Gandapur to challenge governor-administered oath of MPAs
The chief minister said that the oath-taking in Governor's House is a blatant violation of the constitution.
In a statement issued on Sunday, Gandapur asserted that holding the oath-taking at the Governor's House contradicts Article 65 of the constitution, which clearly states that the oath must be taken on the assembly floor.
He clarified that the speaker of KP Assembly did not refuse to administer the oath, but the session was adjourned due to lack of quorum.
He added that the speaker has summoned the assembly session on July 24, emphasising that any oath outside the assembly, particularly at the Governor's House, is unconstitutional.
Gandapur stated that Article 255 (2) of the constitution applies only under extraordinary circumstances. If the chief minister and speaker refuse, only then can the chief justice nominate someone to administer the oath.
He opined that the oath administered at the Governor's House was illegal and therefore it would be challenged in the court. 'The petition has been drafted and it will be moved in the Peshawar High Court tomorrow.'
Earlier, Advisor to the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on Information, Barrister Dr Saif said that the opposition parties' decision to take oath on reserved seats will be remembered as one of the darkest chapters in the country's parliamentary history. He said that by misusing the 26th Constitutional Amendment, a dagger has been thrust into the heart of democratic politics. He said that the parties 'rejected by the people' in comparison to PTI have now been handed PTI's reserved seats, which is a blatant insult to the public mandate. 'The opposition, despite winning, remains dissatisfied, while PTI, despite the imposed defeat, is content owing to the unwavering support of the people.'
Referring to the oath-taking ceremony at the Governor's House, Barrister Dr Saif alleged that the event symbolized taking oath over the 'corpse of democracy.'
He accused the Election Commission of misrepresenting facts and stated that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government strongly condemns this misrepresentation.
He warned that the Chief Election Commissioner would be held fully accountable for all unconstitutional and unlawful actions.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Aafia Siddiqui is Pakistan's daughter, govt's priority, says FM Ishaq Dar
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Sunday stated there should be no misconception Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who's imprisoned in US, is Pakistan's daughter and a priority for the government. Addressing the Pakistani community in New York, Dar said that efforts to resolve Aafia's case will continue until a solution is found. He said this in response to the social media reaction on his earlier statement regarding the incarcerated Pakistani neuroscientist. Addressing an event in Washington on Friday, responding to a query about imprisonment of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, Foreign Minister Dar had made comparison between incarceration of Imran and Aafia. He had said if 'due process of the law has resulted in that action [arrest of Aafia],' then the same applies to Imran. 'There's no exception.' 'Legal due process has no exceptions', Dar compares Aafia, Imran's arrests Here in New York when Dar clarified that he was asked about Imran, upon which, he said when the government raises the issue of Aafia's release with the US, it is told that the legal process does not allow for it. He said he just tried to make his point on the PTI founder's arrest as there is also a legal process in Imran's case. Dismissing the criticism he received, he said that the entire world is appreciating Pakistan's activities in the United States, yet opponents have begun criticising, following which, he said, he had to clarify. He also said, 'If someone doesn't understand English, what is my fault?' After receiving the backlash, in a statement a day ago, FM Dar had said his comments in the US about the case of Dr Aafia were being 'taken out of context'. 'Our government's stance on the issue of Dr Aafia Siddiqui's release is clear and unequivocal,' he had said in a post on X. The deputy prime minister further stated that the government had also written a letter to former US president Joe Biden on the issue of Aafia, and even sought clemency for her from Biden before he left the office. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also met her sister two days ago to assure full support, he said, adding that Pakistan has made every effort to secure the release of Aafia Siddiqui. Dar said that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government has always supported the release of Aafia, providing all diplomatic and judicial support for her release. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif also spoke to former US president Barack Obama in this regard, he said, adding that the government made immense efforts to secure Aafia's release in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and it continued to do so.
