NL Times (Netherlands)
중도 성향
산업
Dutch shipbuilder IHC eyes Royal Navy shipbuilding contacts, challenging Damen
Dutch shipbuilder IHC is competing for contracts to build vessels for the Royal Netherlands Navy, according to the
"IHC" · 총 19건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.3
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 87,727건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.3(균형)입니다. 긍정 4,405건(5.0%)·중립 81,270건(92.6%)·부정 2,052건(2.3%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 14.9(중도 균형)입니다.
Dutch shipbuilder IHC is competing for contracts to build vessels for the Royal Netherlands Navy, according to the
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has set aside the government’s decision to deny foreign postings to several selected Trade and Investment Officers, ruling that executive authorities cannot deprive individuals of accrued rights on the basis of undisclosed intelligence reports that are neither shared with the affected persons nor produced before the court. In a detailed 26-page judgement, Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas declared unlawful the Ministry of Commerce’s decision to withhold the appointments of successful candidates solely on the basis of adverse assessments attributed to the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The petitioners were represented by advocates Kashif Ali Malik, Barrister M. Saad Buttar, and Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, who argued that the government could not reverse a completed merit-based selection process through secret vetting reports that were never disclosed to the candidates. They maintained that the petitioners had acquired vested rights after obtaining approval from the competent authority and completing all mandatory requirements for foreign postings. Selected candidates had completed tests, interviews, training, pre-departure formalities The dispute arose from the recruitment process for Trade and Investment Officers for Pakistan’s trade missions abroad, initiated in December 2024. According to the record, the candidates successfully cleared written examinations, psychometric assessments, and interviews. They received approval from the prime minister, completed mandatory training, and fulfilled all pre-departure formalities. Despite completing every stage of the process, several officers were denied final appointment letters after being declared “not suitable for posting abroad” by a special vetting agency. The court observed that the commerce ministry itself was unaware of the reasons behind the adverse recommendations and had acted merely on a bare conclusion communicated by the IB. Published in Dawn, June 6th, 2026
ISLAMABAD: More than five years after the passage of a landmark child protection law, key provisions of the Zainab Alert, Response and Recovery Act, 2020 — including the agency meant to issue rapid alerts for missing children — remain unimplemented, the Islamabad High Court was told on Thursday. During the hearing of a writ petition filed by Sanila Khurram against the Federation of Pakistan and others, the court took notice of data submitted by the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) administration, according to which 562 criminal cases relating to missing children and child abuse were registered in the federal capital between 2022 and 2025. The court noted that the Zainab Alert Act was enacted to protect children’s rights, including the right to life and protection from violence, abuse, neglect, abduction and exploitation, in line with Pakistan’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir observed that a careful reading of the preamble of the act showed the law’s clear intent, yet its enforcement remained elusive. The Act envisages the establishment of the Zainab Alert, Response and Recovery Agency under Section 3, with its powers and functions enumerated in Section 5. The court directed the Ministry of Human Rights to submit a comprehensive report addressing at least 11 specific areas of concern. These include whether the agency has been established; what standard operating procedures or rules exist for issuing alerts; what technological framework has been developed for the Zainab Alert Act database; whether real-time information is being shared by law enforcement agencies; what penal action has been taken against delinquent officials under Section 9; and whether rules have been framed under Section 18 of the Act. Sources indicated that the rules have still not been notified. The court also sought details on legal aid mechanisms for victims, the constitution of the ICT Child Protection Advisory Board and the integration of the Zainab Alert Act database with the ICT Police. The court demanded a centralised record of cases tried under the act, including the number of cases referred for prosecution, pending trial and concluded, as well as the average time taken for trial, particularly whether trials concluded within the period stipulated under Section 15 of the Act. The Ministry of Human Rights was directed to send an officer well conversant with the facts, while the director general of the authority — if such an authority exists in operation — was ordered to appear in person before the court. The ICT Police was also directed to submit its response. Justice Tahir adjourned the case until July 1, 2026. Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2026
ISLAMABAD: PTI leaders on Thursday arrived at Adiala jail hoping to meet party founder Imran Khan but were once again denied permission to meet the former prime minister. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has allowed the incarcerated ex-premier to have twice-a-week meetings — on Tuesdays and Thursdays — with his family, lawyers and other associates. Despite the order, Imran has been restricted from meeting visitors for several months. A day earlier, the PTI sent a list of six leaders to Adiala jail authorities, requesting that they arrange a meeting with the incarcerated former premier. The list included Seemabia Tahir, Usman Jora, Asad Abbas, Malik Yasir Patwali, Malik Azeem and Rohail Anjum. Patwali, while speaking to Dawn, said that all the leaders arrived at the prison well before 2pm. “We informed the prison administration that we had been nominated for the meeting, as per the directions of the IHC, but we were told that a message was being sent for approval,” he said. “Officials also recorded our video footage and asked us to wait. We waited there until 4pm, which was the cutoff time for the meeting, but we were not allowed to meet Khan sahib,” he added. Patwali said he would work with lawyers to file a contempt petition. Since his name was on the list, he said he was unable to file the petition himself. Replying to a question, Patwali said the government should understand that the PTI would form the government in the future, adding: “So the government should be ready to face the brunt.” Seemabia, while speaking to Dawn, said that police did not allow PTI leaders to approach Adiala jail and instead asked them to park their vehicles on the side of the road. “We recorded our protest and then returned. We demand that Imran Khan be admitted to Shifa International Hospital for medical treatment,” she said. Pre-Poll Rigging Separately, PTI Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram condemned the government for unleashing “fascism” ahead of the elections in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). “Central PTI leaders are being subjected to name-based profiling, forced movement restrictions, and NOC (no-objection certificate) denials, while the Election Commission, administration and police are colluding to pressure candidates into abandoning the party,” he claimed. He alleged that the “same discriminatory tactics” were being used in AJK to sideline PTI, warning that such provocative actions in sensitive areas risk creating lasting divisions and that the party was poised to win a majority. “The abrupt and indefinite delay in presenting the federal budget is a humiliating confession of economic bankruptcy and the complete surrender of national sovereignty to the IMF, which now micro-manages every tax, revenue target and utility tariff,” Akram said. “The so-called differences between PPP and PML-N over provincial funds and agricultural taxes are a staged drama to fool the people while both parties collude in economic destruction,” he alleged. Imran — imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023, for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts — is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in a £190 million corruption case, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. Earlier this week, Imran’s sister Aleema Khan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi went to the prison for a meeting with the PTI founder, but were once again denied a meeting with Imran. Speaking to the media outside the prison, Aleema said it was their constitutional right to meet Imran. She vowed to continue visiting Adiala, saying it was the only way to exert pressure on the “powers that be”.
