Post-budget press conference: Sindh CM unveils fiscal & development roadmap
At the same time, he sharply criticized the federal government for persistent financial shortfalls and what he described as discriminatory treatment towards Sindh.
At the start of an extensive post-budget press conference, the Chief Minister condemned Israel's recent attack on Iran and criticized opposition lawmakers for their disruptive behaviour during the passage of a resolution against the aggression. He questioned the motives behind their resistance, accusing them of politicizing a humanitarian issue, and underscored the provincial government's firm position against terrorism.
Highlighting governance continuity, he noted that the Pakistan Peoples Party has now presented its 17th consecutive provincial budget — an achievement attributed to democratic stability and consistent public service delivery. However, he delivered a sharp rebuke to the federal government for failing to honour financial commitments, revealing that Sindh was informed just a day before the budget presentation that Rs105 billion in expected transfers would be withheld. While the province has received Rs1,478.5 billion from the divisible pool since last year, a substantial Rs422.3 billion remains unpaid. He expressed cautious optimism that the outstanding amount would be cleared by the end of June.
Despite the province operating under an IMF programme that enforces strict fiscal discipline, Murad announced that Sindh has allocated Rs590 billion for development spending this year. Out of the Rs3.45 trillion total budget, Rs1 trillion has been designated for development and Rs2.15 trillion for current expenditures. Of the current expenditure, Rs1.1 trillion is committed to salaries and pensions, supporting a 12 percent pay rise for lower-grade employees and a 10 percent increase for those in higher grades.
Sectoral allocations have seen notable growth, including an 18 percent increase in education spending and an 11 percent boost in health. Infrastructure development in Karachi will receive Rs236 billion, with a significant share directed through public-private partnership models. Sectors such as agriculture, irrigation, and local governance have also secured sizable increases in funding.
Sindh CM Murad presents Rs3.45trn provincial budget for FY2025-26
The Chief Minister drew attention to Sindh's achievements in disaster recovery, noting that 500,000 homes have already been constructed for flood victims, with another 850,000 under construction — bringing the total to 1.3 million. He said this rapid response has earned international recognition, surpassing Nepal's post-earthquake reconstruction efforts.
Murad unveiled a Rs600 billion rural water and sanitation programme that will benefit 4.5 million villagers. Designed to be completed during the current government's tenure, the project will adopt a community-led model managed by NGOs. The initiative aims to reduce waterborne diseases, and PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has described it as revolutionary.
Turning to taxation, he confirmed that no new taxes were introduced in the budget. Several levies have either been abolished or reduced, including the entertainment tax and restaurant taxes. Stamp duty on third-party vehicle insurance has been slashed to Rs50, and the insurance tax reduced from 15 percent to 5 percent. In line with IMF requirements, a list of tax-exempt goods will soon be published.
Digital governance is also on the agenda. The provincial government is piloting blockchain-based digitisation of land records in Matli and Sukkur to improve access and transparency. Free laser levellers will be distributed to small farmers, while subsidies for larger units will support the adoption of cluster farming techniques.
In the social sectors, the province will establish 34,000 new caste centres and expand support for persons with disabilities. Cognitive Remediation Therapy services will be extended, and youth development centres will be set up in every district. The Sindh Institute of Child Health has launched a broad paediatric network, while the Sindh Hari Card programme has been allocated Rs8 billion for direct support to farmers.
On water security, Murad offered a detailed update on the K-IV water project, clarifying that the federal government is responsible for sourcing water from Keenjhar Lake, while Sindh will handle distribution. Rs20 billion has been earmarked for the K-IV feeder infrastructure. He also announced plans for a five-million-gallon desalination plant to meet Karachi's growing water needs. Job creation remains a priority. He revealed that 20,000 to 25,000 vacancies in Grades 1 to 4 will be filled, while recruitment for Grades BPS-5 to BPS-7 will be conducted through IBA-administered exams. Senior positions in Grade 16 and above will also be filled.
