An Islamabad anti-terrorism court (ATC) granted the capital police atwo-day physical remand of PTI President Parvez Elahi in a newly surfacedterror case dated back to March 18. This development occurred shortly afterElahi’s release following the suspension of his detention under theMaintenance of Public Order (MPO) ordinance by the Islamabad High Court(IHC).
Parvez Elahi has faced multiple arrests, with this latest one marking the11th in various cases since June, following a widespread crackdown on thePTI following the May 9 violence incident. The posts on X (formerlyTwitter) by Islamabad police, announcing Elahi’s release and re-arrest,occurred within a mere eight-minute time difference.
The police clarified that he was detained in a case registered at theCounter Terrorism Department (CTD) police station.
During a court appearance at the Federal Judicial Complex (FJC), Elahiexpressed his stance, highlighting his overnight detention at the CrimeInvestigation Agency police station and his reluctance to meet anyone. Hefirmly denied any plans for a press conference, reminiscent of several PTIleaders quitting the party post-May 9 incidents.
At the outset of the hearing, Elahi’s lawyers submitted a power ofattorney. During the proceedings, Advocate Sardar Abdur Razzaq and defensecounsel Ali Bukhari represented Elahi, while Prosecutor Tahir Kazimrepresented the police.
The police requested a 14-day physical remand for the former Punjab chiefminister, but his lawyers opposed it, emphasizing that the case againstElahi was politically motivated and based on flimsy grounds. They cited theIHC’s suspension of his detention under the MPO and the Lahore High Court’sorder against further arrests of Elahi. They argued that his human rightswere being violated, and the police had disregarded court orders.
Read Top Stories
Razzaq asserted that Parvez Elahi’s name wasn’t even in the March 18 FIR,as it was filed against unidentified suspects. He claimed that the incidenttook place when Elahi was in Lahore and questioned the notion of labeling aprominent political figure as an “unknown” individual.
Bukhari echoed these concerns, emphasizing that there was no apparent needfor Elahi’s remand, as the police lacked substantial evidence for aninvestigation. He criticized the lack of a clear reason for the remandrequest and called attention to the case’s dubious nature.
In essence, both lawyers argued that the case against Parvez Elahi waspolitically motivated, lacked merit, and violated his rights, urging thecourt to discharge him from the case.
