IHC seeks replies on Imran’s allegations of meddling by agencies in prison affairs
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday sought replies from the superintendent of Adiala Jail, Punjab home secretary and secretary of defence on a petition filed by former prime minister Imran Khan against meddling of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the jail administration.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard the petition and, after a preliminary hearing, issued notices to the three government officials. The hearing was adjourned until next week.
In his petition filed through his counsel Shoaib Shaheen, Mr Khan said that a major and a colonel of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) virtually control the Adiala Jail.
The petition said that despite IHC’s clear orders, the superintendent of Adiala Jail did not allow him to consult with the PTI leadership as well as lawyers.
Ex-PM’s petition claimed a major and colonel are ‘virtually controlling’ Adiala Jail
He cited the case recently decided by the IHC in which the court while referring to Rule 265 of the jail manual had observed that the inmate is entitled writing letters and interviews twice a week.
“It is clarified that this order is passed to remind, reiterate and preserve the values and traditions of our legal system and it has little to do with the identity of the petitioner alone,” the petition stated.
“These values and traditions must apply across the board irrespective of who the petitioner is, but, it goes without saying, they acquire greater prominence when the prisoner in question happens to be not only a political leader with substantial following but also the erstwhile holder of the highest executive office of the nation,” it said.
It said that the IHC has time and again directed the superintendent of Adiala Jail to “revise the standard operating procedures that two days in a week are insufficient for a meeting purpose”.
The petition pointed out that the Supreme Court while hearing the appeal against amendments to National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) laws has proposed holding dialogues and admitted the fact that the PTI and the petitioner, having a greater support in public, is required to perform their significant role in reducing miseries of the public at large.
However, the petition said, “this whole process has been dealt with by a colonel and a major of ISI who create interference and indulgence in the civil administration due to having mala fide intention against the petitioner and due to their interference the petitioner is unable to consult with party leadership and his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, are not protected.”
Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2024