He expressed frustration with the federal government's development priorities, noting that only 18 of 25 Public Works Department projects were transferred to Sindh. He criticized the halving of university funding from Rs4 billion to Rs2 billion, which has triggered widespread protests. On the stalled Sukkur-Hyderabad Motorway, he noted that federal funding had been cut from Rs30 billion to Rs15 billion.
While the Islamic Development Bank is supporting three sections, negotiations for international funding to complete the project are underway. Murad regretted the Centre's rejection of Sindh's offer to co-finance the project with Rs25 billion, provided the federal government matched the amount.
He also condemned the 18 percent federal tax on solar panels, calling it unjustified. He reiterated that the PPP would withhold support for the federal budget if such regressive measures are not withdrawn. Sindh, in contrast, has allocated Rs25 billion for solarization under its own climate strategy, and has launched afforestation efforts to tackle environmental degradation though he acknowledged these must be scaled up.
On the Safe City project, Phase-I is expected to conclude by September or October 2026. Surveillance systems are already active in key areas, including II Chundrigar Road, where security cameras are successfully identifying individuals on watch lists. Funds for Phase-II are secured for 2026 implementation.
The chief minister acknowledged delays in operationalizing 150 buses in Karachi, citing funding limitations, but pointed to progress in sanitation and infrastructure development. Though digitisation of land records remains incomplete, he said blockchain-based pilots are already underway.
Population growth, he argued, remains Pakistan's most serious challenge. In response, Sindh has merged the health and population welfare departments for improved coordination. Murad also criticized the federal government for failing to fund large dam projects and reaffirmed his province's alignment with the Prime Minister's position to avoid controversial water infrastructure proposals.
Responding to criticism over a new helicopter and vehicles for the CM's office, he clarified that the existing helicopter is 36 years old and that the vehicles haven't been updated in years. A ban on vehicle purchases will apply in the next fiscal year as part of cost-cutting measures. On agricultural policy, he noted a shift towards corporate farming while ensuring inclusion of existing farmer networks.
Murad acknowledged rising poverty in Sindh, attributing it to constraints under the IMF programme. He stressed the importance of economic growth for poverty alleviation and defended the province's approach to transparent budgeting, saying repeated attempts were made to brief the opposition. He accused opposition members of exploiting humanitarian concerns particularly the Israel resolution for political advantage and derailing efforts at constructive dialogue.
He asserted that the PPP-led Sindh government will not be blackmailed by either PTI or MQM. While not a formal coalition partner at the Centre, the province successfully argued its case for long-standing under-funding, resulting in an Rs86 billion allocation to help bridge disparities with other provinces.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Tax-to-GDP ratio: flawed debate
There has been persistent pressure on successive Pakistani Governments by policymakers, especially those affiliated with multilateral donor agencies, to increase the Percentage Tax-to-GDP ratio. It is true, that the fiscal deficit continues to increase. However, the assumption that it is a tax shortfall that grows the deficit needs to be challenged — Nadeem Ul Haque & Raja Rafi Ullah, The Odd Fascination with Tax-to-GDP Ratio (PIDE Knowledge Brief No. 78:2022) 'If we want lower taxes for growth, then spending must be curtailed so that governments won't need so much money. The next time you hear a politician promise another tax break for some special group of taxpayers, think how much that hurts the economy and you as a taxpayer. It's time to simplify the system and reduce its onerous impact that undermines economic growth' — Jack M. Mintz, the Palmer Chair of Public Policy, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Canada The recent claim by the Chairman of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) that for the recently-ended fiscal year (FY) 2024-25 its tax-to-GDP ratio improved by 1.5 percent needs reconsideration [in FY 2024 FBR's tax-to-GDP ratio was 8.8 percent and not 9.5 percent, which was of total national taxes]. It is well-known that the debate over tax-to-GDP ratio in Pakistan has always been lopsided, failing to take into account the fact that the Pakistani nation remains the most heavily taxed in the entire region. Adding insult to injury, the citizens in return even do not get clean drinking, what to speak of free education, decent healthcare, affordable housing/transport and social protections like universal pension for all, out of taxes paid by the citizens. In federal tax collection by the FBR, there has been an overwhelming reliance on