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday ruled that directions to the high courts for expeditious decisions in pending matters by superior courts should be issued sparingly and couched in appropriate words. The judgement comes against the backdrop of a recent petition by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) before the Supreme Court challenging its May 12, 2026 direction to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for deciding in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case. The NCCIA had also requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discrimination”. According to a three-page order by Justice Aamer Farooq, issued in deciding a dispute between the Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco) and Master Tiles and Ceramics Industries Ltd, it was held that high courts have their independent roster and case management schemes along with a policy for fixation of cases. It said that any order or direction, which superimposes case fixation, amounts to intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of high court. The petitioner, Gepco, had challenged the July 10, 2025 order of the IHC before FCC, contending that the Attorney General Office was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner in the proceedings before IHC, as the power company was an independent entity to be represented in the court of law by the counsel of its own choice. On the other hand, Master Tiles and Ceramics, the respondents, had argued that it was not their fault that the consent was given by the Attorney General Office; however, it submitted that if the FCC was inclined to remit the matter back to the IHC, an appropriate direction for expeditious disposal of the case should also be made. Justice Farooq, who headed the two-judge FCC bench along with Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, however, set aside the IHC order with directions that the writ petitions filed by Master Tiles will be deemed to be pending before the IHC. It is expected that the case shall be taken up at the earliest, keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter, the FCC said. In the judgement, Justice Farooq held that the scheme of judicature as provided in the Constitution suggested that there were five independent high courts in the country created under the Constitution. “The high court, so created, is an independent constitutional court and is not subordinate to either the SC or FCC; however, in the scheme of arrangement, district judiciary and such other courts are subordinate to the respective high court as per Article 203 of the Constitution,” it said. All decisions of the high court are challengeable before the SC or the FCC, which does not make the referred court subordinate in any manner, he observed. Justice Farooq emphasised that adding any order or direction, which superimposes such policy or case fixation, amounts to intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of such courts. Undoubtedly, at times, exigency or emergency of the lis demands that on remission, the matter be heard by the respective high court at an early date, but such observations must be couched in appropriate words and should not be in a way to affect independence of the high court, observed Justice Farooq. Even otherwise, generally directions issued are administrative in nature rather than judicial, where even a high court issues directions to the trial courts/subordinate courts, the same are administrative in nature and do not warrant any consequence but are recommendatory, asking the courts to take up the matter in priority keeping in view the urgent nature of the case/lis, Justice Farooq explained. Justice Farooq observed that the FCC agreed that the assistant attorney general, in the facts and circumstances, was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner company regarding disposal of the writ petition pending before the IHC. The order stated that requests for the issuance of directions to the high courts for early disposal of cases were being made with considerable frequency, and such orders were passed by the superior courts issuing directions for early decisions.
ISLAMABAD: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi on Wednesday filed a petition with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking permission to meet former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan ahead of the provincial budget for the next fiscal year. Speaking to reporters at the IHC alongside KP Finance Adviser Muzammil Aslam, the chief minister said a meeting with the PTI founder was essential as the provincial budget had been prepared and required his final approval. He maintained that the people of KP had given their mandate to the PTI founder, adding that consultation with him on the budget was necessary. CM Afridi said the province was being deprived of its due share of resources and alleged that KP was being punished for supporting the PTI founder. He criticised the federal government’s development allocations, claiming the province had been ignored in the previous federal budget and development programme. The chief minister also expressed concern over the country’s economic situation, saying priority should be given to the economy and the welfare of poor citizens. He alleged that terrorism had seen a rise in KP and accused the federal government of treating the province unfairly. He announced that PTI would stage a protest outside Parliament during the budget session, which is expected to be held on June 10, and reiterated that, as chief minister, he was authorised to make decisions on behalf of the provincial government. Aslam told reporters that in the last meeting with the PTI founder last year, he had consulted him on budget matters. Aslam said the PTI founder had instructed that he be consulted before every budget is prepared. However, he said no meeting had taken place before the current budget exercise despite the importance of such consultations. He said KP had received only a small allocation from the federal government’s development programme and claimed that only six provincial projects had been included in the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP). He argued that a meeting with the PTI founder was necessary for budget-related consultations and stressed that the proposed meeting would be non-political. Imran has been in jail since August 2023. He has been serving a 14-year sentence in the £190 million corruption case and a 17-year sentence in the Toshakhana-2 case at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail. The PTI regularly stages sit-ins outside Adiala jail on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the court-mandated days for meetings with Imran, which have remained suspended in recent months. A day earlier, authorities had kept CM Afridi and Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khan from meeting the incarcerated former prime minister in Adiala jail yet again.
