LAHORE: Senior Punjab Minister Marryium Aurangzeb said on Wednesday that Imran Khan, the founder of Tehreek-e-Pakistan, had admitted two days ago that he was behind the call for action on May 9. “Since 2014, Imran Khan has repeatedly attacked the state and its institutions, including a notable attack on PTV. He has mocked the state institutions and it is time he faces punishment for his actions.”
Addressing the media, she alleged that in 2018, Imran Khan had manipulated the RTS system to impose himself on the country, furthering his corruption and incompetence. She accused him of engaging in digital terrorism and participating in foreign conspiracies that have damaged the country’s reputation.
Marryium also noted that in 2022, Khan had suggested to the IMF that it should not assist Pakistan, pushing the country closer to default. According to Aurangzeb, May 9 is one of the darkest days in our history. Innocent people were misled into serving the malicious goals of these disruptive elements.
She emphasized that the PMLN has always advocated for reconciliation politics and stressed that the safety of people’s lives and property is paramount. No one will be allowed to hold institutions hostage for their agendas. On March 14, 2023, when the police went to Imran Khan with a warrant, they were met with petrol bombs and stones, and conspiratorial meetings were reportedly held via Zoom.
Aurangzeb said that Khan used social media to incite people against the state under the guise of a political party. She called for his punishment, asserting that he does not understand democratic, political or terrorist party definitions.
Aurangzeb criticised Khan for his role in creating a crisis and damaging public properties, including the desecration of the mosque at the Jinnah House. She denounced these actions as crimes, not revolution, and emphasized that he should not receive any leniency. Khan’s activities in digital terrorism, including spreading fake news through fake accounts, were also condemned. Aurangzeb called for an end to legal favouritism, stressing that the supremacy of the law must be equal for everyone.