indirect taxation [even under the garb of direct income taxation through presumptive and minimum tax regimes through withholdings on a number of transactions having no nexus with income], without evaluating its impact on the economy and life of the less privileged sections of society. This flawed tax policy has been contributing towards the rich-poor divide as well expanding inequalities in income/wealth distribution. In the face of declining income tax contribution in GDP of less than 3 percent (after excluding indirect ones levied under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), the finance minister of successive regimes — civil and military alike — and Revenuecracy have been making tall claims about 'impressive' (sic) increase in taxes before the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and elsewhere. The reality of this 'impressive' performance has been exposed in various columns by these scribes. However, the IMF and World Bank in the past kept mum, as they were party to portraying all-good 'projection saga' during the era the Uncle Sam needed Pakistan; first for dismemberment of the then USSR and later for imposing New World Order in the name of 'War on Terror' (sic). Back in 1995, the then Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, claimed during a meeting, held in Washington on October 21, 2015, with that time Managing Director of IMF, Ms. Christine Lagarde, 'We have achieved the highest tax-to-GDP ratio and Pakistan's economy has been stabilising due to prudent policies of my government'. This claim was diametrically opposite to what was stated by the then Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) in his report making 'astonishing disclosure' that the tax-to GDP ratio of FBR 'reached its lowest level on the conclusion of the World Bank funded Tax Administration Reform Project (TARP)'. It was strange that in the presence of report of AGP, our Prime Minister, his finance minister and other 'financial experts' were trying to convince the IMF that 'all is well'. Nawaz Sharif on assuming the power for the third time as prime minister gave unprecedented tax waivers and concessions to the non-filers and tax evaders—even then, his amnesty schemes miserably failed. It could only yield Rs. 1.3 billion! In these columns efforts have been made to explain reasons for the poor tax collection. However, the citizens for the last many decades rightly raise the question, 'Do you know how rulers play havoc with the taxpayers' money'? They insist that we must calculate cost to national exchequer in providing tax-free perquisites and benefits to indomitable militro-judicial-civil-complex and public office holders in the form of palatial residences, army of servants, expensive cars, golf courses, rest houses etc. They call on first ending this colossal wastage of funds and money spent on fruitless foreign tours, state banquets etc. and then debate the issue of low tax-to-GDP ratio. Although in these columns a detailed roadmap for reforming the existing tax system and raising taxes to the level of Rs 30 trillion is presented, the self-styled stalwarts and wizards sitting in Ministry of Finance (MoF) and FBR want 'advice' and 'assistance' from IMF and World Bank despite. Needless to say, they miserably failed in the past to reform tax system. The situation can aptly be described what great Urdu poet Mir Taqi Mir said in the following couplet: Mir kya sada hein beemar howe jis key sabab, usi attar key londey sey dawa letey hein (What a simple soul is Mir; he seeks cure from the healer's boy who is the cause of his ailment). It is tragic that in a country where billions of rupees are made in speculative transactions in real estate and shares, tax-to-GDP ratio has been pathetically low hovering around ten percent for over a decade. Those who matter in the land are least bothered to tax undocumented economy and counter benami transactions. The mighty sections of society are engaged in these transactions and FBR being their handmaid has no intention to tax them. The definition of the term, 'business' given in section 2(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, covers 'adventure in the nature of trade'. However, our tax machinery is sitting idle causing enormous loss to the national exchequer by not bringing adventures in the nature of trade (speculative transactions) in real estate and shares into tax ambit. The elected representatives (sic), in fact, clipped the power of FBR to tax speculative transactions in real estate as adventure in the nature of trade by including immoveable property in the definition of 'capital asset' through Finance Act, 2012 with effect from tax years 2013. Earlier, they have been giving undue tax exemptions on gains arising on speculative transactions in shares and stocks. Higher tax-to-GDP ratio in industrialised countries is primarily due to the higher level of revenue from social security, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and taxes on domestic consumption while taxes collected from international trade and non-tax revenue are lower. In contrast, in Pakistan the major portion of revenue comes from indirect