김부겸 더불어민주당 대구시장 후보 측이 '추사모 단톡방'에 "일(1)찍은 죽어야 한다" 등 김 후보를 향한 비방이 오가고 있다는 보도를 두고 "저희들은 2번 찍는 시민들이 '죽어야 한다'고 생각하지 않는다"고 대응했다. 앞서 는 추경호 국민의힘 대구시장 후보도 들어가 있는 해당 카카오톡 채팅방을 입수해 가짜뉴스·부정선고 음모론 등이 횡행하고 있다고 보도했다. (관련기사 : [단독] 추경호 있는 '추사모' 단톡방 입수... "일(1)찍은 죽어야" "간첩 김부겸" https://omn.kr/2ihcb) 김 후보 캠프 백수범 대변인은 2일 오후 논평을 통해 "저희를 적대하는 시민들도 존중한다.민주주의 체제에서 그 선택들도 다 존중받아야 한다"라며 "마지막까지 대구를 살리기 위해 한 분이라도 더 설득해보겠다"라고 밝혔다. 이어 "저희는 그저 대구의 주인이신 대구시민들께 대구를 함께 살려보자고 호소할 뿐"이라며 "그래서 김 후보는 몇 주 전 지지자 분들께 대구시민들을 비난하지 말자고 호소하기도 했다"라고 강조했다. 백 대변인은 추 후보 측이 에 '시민사회를 통제할 수 없다' 취지로 설명한 것을 두고도 "당연히 그 입장처럼 시민사회는 통제 대상이 아니다"라며 "다만 대변하거나 대변할 수 없다면 설득하려고 노력하는 것이 정치의 역할이고 본령"이라고 지적했다. 전체 내용보기
추경호 국민의힘 대구시장 후보 측이 '추사모 단톡방의 가짜뉴스·부정선거 음모론 유포' 보도에 지지자들의 자제를 요청했다. 앞서 는 추 후보도 들어가 있는 해당 카카오톡 채팅방 내용을 입수해 보도했다(관련기사 : [단독] 추경호 있는 '추사모' 단톡방 입수... "일(1)찍은 죽어야" "간첩 김부겸" https://omn.kr/2ihcb). 추 후보 캠프는 보도 직후인 2일 오전 지지자들에게 보내는 알림을 캠프를 취재하는 기자들에게도 전달했다. 캠프는 이 알림을 통해 "선거 막바지일수록 더욱 품격 있는 모습이 필요하다"라며 "대구를 사랑하는 마음, 대구 경제를 살리고자 하는 열정을 성숙하고 책임 있는 방식으로 표현해주시길 부탁드린다"라고 밝혔다. 이어 "끝까지 대구경제와 대구의 미래를 이야기하는 품격 있는 선거운동에 함께해주실 것을 당부드린다"라고 덧붙였다. 가 입수한 '추사모 단톡방'에는 "일(1)찍이 죽어야 이(2) 나라가 산다", "간첩 김부겸에게 대구까지 넘긴다면 대한민국은 중국의 개가 될 것" 등 김부겸 더불어민주당 후보를 향한 비방과 부정선거 음모론을 담은 메시지가 조직적으로 오가고 있었다. 특히 이 채팅방에는 추 후보를 비롯한 장동혁 대표, 윤상현·박수영 의원, 이철우 경북도지사 등 여러 국민의힘 관계자가 포함돼 있었다. 전체 내용보기
Human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari with her husband and fellow lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha , during a court hearing in Islamabad, on December 5, 2025. — AFPNCCIA argues SC cannot intervene in pending high court matters.Petition claims suspension decisions rest solely with relevant HC.IHC...
ISLAMABAD: The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court its May 12 order that required the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case. Meanwhile, despite the SC’s May 26 deadline having passed already, the IHC today, on the request of the prosecution, adjourned the hearing of Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking suspension of their sentences. The husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case on January 24, with subsequent petitions being filed against their conviction in early February. On May 12, more than three months after the pleas were filed, the SC gave the IHC two weeks to decide on the lawyer couple’s petitions. On Monday, the NCCIA requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discriminatory treatment towards the couple merely on account of being members of the Bar”. The petition claimed that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been pointed out by the couple in their earlier plea that warranted an intervention by the SC in a pending matter before the IHC. In December 2025, Imaan and her husband had moved the SC to set aside IHC’s decision that denied interim relief in the controversial social media post case. They had argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to them to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution. Now, the NCCIA has contended that the couple had invoked the jurisdiction of the SC under Article 185(3) of the Constitution under the pretext of an “order” in which IHC had issued notices to the respondents with an observation that the contentions raised need consideration. “The issuance of ‘notice’ does not fall in the ambit of Article 185(3) as the appeal can only lie to the Supreme Court from a ‘judgment’, ‘decree’, ‘order’ or ‘sentence of a high court. Hence their appeal was not maintainable,” the petition argued. NCCIA underscored SC’s consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts on the initial/interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances. But the couple had approached the SC with the grievance that their applications for early hearing were not fixed or heard. Normally, the superior courts avoid intervention in such matters unless there is a situation where grave illegality is committed, or to foster justice or the matter is of an urgent nature, the petition argued. Every court has its own mechanism for dispensation of justice and also has an independent system to entertain and fix the cases according to the “urgency” pointed out by the applicant. But here, the NCCIA contended, the couple seemed not interested in the fixation of their criminal appeals; rather, they were insistent on getting a decision on their application filed under Section 426 of the CrPC. For that purpose, they filed two applications for early hearing, a fact which was evident from their petition filed before the SC. The couple, the petition claimed, had pleaded violation of Section 353 of the CrPC by the trial court and were playing victim and innocent before the SC by allegedly making their own story to politicise the issue and pressurise the courts, when the proceedings of the trial court belie their assertions. The NCCIA argued that the main grievance of the couple before the SC was that they had been denied a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as their two applications for early hearing of applications for suspension of sentence were not fixed. But the SC’s binding order to the IHC seemed to give “special treatment” to Imaan and Hadi for being members of the Bar, the petition feared. The same treatment was accorded to them by the trial court when they remained hostile and derogatory, as the trial court showed “restraint” from passing any adverse order against them, the NCCIA asserted. It further said that before passing any direction to the IHC, the SC should have called for a report of pending appeals and applications for the suspension of the sentences before the high court so that principles of fairness, equality and impartiality were maintained and to avoid an impression of extraordinary treatment to the petitioners. The NCCIA highlighted that the lawyers had also filed petitions against the IHC chief justice alleging harassment, and Imaan’s mother, after the SC hearing, had categorically said that by issuing the May 12 order, the SC had “accepted” the IHC’s bias against her daughter. “Her statement is clearly creating doubts on the independence of judiciary,” the petition said. IHC hearing Earlier in the day, IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up Imaan and Hadi’s pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members. The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad, noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired. Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the SC’s May 12 order. Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court. Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas. The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4. At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the SC order. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgment be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC. On May 12, the SC asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences. Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed. Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the NCCIA on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosecutors’ absence.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday adjourned the hearing of sentence suspension petitions filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case as the Supreme Court directive to decide the pleas by May 26 remained unfulfilled. The Supreme Court directive was issued on May 12, more than three months after the husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case. They had subsequently filed petitions against their conviction in early February. IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up those pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members. The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad,noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired. Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the Supreme Court’s order, which required the IHC to decide the sentence suspension applications within two weeks from May 12. Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court. Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas. The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4. At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the Supreme Court order. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgement be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC. On May 12, the Supreme Court asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences. Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed. Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the Supreme Court order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But, the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosectors’ absence.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has fixed June 1 for hearing the sentence suspension applications filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the social media posts case. As per a one-page written order issued by IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, following last week’s hearing, a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s May 12 order had been submitted. It should be noted that the SC had directed the IHC on May 12 to decide within two weeks on Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking the suspension of their sentence. On May 20, the IHC had issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions. Earlier this month, the judge had raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1, while the IHC’s registrar office also issued the cause list for next week’s hearing. The case Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development. The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca. In December 2025, the couple moved the SC to overturn the IHC’s decision refusing interim relief in the case. The appeal was filed against a December 1 IHC order that denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause. In her appeal, Imaan argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution. On May 11, their counsel submitted additional documents to the SC in relevance to the appeal, consisting of the charge sheets of different dates against the petitioners, their statements before the trial court and the orders issued by the court. The petitioners pleaded before the SC to allow bringing these documents on record in the interest of justice since they were “essential and relevant for adjudication of the present case”. They explained that the said documents were not available at the time of filing the appeal, since the paper books were not prepared by the office of the IHC; the trial record was obtained after filing the appeals. On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction. Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple. And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence. The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgement be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.
ISLAMABAD: Justice Babar Sattar, who was transferred from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to the Peshawar High Court (PHC) last month, has decided to continue residing in the federal capital during his tenure at the provincial high court. Sources in the IHC told Dawn that Justice Sattar has formally conveyed to the court administration that he intends to retain his official residence in Islamabad’s F-6 sector. According to sources, the judge has written to the IHC administration seeking retention of the accommodation allotted to him. A senior IHC official explained that under the Presidential Order 1997, a judge is entitled to retain one official residence. Since Justice Sattar is not seeking separate official accommodation in Peshawar, he is eligible to keep the Islamabad residence, the official said. The judge had been transferred to Peshawar High Court Sources added that Justice Sattar may stay at the official rest house of the PHC during his service there. Under the applicable rules, a judge residing in a rest house can continue retaining an officially allotted residence elsewhere. The issue of judicial accommodation has remained contentious due to the absence of a dedicated housing colony for IHC judges. Consequently, the IHC administration has been seeking Category-I residences from the Estate Office for judges posted to the federal capital. Category-I houses are generally earmarked for BS-22 officers, although BS-21 officers may also retain such accommodation. Court officials said the IHC administration had initially faced difficulties in obtaining official residences for serving judges because of the limited availability of Category-I houses. However, the situation improved following a landmark judgement authored by Justice Sattar in 2023 regarding judicial housing entitlements. In that judgement, delivered while dismissing a petition filed by Sumera Nazir Siddiqui, a member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, against cancellation of her government residence, Justice Sattar held that judges were entitled to official accommodation from the date of appointment and throughout their service. He ruled that judges’ entitlement flowed from the Presidential Order rather than the general accommodation rules applicable to federal government servants. Justice Sattar observed in the judgement that five out of eight serving IHC judges had already been provided official residences, while the remaining judges were awaiting allotment of Category-I houses. He remarked that such disparity “impinges on the independence of the judiciary”. The judgement further directed the housing ministry to remove judges’ names from the Estate Office’s general allotment list to avoid any perception that judges were dependent on the pool reserved for federal government servants. Justice Sattar had also ordered the government to expedite the construction of official residences for IHC judges on a six-acre plot allotted by the Capital Development Authority and directed preparation of a PC-I for allocation of funds for the project. Sources recalled that former IHC chief justice Mohammad Anwar Khan Kasi had retained residences in both Islamabad and Quetta during his tenure, using one of the houses for what officials described as “work from home”. Published in Dawn, May 27th, 2026