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Imran seeks bail relief from apex court
Listen to article Former prime minister Imran Khan has challenged a Lahore High Court (LHC) order rejecting his bail pleas, contending that prosecution has adopted three different stances to link him with the alleged conspiracy of May 9, 2023 rioting incidents, all of which were rejected by different courts. The PTI founder through his counsel Salman Safdar filed a petition against the LHC order in the Supreme Court. A division bench of the high court led by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi on June 24 held that Imran was allegedly involved in the rioting conspiracy in view of the testimonies of two police officials. Commenting on the order, the petition said the prosecution repeatedly failed to establish any credible nexus between Imran Khan and the alleged occurrence as narrated in the FIR. According to the petition, the prosecution in its attempts to link the petitioner with the purported acts of conspiracy and abetment resorted to three conflicting versions, each differing in terms of the alleged date, time, location, and witnesses of abetment. It said all three versions have been judicially disbelieved either by the anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) or by the LHC. It noted that during proceedings for pre-arrest bail before the ATC-III in Lahore, the prosecution belatedly claimed that a police official, Hassam Afzal, allegedly overheard a conspiracy at Zaman Park. It claimed that this event happened two days before May 9on May 7. The prosecution also claimed that another Inspector Asmat Kamal overheard the abetment at Chakri Rest Area five days prior to the occurrenceon May 4, 2023 "This version, however, was discredited due to the prosecution's failure to justify the delayed disclosure of such critical information and was consequently rejected by the learned Special Judge ATC-III in Lahore who confirmed the pre-arrest bails of the petitioner on March 1, 2024 in FIR No 366/23 and 1078/23." The petition said that after the collapse of its first narrative, the prosecution advanced a second version during the hearing of criminal revision before the LHC, contending that Imran Khan allegedly incited the acts through media statements. However, the prosecution could not produce any objectionable or incriminating material to substantiate this claim, which led the LHC to reject this version as well. Subsequently, the state sought to rely on the statements of three new witnessesincluding PTI leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyumas fresh evidence to support its third version of the conspiracy. "This final attempt too was found wanting and was expressly disbelieved by the ATC-I, Rawalpindi, which discharged the co-accused Bushra Imran through a well-reasoned order dated 20.08.2024. "The prosecution's continued failure to present coherent, consistent, and credible evidence after multiple opportunities clearly brings the case within the realm of further inquiry, making the petitioner entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898," it said. The petition stated that despite the rejection of all three prosecutorial versions by various competent forums, the LHC on June 24 declined Imran's bail while relying solely on the statements of the two police officialsInspector Asmat Kamal and ASI Hassam Afzal. "These very statements, however, had already been judicially disbelieved in earlier proceedings where both pre-arrest and post-arrest bails were granted to the petitioner," it said. It said the reliance placed by the LHC on previously discarded and delayed police statements amounted to a clear inconsistency in judicial appreciation of evidence. "These contradictory views of the courts below, especially in a case where the only allegation is of abetment and conspiracy, further reinforce that the matter warrants deeper scrutiny and falls squarely within the parameters of further inquiry," it said. According to the petition, in the order, LHC attempted to justify the delay in the statements of the witnesses by relying on an explanation furnished by the prosecutor, who claimed that the information regarding abatement was promptly communicated and brought on police record on May 4, 2023. "Shockingly, this explanation had never been offered before any judicial forum neither during the proceedings of pre-arrest or post-arrest bails before the learned ATCs, nor during the remand hearings, nor even before the LHC during the remand hearing or the Supreme Court in earlier stages. "This new explanation appears for the first time in the impugned order, without any evidentiary foundation or prosecutorial assertion to support it. "The reliance placed on such a retrospective and unsubstantiated statement of the prosecutor constitutes a manifest error on the part of the learned division bench," it added. It said the LHC is inadvertently filling the lacunae left by the prosecutiona task clearly outside the scope of judicial discretion in bail matters and undermines the fairness of the reasoning applied in the impugned order. The petition stated that Imran Khan has been maliciously implicated in the instant case as part of a calculated and politically motivated design to prolong his incarceration and subject him to harassment, and tarnish his public image. It said the circumstances demonstrate that the petitioner's arrest was never genuinely required in the cases pertaining to May 9. This was evident from the police's conspicuous inaction over a prolonged period of fourteen months in implicating and arresting the Petitioner in this case. The petition said the police knew the whereabouts of the petitionersAdiala Jailbut made no meaningful attempt to effect his arrest. "This lack of urgency or interest on the part of the investigating agency strongly supports the inference that the arrest was not necessitated by the merits of the case, but was rather a tool of oppression, thereby further justifying the grant of post-arrest bail" The petition said Imran Khan was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail on the well-established principle of consistency, as affirmed through various judgments of the apex court. "A critical and directly relevant bail order passed in favour of a co-accused, Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary, by [the SC] on May 2, 2025, during the pendency of the present bail matter before the [LHC], appears to have escaped the attention of the learned division bench. "The said order was rendered by a three-member bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, wherein post-arrest bail was granted to Mr Ejaz Chaudhary despite allegations of conspiracy concerning the events of 9th May. "In para 5 of the said judgment, this [SC] expressed concern over the prosecution's failure to justify the delay in recording the supplementary statement of the complainant "Further, in para 6, it was held that on a tentative assessment of the record, the case against the co-accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898." The petition highlighted that the ATC-III in Lahore confirmed Imran's pre-arrest bail in two May 9 cases through a detailed order on March 1, 2024, followed by the grant of post-arrest bail in four additional cases on November 8, 204. "These orders, based on similar allegations and the same prosecutorial evidence, have not been set aside by any Superior Court and have attained finality." It said Imran Khan has already been granted bail in 21 criminal cases arising out of the May 9 incidents, all of which relied on substantially identical evidence. "These consistent judicial findings strongly support his entitlement to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity and further inquiry, particularly in the face of a case fabricated at the behest of political adversaries. "Furthermore, both [the LHC] and the [ATCs] at Lahore and Rawalpindi have, in multiple proceedings, recorded observations that cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's narrative," it said.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Cancellation of bail application: IK files appeal in SC against LHC order
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan requested the Supreme Court to overturn the Lahore High Court (LHC) order to cancel his bail application in 9th May cases. The former prime minister on Saturday through Barrister Salman Safdar filed an appeal 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. PTI founder steps up criticism of 'establishment' 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 mala fide 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. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
