PTI founder steps up criticism of ‘establishment'
In a blistering message posted on X, Khan said 'establishment' is bent on cementing its personal power at the cost of national interest.
'The Senate, the National Assembly, the Prime Minister, and the President – none of them have any constitutional legitimacy,' Khan declared, lambasting what he called a 'sham constitutional court' that manipulated parliamentary seat distribution to rig the political landscape in favour of the military's chosen players.
Khan did not spare the Election Commission of Pakistan either, accusing Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja of masterminding an unprecedented electoral fraud and then securing an extension to dodge any accountability.
He revealed that an Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge has refused to hear his appeals for seven months, a silence he attributed to direct military interference.
Condemning the systematic dismantling of the judiciary, institutions, and democratic norms, Khan said the legitimisation of military courts amounted to a judicial self-execution – a 'vote of no confidence' against the judiciary itself.
He also alleged that the military leadership has weaponised his wife, Bushra Bibi, in a bid to break his spirit, but vowed he would rather die than bow to what he called 'Asim Munir's monarchy.'
Khan dubbed the current rulers a 'Dacoits-and-Duffers Alliance' that has trampled judicial independence through the controversial 26th Amendment.
Taking aim at Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, he blamed the cricket administrator for the country's plummeting status in the sports, warning that such unqualified cronies are ruining every institution they touch.
He revealed that his calls for dialogue were contingent on the formation of inquiry commissions to investigate the bloody events of November 26, 2024, and May 9, 2023 – events he said were orchestrated under Gen Munir's orders, including the shooting of unarmed civilians. With dialogue now off the table, Khan asserted that the military has completely hijacked the country's system.
Khan said he has tasked his legal team with ensuring the protest movement continues unabated, with the goal of restoring justice, the rule of law, and constitutional supremacy. He warned that without popular mobilisation, his party faces slow political extinction.
On electoral reforms, Khan reiterated his long-standing demand for Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), claiming that their use in the February 8, 2024 elections would have ended rigging once and for all. He urged their immediate adoption to guarantee transparent and fair elections in the future.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SC adjourns Imran's bail pleas hearing
Listen to article The Supreme Court adjourned on Monday the hearing of bail appeals filed by former prime minister Imran Khan until 12 August. The PTI founder had approached the apex court after the dismissal of his bail applications in the May 9 rioting cases by the Lahore High Court (LHC). The adjournment followed a request by Salman Safdar's legal representative, Salman Akram Raja, who asked the bench to reschedule the hearing for next week and issue notices accordingly. The case was taken up by a two-member bench led by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi. However, the bench declined the request to advance the hearing, opting to defer the proceedings for nearly two weeks. The bail petitions are now set to be heard on August 12. The LHC, led by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, had previously rejected Imran's bail, citing his alleged involvement in planning attacks on military installations in anticipation of his arrest on May 9, 2023. Imran appealed to the Supreme Court on July 26, arguing that the prosecution had presented three conflicting narratives linking him to the alleged conspiracy, all of which were rejected by various courts. The first version involved two police officials, Hassam Afzal and Asmat Kamal, who reportedly overheard the conspiracy on May 7 and May 4, respectively. This claim was dismissed by the ATC-III Lahore due to late disclosure and insufficient evidence, leading to bail in FIRs 366/23 and 1078/23. The second version alleged incitement through media statements but failed due to a lack of incriminating material and was rejected by the LHC. The third version relied on new witness statements, including from PTI leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyum, but was also disbelieved by ATC-I Rawalpindi, which discharged co-accused Bushra Imran on August 20, 2024. Despite the rejection of all three versions by competent courts, the LHC denied Imran's bail on June 24, based solely on statements from the two police officers. Imran's petition argues that the case qualifies as one of further inquiry, entitling him to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898.
Business Recorder
11 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Post-arrest bail: SC to hear IK's appeal against LHC order today
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court will hear Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan's appeal against the Lahore High Court (LHC)'s verdict to cancel his application in 9th May cases today (Tuesday). A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will take up Imran Khan's petition of bail after arrest. The former prime minister on July 26 filed the appeal through Barrister Salman Safdar and cited the federal government and Inspector Imran Sadiq of Gulberg Police Station as respondents. The Anti-Terrorism Court in Lahore on November 27, 2024, had rejected Imran Khan's post-arrest bail requests in eight separate cases linked to the violent events of May 9, including the attack on Jinnah House. A two-member LHC bench, headed by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, also dismissed the incarcerated ex-premier's bail petitions last month after hearing the arguments of lawyers from the petitioner and the government. Salman Safdar argued that his client had no role in the violence or arson on May 9. He stated that Imran Khan was in the NAB custody at the time of the mayhem and later publicly condemned the unrest. It was impossible for him to take part in those riots, besides raising doubts over the case on the basis of 'contradictions' in the prosecution statements, he added. The petitioner's lawyer stated that the First Information Report (FIR) lacked sufficient evidence and termed the allegations of his involvement in the riots as baseless. Salman contended that the charges against Khan were politically motivated, and the federal government has been changing its narrative repeatedly, comparing it to a 'cricket strategy' full of confusing deliveries like googlies and off-breaks. The lawyer said that several legal decisions had already gone against the government in similar cases, and he presented nearly 25 court decisions to support his arguments. He also pointed out that in all the cases, the complainants were police officials. The petitioner sought further investigation into the case, as he suspected malafide intent on the part of the police for avoiding his arrest for five months. He maintained that the evidence against him is inadequate, while other co-accused have already been granted bail. He also called the delayed police statements unreliable and asserted that he deserves the right to bail. The May 9, 2023, events refer to the riots that were triggered by the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan from the premises of Islamabad High Court (IHC) in a graft case. During the protests, the miscreants targeted the civil and military installations, including the Corps Commander's House in Lahore and the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. Several PTI leaders and workers were released on bail after their arrests, while many still remain behind bars. Imran Khan has been behind bars since August 2023 after he was sentenced in multiple cases ahead of the February 8 elections. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
11 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Restrictions on access of family to jail: Adiala jail authorities directed to act on IK's sister plea
ISLAMABAD: The special court on Monday ordered Adiala jail authorities to act on a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan's sister against restrictions on access of family members to jail during the trial of the Toshakhana-II case against Khan and his wife as per law. Special Judge Central Shahrukh Arjumand, while hearing a petition filed by Khan's sister, Aleema Khan, against barring her and her other family members from attending the jail trial of Toshakhana-II case against Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi. The court directed Adiala jail authorities to act on the petition in accordance with the law. Aleema Khan's counsel, Khalid Yousaf Chaudhry, appeared before the court. He argued that despite clear court orders, family members were not being allowed to enter Adiala Jail. According to the petition, not only were family members denied access, but Imran Khan's legal team was also barred from participating in jail proceedings. The petition stated that in previous cases such as Toshakhana, cipher, and Al-Qadir Trust, restrictions on access to jail were unjustified and unlawful. Chaudhry further told the court that denying access to family members and lawyers constitutes a violation of the legal rights of the accused. The petition also challenged the legitimacy of the trial in the cipher case due to the lack of access, claiming the proceedings were flawed. The petition stressed that under Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the trial should be open, and public access is a fundamental right. It further asserted that under Article 10-A of the Constitution, the right to legal representation is a basic right of every citizen. The petition maintained that there is no legal basis to prevent family members from attending hearings, and such denial is unconstitutional and undermines the principle of a fair trial. He said that the court had earlier issued clear orders to ensure access for both family and the legal team, but those orders were not being implemented. The court after hearing arguments, directed the jail superintendent to act in accordance with the law. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