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday restrained the Capital Development Authority (CDA) from dispossessing the residents of One Constitution Avenue and issued a stay order on intra-court appeals filed against the dismissal of their writ petitions. A division bench comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas heard the appeals filed by the residents of One Constitution Avenue. During the proceedings, the court directed the CDA not to take any coercive action against the occupants till the next hearing. The residents’ counsel, Sardar Taimur Aslam, said, “We want the CDA board to hear us and give us an opportunity to prove our innocence.” Justice Khan inquired about the process of sub-leasing and whether it was documented with an institution or done informally. Senior lawyer Ali Raza, another counsel representing the residents, contended that the CDA had leased out the land and subleases were executed while the original lease was intact. He argued that the CDA had received a partial payment, which was sufficient to cover the space where the residential towers were built. Appearing on behalf of the CDA, counsel Kashif Ali Malik told the court that the authority was the custodian of the land and the SC’s 2019 order, in which it directed the builder to pay Rs17bn, was public. “Why did people invest in risky properties?” he asked. Justice Minhas observed that the CDA had issued letters to the builder and was aware of the residents’ occupancy. Justice Khan asked whether the CDA had issued a completion certificate for the project. Malik replied that no completion certificate had been issued to date and that residents possessed no document issued by the CDA. Justice Minhas noted that in the National Police Foundation case, the entire housing scheme was declared illegal, yet the residents were not dispossessed. The court adjourned the hearing while issuing the stay order. The dispute relates to a 2005 lease agreement between the CDA and BNP for the development of a five-star hotel project, which was later converted into the luxury residential and commercial complex known as One Constitution Avenue, located in a prime area of Islamabad. The lease had initially been terminated in 2016 but was restored by the Supreme Court in 2019, subject to stringent financial conditions, including payment of Rs17.5 billion in instalments backed by bank guarantees. Last month, the IHC upheld the CDA’s decision to cancel the building’s lease due to the company behind the project defaulting on the payments, which led to uproar on social media as residents alleged officials broke down their doors to serve them eviction notices. Subsequently, the Bank of Punjab (BoP) and several flat owners separately filed intra-court appeals before IHC, challenging the single bench verdict, which had also ruled that third-party buyers would “sink or sail” with the original lessee. On Saturday, intriguing new facts surfaced in the court record ahead of the hearing, including a 2012 interim arbitration award issued by incumbent Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif and a former chamber president to resolve disputes between the two main partners. The arbitration award, dated September 13, 2012, was issued by Khawaja Asif and Mian Hamid Javed, former president of the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The agreement was meant to settle differences between Abdul Hafeez Sheikh of M BNP and Nadeem Zia Pirzada of M/s Paragon regarding the five-star hotel project. A stunning list of buyers also emerged in the record, revealing that 240 flats in the disputed project were allotted to the who’s who of Pakistan’s power elite. According to documents placed before the court, the buyers included a former acting president of Pakistan (who served two non-consecutive terms), a former Senate chairman, a former prime minister, two former chief justices of Pakistan, a former chief justice of the Lahore High Court, and a former defence minister, among other notable ex-public office holders.
ISLAMABAD: The PTI confirmed on Sunday that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and party chairperson Barrister Gohar Ali Khan had held a meeting with Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi in previous days. PTI Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram told Dawn that the meeting was held to discuss the issue of terrorism in KP, especially in Bannu, where two police personnel and as many civilians were martyred while 25 terrorists were killed in a fierce clash between law enforcers, a peace committee and militants on Saturday. The interior minister “mostly discussed how terrorism can be controlled”, he said. He shared these details after Dawn approached him following an X post by Imran’s sister, Aleema Khan. “Barrister Gohar and Sohail Afridi met Mohsin Naqvi. Our family had no knowledge of this meeting, and neither was any family member present,” she said, addressing another post that said she was also part of the meeting. Speaking to Dawn, Akram also said, “It is incorrect that Aleema Khan was part of the meeting. Only the KP CM and Barrister Gohar attended the meeting, and it was regarding terrorist attacks in KP, especially in Bannu.” Sources told Dawn that the meeting took place at Barrister Gohar’s residence. A senior PTI leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the meeting was held on May 14 at night, around 9pm. “Sohail Afridi went to the venue along with his driver without a protocol vehicle,” he said. When asked for more details of the meeting, he said one of the key areas of discussion was allowing incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan to meet with his family and party leaders and providing him medical treatment at a hospital. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) allowed Imran Khan to have twice-a-week meetings — on Tuesdays and Thursdays — with his family, lawyers and other associates. Despite the order, the former premier has been restricted from meeting visitors for several weeks. Meanwhile, the PTI has also been demanding that he be shifted to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad for treatment since his eye ailment — right central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) — came to light in late January. The senior PTI leader also said that during the meeting with Afridi and Gohar, Naqvi “made it clear the KP CM was not in the list of the favourite people”. He recalled that previously, Imran had expressed annoyance when former KP CM Ali Amin Gandapur had held a meeting with Naqvi, a photo of which had been released. Earlier this week, Afridi was also asked during a press conference whether he held a meeting with an “important personality”, to which he had replied: “I can meet anyone for Imran Khan.”