taxes, particularly taxes on international trade and domestic consumption, while direct taxes have a pathetic share [4.3 percent of GDP in FY 2024 that included 50 percent pass through withholding taxes]. The extending of extraordinary tax-free benefits to the powerful classes, failure to tap actual tax potential, indulgence in wasteful expenditure and funding of inefficient public sector enterprises are continuously pushing the country to more and more expensive borrowings — both internal and external. The unrelenting huge fiscal deficit and rising quantum of debt are the major source of macro-economic imbalances over the last many years. Making the things worse, the growth-retarding tax policy is playing havoc with stagnant economy. Sole stress on oppressive indirect taxes is not only widening the rich-poor divide, but has also failed to enable Pakistan to reduce even revenue deficit—we are not mobilising enough to meet current expenditure. The question is: where does the fault lies? Even the World Bank-IMF funding and 'guidance' has failed to bring desired results. Who is responsible for the prevailing pathetic state of affairs? Our debt burden has increased monstrously, fiscal deficit is simply unmanageable, inflation is crushing the poor, taxes are evaded and avoided by the rich and whatsoever is collected is wasted by the rich and mighty. What a tragedy that the elites (ashrafiya) not only evade taxes but also thrive at taxpayers' expense. They are the de facto beneficiaries of all the State's resources—generated mainly by the suppressed land-less tillers and diligent industrial workers. Pakistan is not a poor country — the State's kitty is empty because of colossal wastage of taxpayers' money on unproductive expenses (perks and perquisites of ruling elites) and non-exploitation of vital natural resources as well unwillingness of the rich to pay income tax. The absentee landowners (they include mighty generals who have been allotted State lands under one pretext or the other during the last many decades) have been resisting proper personal taxation on their enormous income and wealth. An unholy anti-people trio of indomitable militro-judicial-civil complex, inefficient politicians and greedy businessmen—controlling and enjoying at least 90 percent the State resources—contribute below 1 percent towards national revenue collection but is beneficiary of 90 percent of available national resources. The existing exploitative, rotten, regressive, ill-directed and unfair tax system is rapidly widening the existing divide between the rich and the poor. The lack of political will to tax the rich and the mighty remains our dilemma — not scarcity of resources. Equity demands higher taxes from those who have higher income and wealth, but in Pakistan since the first martial law all fiscal policies have decreased tax burden on the rich and increased its incidence on the poor. Pakistan's tax-to-GDP ratio at FBR level alone can rise to 20 percent, if we bring 5 million ultra-rich into tax net, heavily tax speculative transactions in real estate (it will promote construction industry as prices of land will come down), tax all speculative deals at stock exchanges (it will induce genuine investment in companies, withdraw all tax-free perquisites given to militro-judicial-civil complex and public office holders and confiscate untaxed assts. The existing tax system is highly unjust. It protects the rich and mighty having monopoly over economic resources. The common people are paying an exorbitant sales tax of 18 percent (in fact 35-55 percent on finished imported goods after mandatory value addition and income tax at source) on essential commodities as well as Rs 80 per litre as petroleum and environment levies on petrol/diesel but the mighty sections of society such as big industrialists, landed classes, generals and bureaucrats are paying no wealth tax/income tax on their colossal assets/incomes. Our present tax revenue potential, if monstrous black economy is dealt with iron hand, is not less than Rs 30 trillion provided that the existing tax base is made wider and equitable, black economy is discouraged, tax machinery is completely overhauled and exemptions and concessions available to some privileged sections of society are withdrawn. However, this is not possible without simplification of the tax system [FBR, tax potential & enforcement—I, Business Recorder, March 5, 2021, and FBR, tax potential & enforcement—II, Business Recorder, March 7, 2021]. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SBP's over-cautious and lopsided monetary policy
