ISLAMABAD: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel on Thursday questioned the maintainability of a petition filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the PTI’s planned protest in the federal capital on Sept 27.
The PTI has announced a nationwide protest on Sept 27 to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.
A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, has challenged the planned move on the grounds that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital. A larger bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, is hearing the case.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif are also a part of the bench.
During the hearing on Friday, KP Advocate General Utmankhel argued that an appropriate legal remedy was available to the petitioner before the Islamabad chief commissioner and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under Article 199 of the Constitution — under which a high court may take up a matter if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law — could not be invoked in the present circumstances.
He also pointed out that the petition was moved against a political party that had not been impleaded as a respondent. He questioned why the PTI had not been made a party to the petition if the proceedings concerned its planned protest, while CJ Dogar asked whether the PTI was actually planning to undertake the long march.
The chief justice further asked the advocate general if he agreed with statements made by KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi regarding the planned long march. The chief justice, however, did not specifically refer to any particular remarks by the KP CM.
Utmankhel replied that the office of the advocate general was not concerned with the chief minister’s political narrative but only with his official responsibilities.
On the court’s directive, he also read out the oath administered to the KP CM and argued that he had not violated his oath through any of his statements.
Referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, the chief justice asked whether the chief minister was constitutionally bound to remain loyal to the state.
“CM Afridi is very much loyal to the state,” AG Utmankhel replied.
He reiterated that political statements by the chief minister did not fall within the domain of the advocate general’s office, suggesting that the PTI and the chief minister should be impleaded as parties to the petition.
The KP chief secretary was then called to explain the provincial government’s position regarding the planned protest.
He adopted a stance similar to that of the advocate general, saying political statements were dealt with at the party level.
Responding to questions about any instructions having been issued by the chief minister to government officials in connection with the long march, the chief secretary assured the court that KP government officials would not be allowed to act beyond their constitutional limits.
CJ Dogar then recalled that the court had been told the planned march intended to strengthen the judiciary — seemingly a reference to the KP AG’s remarks from Thursday’s hearing — and pointed out that previously, the PTI had not complied with directions issued by the courts regarding its protest marches.
Justice Khan asked whether the chief minister could announce or support a long march and sit-in before formal approval had been granted for the protest.
At that, Utmankhel replied that such processions and marches were organised by political parties and citizens.
He referred to a statement by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, saying she was more concerned about developments in KP than in India. This was apparently a reference to Maryam’s statement from last week, when she said Punjab faced a greater security threat from “neighbouring provinces than from neighbouring countries”.
Utmankhel also cited a statement by Adviser to the Prime Minister on Political Affairs Rana Sanaullah, recalling that the PML-N had remarked that the court would rule against the long march.
At that, the chief justice wondered how Utmankhel had learnt of the statements aired on television when he had said during Thursday’s hearing that he did not watch television programmes.
The KP AG replied that, after the court had referred to statements reported by the media during the previous hearing, he watched television programmes throughout the night.
He further maintained that the PTI’s planned sit-in was aimed at promoting the rule of law, supremacy of the Constitution and strengthening of the judiciary.
To that, the chief justice replied: “We also want this, but you need not to come to Islamabad for this; it (protest) can be held in the provinces.”
But Utmankhel argued that Islamabad belonged to all the provinces and that the federal capital could “not be confined to its residents”. He said a peaceful long march should not be stopped.
He further questioned whether residents who joined the protest would also be expelled from the federal capital.
The advocate general clarified that he was appearing before the court to provide legal assistance and was not representing a political party.
He also questioned whether citizens could not raise concerns over the implementation of court directions regarding meetings with Imran.
The chief justice observed that the court could not function under pressure and was performing its responsibilities according to established legal criteria.
The KP AG then requested the court to incorporate his arguments in the order sheet.
Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zaffarullah Khan, who also appeared before the court on Friday, argued that the IHC could issue directions concerning an action originating outside its territorial jurisdiction if that action had the potential to affect the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
He said he was a staunch supporter of civil liberties but said that protesters in previous demonstrations had allegedly used weapons, resulting in casualties among police personnel.
Responding to the KP advocate general’s reference to statements by the Punjab chief minister, Zaffarullah said the advocate general had nothing to do with the Punjab chief minister’s political statements, adding that she was not a party to the petition and her remarks had been cited out of context.
Sindh Advocate General Jawad Dero said the matter did not directly concern the Sindh government, but assured the court of the implementation of any directives.
Balochistan Advocate General Adnan Basharat argued that large-scale protests could disrupt activities at educational institutions, hospitals, roads and highways. He also read excerpts from a 2019 Supreme Court judgement highlighting the adverse impacts of mass processions.
He requested the court to declare that no political party, provincial government or political leadership could create hurdles in the smooth functioning of daily life.
After hearing the arguments, the court adjourned further hearing until September 14 (Monday).
