PTI chairman bows to JC’s decision, stops daily presser

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan at last happily bowed before the decision of the Judicial Commission (JC), which is inquiring into charges of deliberate systematic manipulation in the 2013 general elections, by refraining from holding his daily presser on its proceedings outside of the Supreme Court.
Starting on April 16, the three-member commission headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk has so far held over a dozen hearings that the PTI chairman have attended barring a couple of times.
Once he was busy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) in a political activity and could not attend the proceedings. On Wednesday, he also did not show up. He preferred to appear before the commission when even huge tragedies like the killer windstorm recently devastated Peshawar entailing massive loss to life and property. He provoked flak on this account but stated that his presence in the commission was more important than anything else.It was Imran Khan’s established routine to elaborately talk to the waiting reporters on the proceedings of the forum on their conclusion on which he commented in his own way.
However, his Tuesday’s presser turned out to be the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawyer Shahid Hamid formally complained to the commission in its open hearing about Imran Khan’s remarks in which the PTI chief said that the admission of former election commissioner of Punjab Mehboob Anwar about printing of extra ballot papers proved the poll rigging charge and that this witness was a liar.
Reacting to Shahid Hamid’s point, the chief justice called him and PTI counsel Abdul Hafeez Pirzada in his chamber and settled the matter, restricting the comments by the political leaders on the proceedings of the commission.
On Thursday, Imran Khan left the courtroom number one halfway through the hearing as he was to fly to Karachi to sympathise with the victims of the

Karachi bus massacre. But his plane could not leave the Islamabad airport due to bad weather.
However, it was perhaps not a good day for the PTI chairman to attend the entire hearing as Shahid Hamid was taking care of the case built by Pirzada that production of extra ballot papers by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and allocating them to the constituencies established systematic rigging. The lawyer also listed some seats where additional voting papers were earmarked, which were won by the PTI candidates. He put the questions to Mehboob Anwar, who is being cross-examined for the past several days.
While Imran Khan avoided the press conference, focused on the proceedings of the commission, he talked to the reporters elsewhere before his aborted departure for Karachi. There he stated in careful words that previously the PML-N had claimed that the PTI has no proof, but after seeing his party’s preparation, its ‘balloon’ has been punctured. “I feel no embarrassment for dubbing Mehboob Anwar as a liar and I will not apologise for that.”
However, a set of PML-N leaders including Mohammad Zubair, Talal Chaudhry and Dr Fazal Chaudhry, who regularly attend the proceedings of the commission, did make brief but cautious remarks to the reporters. But they avoided commenting on the day’s proceedings.
One of them said the PTI chief should not assume the role of “Justice Imran Khan” by pronouncing judgements outside the commission. He said Imran Khan’s comments were meant to put pressure on the witnesses.
What the PML-N leaders said was a departure from the past. After every press talk of Imran Khan on the conclusion of the proceedings of the commission, they had been reacting to his assertions. But on Thursday, they had nothing to respond to as the PTI chief did not hold his daily news conference.
While the two sides have been speaking on the judicial hearings every day, their lawyers Pirzada and Shahid Hamid consistently eschewed any encounter with the media men since April 16. In other instances, the attorneys representing various parties in cases of political natures had followed a time-tested tradition to talk about the proceedings of superior courts. This at times earned contempt proceedings when some lawyers crossed all limits of professional code of ethics.