RAWALPINDI: The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Monday rejected a plea of Aleema Khan, sister of imprisoned Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and seeking the exclusion of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) in a case related to the November 26 protest.
ATC judge Amjad Ali Shah, while hearing Aleema Khan’s petition challenging the court’s jurisdiction in the case registered at Sadiqabad police station in connection with the November 26 protest, reserved its verdict following the hearing of arguments of both parties.
The court, later, announced its verdict, dismissing Aleema Khan’s plea. The court ruled that section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is valid, and said that the court also has proper jurisdiction.
The case, registered was registered against Aleema Khan and 11 other accused, the charges including protesting against the government, chanting anti-government slogans, vandalism, and stone-pelting.
Earlier, during the hearing, special prosecutor Zaheer Shah argued that section 23 can be invoked at the very outset of any case, adding that the accused could no longer challenge the court’s jurisdiction as the charges have been framed against her.
He further said that 12 co-accused had already confessed before the court, and none of them had filed an appeal against the verdict. “The court has reviewed the evidence and observed that the proceedings are legally valid,” the judge maintained.
The prosecutor argued that the accused faced charges of conspiracy and facilitation, making her liable for a harsher punishment. Under the law, a co-conspirator or facilitator is treated as the principal accused and is subject to severe penalties, he added.
The prosecutor told the court that 31 cases were registered in Rawalpindi relating to the November 26 protest, during which 1,151 suspects were arrested, including 64 Afghan nationals. According to a report of the Ministry of Finance, he said the three-day protest incurred expenditures of Rs500 million and caused a loss of Rs190 billion to the government.
According to the prosecutor, police in Islamabad and Rawalpindi faced 170 attacks during the protest. “Attacks on police fall squarely under the definition of terrorism,” he argued.
Law enforcement recovered four vehicles, 13 crime empties, police weapons and equipment, as well as spiked sticks, marbles, and slingshots from the assailants, he said. He alleged that direct gunfire was used against police during an armed attack at the Faizabad interchange.
He further said, according to experts, the most political offenders view themselves not as enemies of society but as its saviours, and that political crimes often stem from religious or ideological motivations.
The prosecutor said that violent protests are used as a tactic to pressure the state into making desired decisions, and the pursuit of power through violence constitutes a political crime.
Defence counsel Faisal Malik said that Aleema Khan has been accused of conveying Imran Khan’s message to the public through the media. He said that the protest call in question was given on 24 November, while the First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 27 November.
Malik noted that his client has also been charged with participating in a conspiracy to incite violent demonstrations. According to the allegations, protesters had allegedly launched an armed attack on police near Faizabad, he said.
Questioning the basis of the charges, the defence counsel argued that it was unclear how a case involving a political party could be treated as a terrorism case. He said that PTI is a democratic political party, and its protest could not be categorised as terrorism.
Malik further submitted that no property was damaged, no lives were endangered, and no explosives or weapons were used during the protest. He asserted that the case registered against his client was a form of political victimisation.
At one point, the court asked the defence to clarify the “primary allegation” against the accused. Malik responded that the main accusation was simply that Aleema Khan conveyed Imran Khan’s protest message to the public through the media.
He questioned why, if the media broadcast her statement, no media personnel had been named as co-accused in the case.
The court, however, remarked that the media had no relevance to the defence’s plea regarding jurisdiction, instructing the lawyer to confine his arguments to the petition at hand.
After announcing its verdict, the court adjourned the hearing till December 4 and summoned four witnesses to record their statements.
Speaking to the media outside the ATC, Alima Khan’s lawyer said that the court had dismissed their application challenging the court’s jurisdiction. He added that we will challenge the ATC’s decision in the High Court.
Alima Khan, while talking to reporters, said she was not a signatory of the SKMT but only a board member, and that Namal University educates students from underprivileged backgrounds. She claimed the government has now started targeting the two institutions.
She said that she had herself conveyed the message about the November 24 protest to the media and that she was aware of the authorities’ plan to put her behind bar. She alleged that the judge had announced a decision that had already been received in written form.
She said that the court had also ordered them to pay compensation to the witnesses. She criticised what she called “selective justice” in Pakistan. Courts receive instructions to expedite specific cases, she alleged.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.