IHC seeks reply in contempt for rejection of lawyer’s meeting with Imran Khan

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court on Wednesday sought a written response from the Advocate General Islamabad in a contempt of court petition filed for failure to facilitate a meeting between PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja and party founder and former prime minister Imran Khan at Adiala Jail as the court questioned how the matter could proceed without legal consultation.

Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir was hearing a petition filed by citizen Ghulam Murtaza challenging the blocking of the PTI founder’s X account, along with a related contempt plea for non-implementation of a court order allowing meetings with lawyers.

During the hearing, the court declared the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) response in the X account case “unsatisfactory”, observing a clear disconnect between the relief sought in the writ petition and the regulator’s response.

“You should look at what the writ is and then look at your response,” Justice Tahir observed while addressing the PTA’s counsel.

Read: The IHC will take up the X ban request in February

The court noted that replies had already been filed by the prison authorities, PTA and other respondents, but questioned how the final arguments could be heard when the petitioner’s lawyer had not been allowed to meet his client.

Salman Akram Raja informed the court that he had not been able to consult Imran Khan on the matter. In response, Justice Tahir noted that once the meeting has taken place, the case can proceed to final arguments on February 24.

The government counsel argued that cases related to prison meetings were heard by a larger bench. Judge Tahir dismissed the delay, noting that without allowing the meeting, “how will this case move forward?”

Raja pointed out that the court’s order dated November 4 directing the jail authorities to allow the meeting had not been implemented for over two months.

“The order for my meeting is dated November 4 and it has still not been complied with,” Raja said, adding that he had not met the PTI founder even once since filing the case. “I have filed the case, but I will not be allowed to meet my client.”

When Raja asked whether he should go to jail that day to seek an appointment, Justice Tahir said the court would issue an appropriate order. “If the meeting is granted, this case will move forward,” the judge noted.

The court directed the government counsel to file a written reply and adjourned further hearing to February 24.

Raja addresses media

Speaking to reporters outside the Islamabad High Court, Salman Akram Raja linked the trial to what he described as broader democratic concerns after the February 8 general election.

February 8 is the date of Pakistan’s 2024 general election, which was held after Imran Khan was removed from office. The day has since taken on political significance, with opposition parties claiming the polls were marred by irregularities and did not reflect the public mandate.

“Answer must be given to the millions of people who cast their votes on February 8,” Raja said. “We will not allow the mandate to be stolen.”

Read more: By the numbers: Full results of the February 8 election

Raja criticized proposals related to voting age restrictions, calling them an attempt to marginalize young voters. “Reducing the voting age to 18-25 is a conspiracy against the youth,” he said, adding that first-time voters could not be held responsible for past government failures.

“Pakistan has made no progress for 78 years. Now lies and status quo must end,” he said, arguing that efforts to silence politically conscious youth would fail.

Referring back to the court case, Raja said the contempt plea stemmed from the continued refusal of meetings with the PTI founder. “The November 4 court order has still not been implemented. Meetings with lawyers and family members have been suspended for months,” he said.

“Without consulting lawyers, Imran Khan cannot respond to the cases against him,” Raja added. “PTI is a peaceful and constitutional party. Our struggle will remain within the framework of the constitution.”