LHC orders the police to address Imran's security concern

LAHORE: The Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s security issue must be resolved in line with the law, the Lahore High Court said on Monday.
In response to the former prime minister’s request for “foolproof security and permission to mark his attendance into court’s proceedings through video link” in order to prevent any incident after he survived an assassination attempt at Wazirabad last year, Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh made the comments during the hearing.
Judge Sheikh instructed the petitioner to contact the appropriate court if she needed permission to appear on a video link.
A plea was submitted by Imran through lawyer Azhar Siddique.
When an impasse over the deployment of security officers broke out between police high-ups and PTI leadership in earlier sessions, the court ordered Siddique to satisfy himself by going to Imran’s Zaman Park home.
The PTI leadership maintained that no security had been posted, but the police informed the court that there had been an adequate deployment of police officers at Zaman Park.
They testified in court and said that 123 police officers had been stationed there, but PTI leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi disagreed with the police’s account and insisted that there was insufficient police security present.
Petition
Imran claimed in his plea that “he will yet again be targeted during his exposure in the court hearings and appearances” based on information from his reliable sources.
The former prime minister claimed that his political rivals, who were alarmed by his popularity, had turned to the idea of “eliminating him totally for the political scene as ultimate disposal” following the failure of many criminal proceedings.
He also stated that since he was ousted from the government, the present regime decided to lodge a series of bogus cases against the him and senior leadership of PTI who were also subjected to torture on the basis of serious charges like sedition and mutiny.
The main purpose of misusing all governmental apparatus was political persecution and score-settling.
The petition stated that the PTI decided to oppose the ruling Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) and declared the “haqeqi Azadi March” after being enraged by the malicious campaign started against him and senior members by registering fictitious cases across Pakistan.

The deposed premier said that the petitioner’s political rivals, who had enormous popularity, were responsible for the murder attempt’s proper planning and execution.

The appeal continued, “The petitioner intends to pursue politically motivated matters, but is physically unable to attend some sessions owing to poor accommodations.
Imran also asked for harsh action against the respondents in his petition for failing to uphold law and order on the court grounds during his legal procedures.

In addition, “no adverse action and no arrest” were requested in the petition up until he had adequate protection for court hearings and attendance.

The petitioner was seen appearing before the Lahore High Court, banking court, judicial complex, and Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) (LHC).
The petitioner never hesitated to fulfil his legal responsibilities before the assassination attempt on his life, according to the plea.
“The petitioner wants to take on politically charged matters, however owing to insufficient and incorrect arrangements, the petitioner was unable to physically attend several hearings. “The Respondents deliberately are exposing the Petitioner so that he may fall a prey to any attack that may be launched or directed towards him, despite a failed assassination attempt that left him critically wounded and despite several demands to provide proper and inadequate security,” read the petition.
In order to prevent repeat unfortunate events, he asked the court to order the relevant parties to grant him impenetrable security and authorization to mark attendance at court sessions through video connection. “The petitioner wants to take on politically charged matters, however owing to insufficient and incorrect arrangements, the petitioner was unable to physically attend several hearings. “The Respondents deliberately are exposing the Petitioner so that he may fall a prey to any attack that may be launched or directed towards him, despite a failed assassination attempt that left him critically wounded and despite several demands to provide proper and inadequate security,” read the petition.
In order to prevent repeat unfortunate events, he asked the court to order the relevant parties to grant him impenetrable security and authorization to mark attendance at court sessions through video connection.