In their August 2024 published article 'Understanding the international rise and fall of inflation since 2020' in the 'Journal of Monetary Economics', three writers from the Research Department of International Monetary Fund (IMF), and one other highlighted two reasons broadly that are apparently at odds with the otherwise policy prescription from both IMF through its extended fund facility (EFF) programme, and by 'Chicago boys'-styled local policymakers. Hence, while the research paper, which is based on data from 10 advanced economies and 4 emerging economies, saw broadly the role of external factors in driving up inflation, and that the secondary cause in the shape of monetary policy needed lesser usage in terms of tightening given such shocks had mostly influenced core inflation; that does not include the food and energy components, and in turn highlights the advanced impact of such shocks that have come through as secondary impacts after first influencing inflation that in turn is captured by more volatile measure of inflation in the shape of overall consumer price index (CPI). The paper points out in this regard: 'Our results strongly suggest that global drivers, especially the sharp movement in energy prices, played a dominant role in driving the international rise and fall in inflation since 2020. Local policies also played a role. First, the transmission of headline shocks to underlying inflation was shaped by local characteristics. …However, our estimates suggest that the role of relative price shocks and their pass-through into core has at this point largely faded, facilitating the convergence of inflation to target-consistent levels. The continued stability of long-term inflation expectations on average across economies is also facilitating the return of inflation to target.' It is important to note that both the IMF and the SBP remained overly cautious with regard to monetary policy stance even though nothing significant has been transmitted in terms of global oil prices – which have mostly remained low relative to the highs seen during the early phase of Russia-Ukraine conflict, and mostly stable in general over the last number of months – and tariffs that were first announced in early April, and continued to remain paused most time since then, with the likelihood of being tapered down in general for most trading partners of United States, including for Pakistan. Yet, such relative easing of inflationary impact – both evidenced from the paper cited above, for instance, and the fact that monetary tightening has already run a lot of course, squeezing immensely aggregate demand for many months – continues to be met by unwarranted caution from both IMF and SBP. Hence, in their most recent country report on Pakistan that was released in May, which indicated that 'Monetary policy should remain tight and data dependent to ensure that inflation stays moderate, within the SBP's target range', and the latest monetary policy released in July 30 by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) also surprisingly saw 'global oil prices' as 'volatile', and 'the impact of global trade tariffs as uncertain' and, in turn, kept policy rate well above both the CPI, and core inflation rate. The most shocking part is that mainly aggregate supply related causes like 'higher than anticipated adjustment in energy prices' are also being seen by SBP as grounds for involving the role of policy rate! Such over-cautious approach by IMF and SBP has already cost the economy dearly – average economic growth over the last few years of around the population growth rate of between 2-3 percent has already pushed significant number of people below the poverty line, while absolute numbers close in close to half of the population now below it as per recent World Bank figures in this regard, while unemployment rate is running very high when compared with numbers traditionally. The extent of over-caution by SBP can be seen from the fact that while inflation during the last eight months, that is during November 2024 to June 2025 has averaged 2.6 percent, policy rate has not come down in a way as to keep positive real interest rate in any reasonable limits, which as compared with June CPI numbers stands at 7.8 percent, and at 4.1 percent for the same month when compared with core inflation (non-food, non-energy). Hence, the decision to keep policy rate unchanged at 11 percent is surprising to say the least, and to say that it should have come down considerably, and well back in time is an understatement, and that is even after factoring in the role of base effect, not to mention the primarily aggregate supply side nature of external factors, and domestic energy price adjustments. The reason it is an understatement is because policy rate should not have gone up so high in the first place in response to considerable rise in inflation in recent years – before inflation started to come down – because in developing countries like Pakistan, and especially in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, inflation is at least equally a supply-side/fiscal phenomenon. SBP as per its January 28, 2022 amended 'State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956' is mandated 'to achieve domestic price stability by way of regulating the monetary and credit system' as its 'primary objective', it also carries the role to see its contribution towards 'supporting the general economic policies of the Federal Government to foster development and fuller utilization of the country's productive resources.' In that sense, a question that needs a plausible answer is whether an over-cautious approach of SBP – both under over-board austerity minded successive IMF programmes