File photo. Farooq Naeem—AFP
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on Wednesday submitted his second explanation to a show-cause notice issued by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in a contempt of court case regarding his alleged threats to a woman judge, offering “deep regrets” but stopping short of formal apology.
Last month, the IHC took suo moto notice of Khan’s speech at a rally in Rawalpindi in which he appeared to threaten Islamabad Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry for granting police physical remand of the PTI chairman’s aide, Shahbaz Gill. In his first explanation, Khan had claimed he was unaware that the judge was a member of the judiciary when he voiced threatening remarks about her. He had said that he was willing to “take back” his remarks “if they were inappropriate.”
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, heading a five-member bench, had expressed his disappointment at the response during proceedings, lamenting it had not suited a political leader of Khan’s stature. “Through your response, I feel that Imran Khan has not understood that he has done anything wrong,” he had told the counsel, adding Khan’s “anguish” over the alleged torture of Gill would have been appreciable if he had voiced similar concerns for human rights violations during his time in government. The court had then granted the ousted prime minister 7 days to resubmit a response, with legal experts claiming this suggested the judges wanted an unconditional apology for the remarks.
The second response submitted by Khan comprises 19 pages and includes news clippings and the case history of Gill’s detention. Urging the court to accept his latest explanation and discharge the show-cause notice “in the interest of justice,” the PTI chairman’s counsel says the purpose of the contempt laws is no to punish but uphold the law, adding the “Islamic principle” of forgiveness should be followed in the case.
Referring to earlier convictions for contempt of court in the case of PMLN’s Talal Chaudhry and Danyal Aziz, the response contends that these are not applicable on Khan’s case. “…Those speeches/interviews were part of malicious, calculated and well-rehearsed campaign on the advice of party leadership who had launched a massive attack on the Supreme Court by scandalizing the judges and the courts and was directed toward the entire institution of judiciary as a reaction/revenge to the Panama case,” it claims, adding that in Khan’s case, he had been unaware the matter was sub judice and had “unintentionally” uttered remarks about the woman judge and other state officials.
“The respondent verily states that he was not aware of the implications of such statement,” it says, claiming Khan has “sincerely tried to explain and even offered to take them [his remarks] back.” The explanation also claims that the expression “physical remand”—which police were granted of Gill—“as generally being perceived, understood and believed in our society, means physical abuse and torture.”
Assuring the IHC that he has profound regard and respect for the court and its subordinate courts and judges, he emphasized “deep regrets” over his “unintentional utterances,” adding these were not meant to be directed towards the woman judge for whom he claimed he has “a lot of respect.”
It adds: “The respondent neither meant to threaten the lady judge nor could he think of doing so. The respondent has respect for the judiciary including the subordinate judiciary and he believes that judges of the subordinate/district judiciary should be strong and independent in order to dispense justice to the common man.”
Curiously, Khan also tries to avoid the charge of trying to influence Gill’s case by claiming it had already been prejudiced through leaked videos of Gill being treated in hospital.
In his response, the ousted prime minister also sought to blame the ruling coalition for “politicizing” the matter. “However, unfortunately, in order to gain political advantage, it has been bitterly criticized out of all proportions by those who see an opportunity for political point scoring and to oust the respondent from the political arena,” it claimed. “On the same issue, in order to political persecute the respondent, an FIR was registered against the respondent under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.”