ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s federal cabinet on Friday expressed strong reservations over the Supreme Court’s “extraordinary intervention” to provide relief to former prime minister Imran Khan following his arrest on corruption charges as an alliance of political parties in the ruling coalition announced an anti-judiciary protest next week.
Khan was whisked away by the paramilitary Rangers force from the Islamabad High Court on Tuesday after he traveled from the eastern city of Lahore to the federal capital to face two petitions against him. He was taken into custody in another case involving the bribe of land that is popularly known as Al Qadir Trust corruption reference. The country’s top court declared his arrest from the judicial complex illegal on Thursday, asking him to appear before an IHC bench which decided to give him a two-week bail.
The cabinet discussed the decision and the ensuing situation in a meeting presided over by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in which it strongly reacted to the judicial intervention.
“The meeting condemned in strong terms the extraordinary intervention of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the open-and-shut case of corruption and corrupt practices [against Khan which was] in accordance with the constitution, law and prevailing legal procedures while calling it a misconduct,” said a statement released after the meeting.
Members of the cabinet also criticized Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial’s choice of words who reportedly said, “Good to see you,” after Khan was brought to his court by the authorities who had kept him in custody.
They described such an exchange between the country’s top judge and the former prime minister accused of corruption as a “shameful blot” on the judiciary.
The cabinet also condemned the “desecration and vandalism of sensitive state buildings” along with martyr memorials, adding such acts of “terrorism and anti-nationalism” would not be accepted under any circumstances.
The meeting also maintained a majority of Pakistanis had distanced themselves from the protest while blaming armed factions for putting the lives and properties of others in danger.
ANTI-JUDICIARY PROTEST
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), an alliance of various political parties in the coalition administration, announced to protest against the Supreme Court on Monday while criticizing its “leniency” toward Khan.
The PDM chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, asked the people and members of his alliance to reach the federal capital to hold a protest against the judiciary’s “biased” attitude.
“Today, we have decided that we will protest against the behavior of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and I, as the chief of the PDM, request the nation to reach Islamabad on Monday where we will stage a huge demonstration outside of the court,” he announced in a news conference.
“The Supreme Court, instead of eliminating crime, is protecting crime and is defending a suspect instead of punishing him,” he continued. “Khan was arrested in a corruption case amounting to Rs60 billion, but the treatment given to him by the court showed that the judiciary was supporting embezzlement.”
Rehman stressed that he was not talking on behalf of the government but had taken the decision as the head of the alliance, which was a separate political force.
He said the PDM had a history of protesting peacefully, adding that Monday’s sit-in would also be nonviolent.
“But it should be kept in mind that if anyone tries to cast an evil eye on us [during the protest] or raise their hands against us, then we will also respond with sticks, stones, punches and slaps,” he told the media.
Rehman questioned the judiciary about giving Khan the “VVIP protocol” at a time when his supporters were using “terrorism and hooliganism” across the country.
“The army headquarter is attacked, the house of the corps commander is targeted, national monuments are uprooted and state institutions are desecrated,” he said. “How can the court protect such elements [indulging in such violence]?”
The PDM chief noted if similar protests had been carried out by anyone else, the court would have given them severe punishment.
“If the Taliban had done something similar, it would have been declared a treachery,” he said. “If a political party was involved, it would have been banned. But one party has been allowed to do whatever it wants.”
