Pakistan Today

Imran says won’t apologise to court

Defiant in the face of a contempt of court notice issued by the Supreme Court (SC), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on Thursday said he would not back down from his words regarding the Election Commission and SC’s role in rigging the May 11 general elections.

“No matter what happens at the court hearing on Friday (today), I will not apologise for my words even if I have to go to jail or am barred from contesting future elections,” Khan said at a TV talk show.

The PTI chairman said he was disappointed at the Supreme Court on its decision, given that he expected the court to be just and hear out his petition against open rigging in the general elections.

“I will continue to fight for democracy and free and fair elections. I am doing all of this for democracy’s sake,” he said.

Khan also announced that he would appear in person before the SC.

Imran will appear before a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and will be accompanied by lawyer Hamid Khan and senior party leaders of party. The court has also directed Attorney General Muneer Malik to assist the bench in the matter.

Earlier on Wednesday, the court had issued a contempt of court notice to Imran Khan for his remarks against the judiciary at a press conference.

“Prima facie, it seems that Imran Khan has started a deliberate campaign to scandalise the court and bring judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt,” said an order dictated by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

Imran Khan had criticised the role of the judiciary and the ECP while addressing a press conference on July 26.

He alleged that the 2013 general elections had been rigged because of the role played by the two institutions.

“These acts call for action against contempt of court under Article 204 of the constitution, read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.

Therefore, Imran would have to appear before the court on August 2 and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him,” the court said in its order.

Exit mobile version