ISLAMABAD: As the Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to resume hearing on the high-profile One Constitution project on Monday, intriguing new facts have surfaced in the court record, including a 2012 interim arbitration award issued by incumbent Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif and a former chamber president to resolve disputes between two main partners. The arbitration award, dated September 13, 2012, was issued by Khawaja Asif and Mian Hamid Javed, former president of the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The agreement was meant to settle differences between Abdul Hafeez Sheikh of M BNP and Nadeem Zia Pirzada of M/s Paragon regarding the five-star hotel project. According to the settlement placed on record, the parties agreed that BNP’s ownership would ultimately be 75 per cent with Sheikh and 25 per cent with Pirzada, subject to a forensic audit to determine financial contributions, loans and liabilities. Interestingly, the award records that bank loans taken by Sheikh and his family for the hotel project were secured against Pirzada’s family properties in Paragon City, and were to be treated as Pirzada’s contribution. Meanwhile, Sheikh’s costs and markup were credited to him. The award further clarified that Pirzada would have no claim over BNP assets unrelated to the hotel project that predated July 2005. It also provided for professional management of BNP to ensure independent operation. Final share transfers were made conditional upon the completion of audit, repayment of loans, and resolution of pending court proceedings. In a related development, the court record also contains a petition concerning a dispute between BNP and the Bank of Punjab. Notably, Ejazul Ahsan — who later became a judge of the Supreme Court — signed as counsel for BNP in that petition. Interestingly, Justice Ahsan was part of the IHC bench that, despite objections from the Capital Development Authority (CDA), restored the controversial lease of the One Constitution Avenue project. That restoration paved the way for creating third-party interests, as the builder soon handed over 240 flats to buyers after the lease revival. A stunning list of buyers has emerged in the record, revealing that 240 flats in the disputed project were allotted to a who’s who of Pakistan’s power elite. According to documents placed before the court, the buyers include a former acting president of Pakistan (who served two non-consecutive terms), a former Sn ate chairman, a former prime minister, two former chief justices of Pakistan, a former chief justice of the Lahore High Court, a former defence minister, son of the present defence minister, a former chief minister of Balochistan, multiple sitting federal ministers, a former air chief, two former naval chiefs, a retired lieutenant general, a former foreign secretary, a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, a former interior and law minister, a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, a former chairman of Pemra, a former chairman ICC, senior journalists, prominent lawyers, leading doctors, top businessmen, renowned overseas Pakistanis, foreign nationals and foreign companies, a provincial government-owned bank besides others. Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2026
ISLAMABAD: The PTI early on Wednesday ended a sit-in at Chungi No. 26 in Islamabad after Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and the sisters of ex-premier Imran Khan were stopped from reaching Adiala jail to meet the incarcerated party founder. On Tuesday, a caravan led by CM Afridi, which was on its way to Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail to meet Imran, was stopped from entering Islamabad, prompting the participants to stage a sit-in at the intersection of Srinagar Highway and G.T. Road — locally referred to as Chungi No. 26. CM Afridi, along with his entire provincial cabinet and national and provincial lawmakers, was stopped by the Islamabad police en route to jail after exiting the M-1 motorway. Imran’s sisters were also part of the caravan, which was told that it could not proceed towards the federal capital because Section 144, which restricts gatherings, was in place. However, the sit-in was called off early on Wednesday as the party accused the police of heavy-handedness. Special assistant to the KP chief minister on information and public relations, Shafi Jan, said on the social media platform X, “Chungi No. 26 has been reopened after the worst violence, bullets and baton-charge.” He said that CM Afridi and Imran’s sister Aleema would address a press conference in this regard later at 2pm on Wednesday. In a video posted by the PTI on X, CM Afridi said that the world was witness to the brutality of the state with provincial lawmakers and a provincial chief executive. He reiterated that a press conference would be held at KP House at 2pm on Wednesday. A video shared by the party’s Punjab chapter showed CM Afridi attempting to make his way through a crowd as police officers wielded batons in the background. In a separate post, it said that “peaceful workers were being fired upon with rubber bullets”. “The only demand is that Imran Khan be immediately transferred to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad and be treated under the supervision of his personal doctors and family members. The world must pay attention to the injustices taking place in Pakistan and, if possible, take notice of the situation,” it said. Imran — imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023, for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts — is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in a £190 million corruption case, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) allowed the ex-premier to have twice-a-week meetings — on Tuesdays and Thursdays — with his family, lawyers and other associates. Despite the order, the former premier has been restricted from meeting visitors for several months. Caravan stopped CM Afridi had set off for the Rawalpindi jail earlier on Tuesday, accompanied by Imran’s sisters and a number of PTI workers and leaders. However, police stopped the delegation at Islamabad’s Chungi No. 26 from proceeding towards Adiala Jail. Police personnel form a line to stop PTI workers and leaders from proceeding towards the prison. — Mohammad Asim Meanwhile, a number of PTI leaders, including Salman Akram Raja, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, and Bushra Bibi’s daughters, reached Adiala Jail but were not allowed to meet the PTI founder. It is worth noting that the cut-off time for visiting Imran was 4pm. Meanwhile, according to media reports, a medical team reached Adiala jail in order to conduct a medical checkup of the PTI founder, whose health during imprisonment has been the subject of concern and alarm. Imran underwent a medical procedure at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) in Islamabad on the night of January 24 — a development confirmed days later amid an apparent lack of knowledge by the family. He has since been undergoing follow-up treatments at Pims. The attempted visit follows a suggestion made by Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khan a few weeks ago that the KP chief minister visit Adiala Jail. Aleema herself has regularly been visiting Adiala Jail in attempts to meet the PTI leader but has been denied access. Since her suggestion, Afridi has also begun visiting the jail. The chief minister being stopped midway resulted in severe traffic congestion, affecting a large number of commuters. Those en route to the airport were the worst affected and resorted to driving on the wrong side of the road to reach their destination. A view of the gridlock due to the PTI protest. — Mohammad Asim Speaking to reporters regarding the obstacles in meeting Imran, Afridi said that stopping the chief executive and the entire cabinet of a province on their way to a peaceful meeting with him amounted to discrimination against the province. He also highlighted the disrespect shown to Imran Khan’s sisters on multiple occasions during their previous visits to the jail, including the use of water cannons, but