close
Saturday December 21, 2024

Imran not produced via video link; ECP seeks jail authorities’ response

ECP officials say all arrangements had been completed on their part

By Mumtaz Alvi
December 18, 2024
Image released by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) shows PTI founder chairman Imran Khan during his appearance at the Supreme Court on May 16, 2024. — PTI
Image released by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) shows PTI founder chairman Imran Khan during his appearance at the Supreme Court on May 16, 2024. — PTI

ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday sought an explanation from the Adiala Jail authorities for failing to produce PTI founder chairman Imran Khan via video link in a contempt case despite clear directives.

During the hearing, Imran Khan’s lawyer Faisal Chaudhry argued before a three-member ECP bench led by Sindh Member Nisar Ahmad Durrani that the jail authorities’ non-cooperation amounted to contempt of court proceedings.

The contempt case, initiated by the electoral body in August 2022, alleges that the PTI founder had committed contempt against the ECP and the chief election commissioner through his statements during various media talks and interviews.

Faisal Chaudhry informed the bench that the ECP had previously ordered Imran Khan to appear via video link.

At this point, member Sindh inquired whether arrangements for the video link had been made.

Responding to the query, ECP officials said that all arrangements had been completed on their part. However, they said that the video link had yet to be activated from the jail despite ECP staff being deputed there for this purpose. The officials accused the jail authorities of non-cooperation in this regard.

Faisal Chaudhry claimed that Imran Khan would likely not be allowed to appear via video link due to an “unannounced ban” on broadcasting his image and statements. He urged the commission to summon Imran Khan physically if the video link could not be activated.

The ECP lawyer suggested that there might have been a technical issue and that the non-appearance did not appear deliberate. He said that the accused’s absence precluded the recording of evidence.

In response, Faisal Chaudhry said, “Actions depend on intentions; let the commission drop the case and move on.”

However, member Sindh reminded the lawyer, “You are fighting the case; how can it be dropped?”

The election commission directed the jail authorities to submit a response and adjourned the hearing until January 15.