To verify Mashal’s role as his counsel: IHC appoints judicial commission to meet IK today

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Friday, appointed a judicial commission to meet founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan in jail Saturday (March 15) and verify whether Mashal Yousafzai was his counsel or not.

A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan issued the directions in a petition filed by Mashal Yousafzai, saying that she is not being allowed to meet Imran Khan in Adiala jail.

The commission comprising law clerk Sakina Bangash will visit Adiala Jail and confirm from the PTI founder whether Yousafzai was his lawyer or not. The jail superintendent has been directed to make the arrangements for the meeting.

Earlier, despite the court orders, the jail authorities failed to produce Imran before the court in personal capacity.

During the hearing, Justice Ishaq remarked that if the Islamabad advocate general (AG) intends to proceed with the video link appearance, they must inform it and if the PTI founder is not presented via video link by 2pm, he must be brought before the court in person at 3pm.

After the 2pm deadline expired, the former prime minister was due to be presented in court in person, as per the court orders.

However, the AG informed the court that it was not possible to bring the PTI founder from jail due to security concerns and that presenting him via video link was also not feasible.

Then, the judge directed the Adiala jail superintendent and the AG to submit their affidavits in this regard.

At this, Yousafzai said that formation of the commission was a golden opportunity for them and she also requested that the commission may ask whether the PTI founder is being allowed to meet his friends. The Islamabad AG said that the court order was related to meetings with lawyers, not friends.

Justice Ishaq remarked that Yousafzai was appearing before the court as a lawyer, and the court was hearing the petition accordingly.

Earlier, the court remarked that failing to comply with a prior court order, which was issued with the consent of all parties, amounts to contempt of court. In the previous hearing, the court had ordered that the petitioner be allowed to meet the PTI founder.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025