stressed that the party’s actions had remained peaceful despite the hostility. “What message are they trying to send? Do they want to separate Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from Pakistan?” he asked. “Do they see the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa so weak that they can enact such cruelty?” “Sometimes they stop the flow of wheat, sometimes they stop our gas, sometimes they stop electricity, and sometimes they stop the chief executive and his whole cabinet in the road. Will we stand by and watch? Is this a joke?” He pointed out that during Imran’s time as premier, he had allowed ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif to be moved to the hospital for his medical treatment, but the same generosity was not being shown to him now, despite his “serious eye issue”. Afridi added that the party had no illegal or unconstitutional demands: “This is a fundamental human right that Imran Khan undergo treatment with his personal physicians, in the presence of his family members, at a hospital of his choice.” Separately, the chief minister also posted a statement on X, saying that the government’s actions were “not only an insult to the chief executive but also to the 46 million people of KP.” On the topic of the incarcerated leader’s condition, he said, “The state of his health is a matter of serious national concern and any harm caused to him due to negligence or deliberate denial of medical care is the direct responsibility of the federal government, the Punjab police, the administration of Adiala Jail and their handlers.” “History will not forgive those who remain silent or complicit. Justice must prevail and it will prevail,” added the provincial chief executive. Aleema also posted about the stoppage, saying, “After exhausting every democratic and legal avenue, we are left with no choice but to exercise our constitutional right to peaceful assembly in order to raise our voice against this illegitimate, stolen-mandate government and its continued political victimisation of Pakistan’s most popular leader.” Noting that the party’s gathering point was a kilometre away from the jail, she said, “The blocking of an elected chief minister and his cabinet is not just an attack on one political party; it is an attack on democracy itself, an insult to the mandate of millions of Pakistanis.”
ISLAMABAD: Capital police on Tuesday stopped Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi from reaching Adiala jail in Rawalpindi to meet incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan. Imran — imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023, for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts — is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in a £190 million corruption case, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) allowed the ex-premier to have twice-a-week meetings — on Tuesdays and Thursdays — with his family, lawyers and other associates. Despite the order, the former premier has been restricted from meeting visitors for several months. Afridi set off for the Rawalpindi jail earlier today. He was accompanied by Imran’s sisters and a number of PTI workers and leaders. However, police stopped the delegation at Islamabad’s Chungi No. 26 from proceeding towards Adiala Jail, despite heated arguments. Police personnel form a line to stop PTI workers and leaders from proceeding towards the prison. — Mohammad Asim Meanwhile, a number of PTI leaders, including Salman Akram Raja, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, and Bushra Bibi’s daughters, reached Adiala Jail but were not allowed to meet the PTI founder. It is worth noting that the cut-off time for visiting Imran Khan was 4pm. Meanwhile, according to media reports, a medical team reached Adiala jail in order to conduct a medical checkup of the PTI founder, whose health during imprisonment has been the subject of concern and alarm. Imran underwent a medical procedure at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) in Islamabad on the night of January 24 — a development confirmed days later amid an apparent lack of knowledge by the family. He has since been undergoing follow-up treatments at Pims. The attempted visit follows a suggestion made by Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khan a few weeks ago that the KP chief minister visit Adiala Jail. Aleema herself has regularly been visiting Adiala Jail in attempts to meet the PTI leader but has been denied access. Since her suggestion, Afridi has also begun visiting the jail. The chief minister being stopped midway resulted in severe traffic congestion, affecting a large number of commuters. Those en route to the airport were the worst affected and resorted to driving on the wrong side of the road to reach their destination. A view of the gridlock due to the PTI protest. — Mohammad Asim Speaking to reporters regarding the obstacles in meeting Imran Khan, Afridi said that stopping the chief executive and the entire cabinet of a province on their way to a peaceful meeting with him amounted to discrimination against the province. He also highlighted the disrespect shown to Imran Khan’s sisters on multiple occasions during their previous visits to the jail, including the use of water cannons, but stressed that the party’s actions had remained peaceful despite the hostility. “What message are they trying to send? Do they want to separate Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from Pakistan?” he asked. “Do they see the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa so weak that they can enact such cruelty?” “Sometimes they stop the flow of wheat, sometimes they stop our gas, sometimes they stop electricity, and sometimes they stop the chief executive and his whole cabinet in the road. Will we stand by and watch? Is this a joke?” He pointed out that during Imran’s time as premier, he had allowed ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif to be moved to the hospital for his medical treatment, but the same generosity was not being shown to him now, despite his “serious eye issue”. Afridi added that the party had no illegal or unconstitutional demands: “This is a fundamental human right that Imran Khan undergo treatment with his personal physicians, in the presence of his family members, at a hospital of his choice.” Separately, the chief minister also posted a statement on X, saying that the government’s actions were “not only an insult to the chief executive but also to the 46 million people of KP.” On the topic of the incarcerated leader’s condition, he said, “The state of his health is a matter of serious national concern and any harm caused to him due to negligence or deliberate denial of medical care is the direct responsibility of the federal government, the Punjab police, the administration of Adiala Jail and their handlers.” “History will not forgive those who remain silent or complicit. Justice must prevail and it will prevail,” added the provincial chief executive. Aleema also posted about the stoppage, saying, “After exhausting every democratic and legal avenue, we are left with no choice but to exercise our constitutional right to peaceful assembly in order to raise our voice against this illegitimate, stolen-mandate government and its continued political victimisation of Pakistan’s most popular leader.” Noting that the party’s gathering point was a kilometre away from the jail, she said, “The blocking of an elected chief minister and his cabinet is not just an attack on one political party; it is an attack on democracy itself, an insult to the mandate of millions of Pakistanis.” Over the past few months, the government and the opposition have been engaged in a blame game, with the latter accusing the former of a lack of transparency on the matter, of not ensuring appropriate treatment for Imran, and of not allowing his personal physicians access to him. The government denies these allegations. The opposition has also demanded that the former premier be shifted to Shifa International Hospital. On April 17, Imran’s spouse, Bushra, also underwent eye surgery at a Rawalpindi hospital, according to jail authorities. The couple remains incarcerated at Adiala jail.