in general, including the current EFF programme, and similar mindset reflected by SBP outside of these programmes as well — where it has over-utilised the instrument of policy rate at the back of wrongly seeing the over-board need to restrict aggregate demand, when clearly there is a strong footprint of aggregate supply side factors in determining inflation can be seen both traditionally, and especially in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, and in an overall world of existential threat of climate change crisis. It can clearly be seen that the mandate of SBP is not just price stability, but it also has the secondary concern to target inflation in a way that allows economic development, and utilisation of 'country's productive resources'. Clearly, an over-board monetary austerity mindset, in turn, unnecessarily squeezing the aggregate demand and not placing enough emphasis on improving institutional factors on the aggregate supply side — like fixing economic institutional quality, and improving productive—, and allocative efficiencies of underlying organisations, and markets through bettering governance, and incentive structures, including regulation — has allowed the endeavour of price stability to unnecessarily result in excessive economic growth sacrifice, along with producing only short-term reduction in inflation, with secondary impacts feeding into inflation in terms of higher transaction costs, and greater inflationary built-up cost-push inflationary channel at the back of lack of aggregate supply-related focus. More broadly, protecting fiscal space, especially in the wake of heightened geopolitics related security, and greater climate change/SDGs/economic resilience related spending needs in recent times require lowering the debt burden for instance, and SBP's overcautious and lopsided approach to rely too much on policy rate to control inflation is not allowing it to play its role for overall economic development. In this regard, while the independence of SBP needs to be protected, yet greater say of government needs to be reflected through greater footprint of government in the monetary policy committee (MPC) of SBP, in addition to filling MPC with more broad-based economic thinking in terms of economic ideological representation; it appears the neoliberal-minded influence, both traditionally and currently, seems to be in majority in terms of most members of the committee apparently showing strong signs of following this school of thought, as reflected through the overall arguments in monetary policy statements in general, including the latest one. More perhaps could be learnt from the workings of Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in this regard. A mind-set of shock therapy has not helped the economy. What is needed is adopting both macro- and micro-level initiatives in a more focused and innovative way. Excessive market power – for instance in the case of sugar sector – resulting in price gouging or, in other words, dealing with 'greedflation' or 'seller's inflation' requires adopting a more balanced aggregate demand, and supply side focus. External factors influencing inflation also need to be taken in the same balanced way. For instance, noted economist Isabella M. Weber along with her co-authors, in their (2025) published article 'Implicit coordination in sellers' inflation: How cost shocks facilitate price hikes' point towards the need to make microeconomic policy interventions at the sectoral level to deal with cost-push inflation that results from seller's inflation. The paper pointed out in this regard, 'we provide descriptive evidence in support of the hypothesis that economy-wide cost shocks function as implicit coordinators for price-making firms to hike prices, which translates supply shocks and commodity market fluctuations into price increases across sectors. In the absence of coordination, price-making firms risk losing market share when they increase prices. But economy-wide cost shocks signal to all firms that this is the moment to increase prices and thus coordinate pricing while the window of opportunity is open. If supply constraints occur in addition to cost shocks, that can further strengthen the coordination signal.' Moreover, the research paper recommended, among other things, the following: 'First, measures should be taken to reduce price volatility in critical upstream sectors to prevent economy-wide cost shocks in the first place… Greater regulation and oversight, sector investigations, and antitrust enforcement in too-essential-to-fail sectors can further help contain sharp price increases. Price controls can be an emergency measure of last resort, if other stabilization efforts fail. Second, policy measures can be implemented to impose a potential cost on firms that excessively hike prices in response to cost shocks.' This provides one way that rather than seeing an otherwise wrongly over-board role of interest rate as a policy instrument to control inflation, for instance, sector specific price controls can be adopted. Another way, as a complimentary step could be to adopt 'dual-track' pricing system as adopted by China during the 1980s, for instance. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PTI heavyweights jailed for 'attacks on state institutions'
