say, the original emphasis was on the former. The petition, however, has opened a debate over whether the legal strategy ultimately adopted has remained consistent with that position.
Originally published in The News