ISLAMABAD: An Islamabad sessions court sentenced Umar Hayat, the main accused in the Sana Yousaf murder case, to death on Tuesday after finding him guilty of killing the teenage TikTok influencer at her residence in June last year. Hayat was arrested a day after 17-year-old Yousaf was shot dead in her Islamabad house on June 2, 2025. On Monday, 23-year-old Hayat — son of a retired government official and a TikToker himself — retracted his earlier confessional statement admitting to Yousaf’s murder. Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka announced the verdict on Tuesday, handing Hayat the death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for committing qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) of Yousaf. The death sentence would be subject to confirmation by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) under Section 374 (sentence of death to be submitted by court of session) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court also directed the convict to pay Rs2.5 million as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of the CrPC. According to the written judgment, in case of default in payment of compensation, the convict would further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. The court also awarded separate punishments under other provisions of law. Under Section 392 (punishment for robbery) of the PPC, Hayat was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs200,000, while under Section 499 (defamation) of the PPC, he was handed another 10-year sentence with a fine of Rs200,000. Under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the PPC, the court awarded him one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs100,000. Judge Majoka ordered that all sentences would run concurrently and also extended to the convict the benefit of Section 382-B of the CrPC, allowing the period already spent in custody to be counted towards the sentence. In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the CrPC on Monday while testifying before Judge Majoka, Hayat maintained he was falsely implicated in the case. He repeatedly avoided answering questions put to him in the absence of his counsel, later recording his detailed statement after his lawyer appeared before the court. Hayat was arrested from Faisalabad within 20 hours of the incident, according to Islamabad Inspector General (IG) Syed Ali Nasir Rizvi, who termed it a case of “repeated rejections”. The culprit was indicted by the court of Judge Majoka on September 20, where he had denied the charges against him. Yousaf, a TikTok star with more than a million followers on social media platforms, was known for sharing videos of her favourite cafés, skincare routines, and traditional outfits. Her killing drew nationwide condemnation and reignited debate over women’s safety in Pakistan. ‘Justice for all girls’ Speaking to the media after the verdict’s announcement, Yousaf’s parents welcomed the court decision. Yousaf’s mother, Farzana, said she had been served justice, thanking her lawyers’ team for their efforts and the police for their cooperation. She further thanked the judge and the media, noting that the “media supported us from the beginning”. “The culprit has been handed the right punishment,” she said. The victim’s father, Yousaf Hassan, said, “We had been waiting for today for the past 11 months […] and the judiciary has given its verdict in the spirit of justice.” Thanking his lawyers, he said: “This verdict is not just for me as an individual; it is for the entire society. This is a lesson for all such criminals in society that if they commit such an act, they can get such a result.” Hassan termed the verdict “justice for all girls” and society. One of the parents’ lawyers hailed the judge’s “patience”, claiming that personal attacks were made against him through the accused and his legal team during over eight months of court proceedings. He also alleged the use of “tactics to further complicate the case”. Retraction of confessional statement In his confessional statement recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC in July 2025, Hayat had detailed the motive behind the killing, how the crime was committed, his escape plan, and where he disposed of the murder weapon. He had admitted to developing a one-sided obsession with Yousaf after online interactions, and said jealousy and suspicion drove him to commit the crime. According to the statement, Hayat had travelled from Jaranwala to Islamabad on May 28 to wish Yousaf on her birthday. When she did not meet him, he became convinced she was deliberately avoiding him. He added that on June 2, he returned to the capital after renting a Toyota Fortuner and carrying a 30-bore pistol, intending to confront her. However, in his recent statement, Hayat denied the sequence of events, claiming that he had never quarrelled with Yousaf, never requested to meet her and had had no contact with her. He alleged that he was implicated due to public pressure generated on social media, as both he and Yousaf were well-known TikTokers. Last month, IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar rejected Hayat’s petition seeking the transfer of his trial from Judge Majoka’s court to another court. In late February, IHC’s Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro dismissed Hayat’s petition challenging the recording of a witness statement in the absence of the accused and his counsel. Justice Soomro had observed that no legal flaw, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been found in the impugned order, noting that the accused’s attendance via a video link constituted legally valid presence. This is a developing story that is being updated as the situation evolves. Initial reports in the media can sometimes be inaccurate. We will strive to ensure timeliness and accuracy by relying on credible sources, such as concerned, qualified authorities and our staff reporters.