Listen to article A special anti-terrorism court in Faisalabad on Thursday sentenced top PTI leaders, including Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan, Opposition Leader in the Senate Shibli Faraz, Hamid Raza and Zartaj Gul, to 10 years in jail on charges related to riots that targeted state institutions in 2023. Fifty-eight of the 185 defendants, who included parliamentarians and senior officials, were sentenced to 10 years in prison and the rest were given sentences ranging from one to three years, the court said. The mass sentencing comes just days before the PTI's planned nationwide protest on August 5, deepening political tensions and sparking sharp criticism from the opposition party. Several PTI leaders, including members of the National Assembly and Punjab Assembly, were handed prison terms of up to 10 years. The court convicted 108 individuals accused of participating in violent protests that erupted following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan. The demonstrations led to attacks on state installations, including the Lahore corps commander's residence, and government buildings across Pakistan. Notable among the sentences was a three-year jail term for PTI Punjab Assembly member Junaid Afzal Sahi. However, some party members, including Khayal Ahmad Kastro, Zain Qureshi and former minister Fawad Chaudhry were acquitted. According to the court order, "The prosecution has successfully proved its case without any shadow of doubt" against 17 of the accused, including the opposition leaders and Zartaj. They were sentenced to: 10 years rigorous imprisonment, Rs1 million fine under Section 109 (punishment of abetment if the act abetted committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC); 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, Rs 1m fine under Section 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 PPC. "The sentences of imprisonment awarded to [the] aforementioned convicts for both the offences shall run concurrently and [the] benefit of section 382B (period of detention to be considered while awarding sentence of imprisonment) CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) is also extended to the convicts, if they have undergone some tenure of detention in this case previously," the order read. Moreover, 90 accused - designated the "actual perpetrators" of the riots in the court order — were sentenced on various charges read with Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) PPC. PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan denounced the verdicts as "politically motivated," vowing to challenge them in higher courts. "These convictions are not about justice but about silencing dissent," he said, reaffirming the party's commitment to peaceful political engagement. In a statement released on social media, the PTI called the judgments "fabricated" and a "blatant violation of constitutional rights," accusing the judiciary of acting under political pressure and denying defendants due process. The party claimed the timing of the sentences was intended to disrupt its protest campaign, which Imran Khan had announced from Adiala Jail. "This marks an unprecedented moment in Pakistan's judicial history — opposition leaders from both houses of Parliament have been imprisoned merely for their political affiliation," the party asserted. The court's rulings are the latest in a broader crackdown on PTI. In May, an anti-terrorism court in Islamabad sentenced MNA Abdul Latif and others to 27 years in prison over related violence. Last year, military courts sentenced 85 civilians to prison terms ranging from two to 10 years for attacks on military facilities during the May 9 unrest. Meanwhile, PTI's Ahmad Khan Bhachar was removed from his post as Opposition Leader in the Punjab Assembly following his conviction. Both Bhachar and fellow PTI leader Ahmad Chatha, who were sentenced to 10 years, received disqualification notices from the Election Commission of Pakistan. Chatha was elected from NA-66 (Wazirabad), while Bhachar represented PP-87 (Mianwali). In another related development, an anti-terrorism court in Islamabad issued arrest warrants on Thursday for former President Arif Alvi, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, and 48 other PTI leaders in connection with a separate protest case linked to incidents on November 26, 2022. The warrants stem from an FIR registered at the Karachi Company police station and were issued after the accused failed to appear in court. Those facing arrest include several prominent figures, such as Asad Qaiser, Faisal Javed, Murad Saeed, Azam Swati, and Aleema Khan. The court ordered their immediate arrest and production before the judge. The widening legal crackdown on PTI has intensified concerns over the narrowing space for political opposition in Pakistan. As the party's leadership faces mounting legal and institutional challenges, questions persist about the fairness and inclusivity of the country's political landscape.
