Home Featured Aleema files contempt plea against Adiala jail superintendent after repeatedly being denied meeting with Imran

Aleema files contempt plea against Adiala jail superintendent after repeatedly being denied meeting with Imran

6 min read
0
0
2

ISLAMABAD: Aleema Khan, the sister of PTI founder Imran Khan, has filed a contempt of court petition against the Adiala jail superintendent and others over their failure to comply with an earlier Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that reinstated a twice-a-week meeting schedule for the incarcerated former premier.

The petition was filed after Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, along with several other PTI members, staged an overnight sit-in outside Adiala jail in Rawalpindi, where Imran has been imprisoned since 2023. The sit-in was staged as CM Afridi was denied a meeting with Imran for the eighth time on Thursday.

Previously, Imran’s sisters, including Aleema, had also staged sit-ins outside the prison in Rawalpindi on multiple occasions after they were barred from meeting the former premier.

The PTI ended its latest sit-in on Friday morning, with the KP CM announcing that they would be approaching the IHC, where Aleema has now filed a contempt plea.

Apart from Adiala Jail Superintendent Abdul Ghafoor Anjum, Saddar Beroni Station House Office Raja Aizaz Azeem, Federal Interior Secretary Capt (retd) Muhammad Khurram Agha and Punjab Home Department Secretary Noorul Amin have been named as respondents in the plea.

The plea, a copy of which is available with Dawn, stated that Aleema had “remained deeply concerned about the well-being, legal rights, and humane treatment of her brother during his ongoing incarceration”.

The petition referred to the IHC’s March 24 order, in which the court had reinstated the twice-a-week meeting schedule for Imran. It said Aleema sought the initiation of contempt of court proceedings “on account of the wilful non-implementation of the orders passed by this honourable court, particularly with respect to the authorities’ failure to allow” her meetings with Imran, in line with the court’s directives in March.

It further stated that “due to the persistent non-cooperation” of the Adiala jail superintendent and “ongoing political victimisation”, Imran and others were “constrained” to file writ petitions before the IHC, seeking the enforcement of visitation rights.

“However, despite the clear and unequivocal directions of this honourable court, the respondents have failed to comply and have repeatedly denied access to the legal counsel, family members, and associates” of Imran on multiple occasions, it added.

The plea further recalled that in line with previous court orders, the respondents had devised on March 28, 2024 standard operating procedures (SOPs) for meeting Imran. According to those SOPs, Tuesdays and Thursdays were “designated for interviews with Imran by his family/ lawyers and friends, respectively”.

Despite directions for allowing visits to Imran on Tuesdays and Thursdays, “the respondents did not comply with or implement the same”, the plea said.

It recalled that the Adiala Jail superintendent had also submitted an undertaking to the IHC on November 8, 2024 that Imran’s friends would be allowed to meet him on Tuesday the following week and his family and lawyers would be permitted to meet him on Thursday, according to the list provided by the ex-premier.

But when several PTI leaders went to Adiala Jail to meet Imran on November 11, 2024, the superintendent “caused them to wait for several hours and thereafter unlawfully detained them in police custody”.

The plea alleged that the respondents were “wilfully flouting” the court orders and the undertaking submitted to it, and “conducted themselves to ridicule the authority” of the IHC.

It said their actions were an “apparent activity of serious contempt of this honourable court, for which they are liable to be dealt with under criminal proceedings”.

The plea sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying with the IHC’s March 24 order and urged the court to punish them in accordance with the law “to meet the ends of justice”.

It also sought the court’s directives for the respondents to comply with its March 24 order.