ISLAMABAD: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Chief Minister has prayed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) to direct Superintendent Central Prison Adiala, the federal secretary of the Ministry of Interior, and the Secretary Punjab Home Department to arrange his meeting with incarcerated Imran Khan.
Advocate General KPK, on behalf of KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, on Friday wrote a letter to CJP Yahya Afridi stating, “The people of KPK elected him for the governance and securing the fundamental rights and matters relating to law and order situation of the province.”
The letter stated, “I am under constitutional and moral obligation to consult the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, for guidance and instructions on urgent and sensitive matters concerning governance and formation of the provincial cabinet.”
It mentioned that the CM KPK on October 15 approached the Secretary Ministry of Interior and the Secretary Punjab Home Department for arranging a meeting with the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. However, despite repeated communications and follow-ups, the said meeting has not yet been confirmed.
There is a pressing need to seek direction from the party founder regarding the formation of the provincial cabinet, critical economic challenges being faced by the people of KP, and matters related to the federation and other provinces, the letter added.
Meanwhile, Afridi filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court stating that he was elected as KP chief minister on the PTI ticket.
The petitioner maintained that several critical policy matters, including inter-provincial restrictions imposed by Punjab (e.g, wheat transportation), require immediate consultation with Imran, as such matters directly affect the governance and fundamental rights of the citizens of KP.
He said that it is necessary and in the public interest that directions to the respondents may kindly be issued to allow/ permit the KP Chief Minister to meet the PTI founder at Adiala jail under proper supervision and as per jail security protocols.
He argued that the refusal or delay on the part of respondents in allowing the said meetings is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and citizens of the KP guaranteed under the constitution of 1973.
The petitioner also contended that the impugned inaction of the respondents in not facilitating the meeting is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before law and protection against arbitrary action by public functionaries.
He maintained that the petitioner’s right to consultation and performance of constitutional duties has been unlawfully curtailed, violating Article 9 (right to life) and Article 14 (dignity of man) as the Chief Minister is prevented from fulfilling his constitutional and administrative responsibilities.
He continued that Articles 15, 16, and 17 guarantee the freedom of movement, assembly, and association. The refusal to arrange a lawful meeting within the prison, under supervision, constitutes an infringement upon these rights.
The petition said the Chief Minister, being a constitutional functionary, is entitled to conduct consultations necessary for provincial governance. The denial of this facility hampers the functioning of the Provincial Government and therefore violates the spirit of Articles 129 to 139 of the Constitution.
“That the founder chairman of PTI, being the head of the Political party that commands a majority in the Provincial Assembly, holds an indispensable role in political and administrative decision-making; hence, the refusal to permit such a meeting amounts to political discrimination,” read the petition.
It further said, “The Respondents’ conduct is contrary to the principle of fairness, reasonableness, and natural justice, which are integral components of the rule of law enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution.”
It also said that under the Jail Manual and Rules, meetings of close political associates, legal counsel, and family members can be arranged under supervision. The petitioner’s request falls well within these permissible limits, and refusal without lawful justification is mala fide and beyond jurisdiction.
The petition mentioned that similar petitions had been allowed by this court, and on the ground of the principle of consistency, the petitioner is very much entitled to the requested relief. Not allowing the petitioner also amounts to contempt of the Court under Article 204 of the Constitution.
It pointed out that the High Court, under Article 199 (a)(i) of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to direct the public functionaries to act in accordance with law and to protect fundamental rights of citizens and public office holders alike.
Therefore, the KP Chief Minister prayed to the court to direct the respondents forthwith to arrange and facilitate a meeting between the petitioner and incarcerated Imran Khan.
He also requested the court to direct the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to hold periodical meetings with Imran in the future, as and when required, without any hindrance or unreasonable delay.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025