Imran’s ‘sorry’ strategy: key to the cell door?

ISLAMABAD: Imran Khan’s declaration that he is willing to apologize if evidence is provided that his party workers were involved in the May 9 ransacking is a shrewd move aimed at securing his release from incarceration. This would enable him to mobilize public support against the current regime.

Speaking to journalists in Adiala Jail on Wednesday, Khan stated, “If PTI members are found involved in the May 9 incident, I will apologize.” He added that if PTI members were indeed implicated in the May 9 violence, he would “expel them from the party and also punish them.” However, he emphasized that this admission would be contingent on reviewing CCTV footage from the day in question.

Commentators and analysts are interpreting this statement differently. One interpretation of Khan’s statement put forward by analysts is that this shift could be linked to behind-the-scenes negotiations. There are rumours that certain power brokers, whether in the judiciary or elsewhere, may be seeking an opening to release the PTI leader from prison. These analysts argue that Khan’s latest statement should be seen in the context of the recent controversial judgment by majority judges of the Supreme Court. The judgement allowed the PTI to return to parliament and claim not only the party name but also the special reserved seats which were denied to them after the PTI-backed independents joined the Sunni Ittehad Council.

The 8-5 Supreme Court decision overturned an earlier verdict of the Election Commission of Pakistan that deprived the PTI reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures. While a detailed judgment is awaited by the majority, dissenting notes written by two Supreme Court judges have pushed the PTI in the background. These judges concluded that some provisions of the constitution had been suspended by the majority judges to allow the PTI to get reserved seats in legislatures.

Analysts believe it was this favourable ruling that set the stage for Khan to make his statement. His party, weakened but intact, has failed to mount any serious challenge to the current government during Khan’s time in prison. Analysts believe Khan is needed outside of prison to re-mobilize his support base, take to the streets and demand an enforcement of the Supreme Court ruling regarding reserved seats.

It is important to mention here that in a recent press conference by DG ISPR, it was expressly mentioned that there was no change in institutional policy on May 9, nor should any change be expected.

Another camp of analysts believe that this conditional admission could further complicate the PTI leader’s ongoing legal battles. By acknowledging the possibility of PTI involvement, Khan has opened himself up to scrutiny and legal challenges. Further, the statement about expelling and punishing involved party members could lead to internal strife within the PTI. Some accused members might retaliate by claiming they acted under the founder’s direction, which could be a potent legal argument against Khan.

The call for CCTV footage review comes against the backdrop of existing video evidence widely circulated in the media, showing PTI leaders and workers outside military installations that were later ransacked. Considering the existence of this video evidence, it would be difficult for Khan to argue that his party members were not involved. If these party members are disowned by their leader for their involvement in the May 9 incident, they would be forced to defend themselves in court and explain on whose orders were state installations targeted. This would be bad news for Khan, who has been in prison for more than a year.

Some analysts believe that this statement by Khan was a calculated attempt to create a buffer between himself and the actions of PTI members. This may work in his favour as this can help him argue that he was not directly involved in nor aware of any illegal activities. One legal expert believes that showing a willingness to acknowledge wrongdoing (even conditionally) can be viewed favourably by courts. This move might also open avenues for negotiation, leading to a lenient view by the judiciary.