ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan on Monday submitted his reply in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the contempt of court case. The ECP is hearing a contempt of court petition against Imran Khan, filed by Akbar S Babar, a dissident PTI founding member.
After receiving Imran Khan’s reply submitted through his counsel Babar Awan, the ECP in its short order said that it would review the reply on September 27 and then announce its verdict.
Imran Khan’s written reply states that his lawyer Saqlain Haider had submitted an apology in the ECP on his behalf and that the PTI chief had not objected or opposed the apology. “After the submission of the unconditional written apology, the matter should have been settled,” the reply said. Babar Awan also submitted the order of Islamabad High Court (IHC), suspending the bailable arrest warrants issued by the ECP against Imran Khan.
He told the ECP that the IHC would soon hear a petition on the ECP’s powers regarding the contempt of court proceedings.
Meanwhile, the petitioner Akbar S Babar filed another application against the PTI chief, contending that Khan recently once again criticised the ECP so another contempt of court proceedings should be initiated against him.
In response to the application, the ECP directed Imran Khan to submit a reply to the application on September 27.
The petitioner contended that the PTI chief, in a reply to the commission in another case regarding party funding, used derogatory language which tantamount to the contempt of court. Subsequently, Khan’s counsel Saqlain Haider had submitted an unconditional apology. However, the PTI chairman in a TV interview had reportedly said that his counsel tendered an apology in his personal capacity and that Khan himself had not apologised. On the basis of the interview, the ECP was once again moved to proceed against Imran Khan. Imran Khan has recently said that he would not support the Election Bill 2017 passed by the Senate on Saturday or any such legislation even if he was disqualified under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution. staff report
