The report releasted last month documents “intimidation, harassment and persecution” of human rights defenders, along with restrictions on protests and the use of counter-terrorism and digital laws to criminalise dissent. It rates Pakistan’s civic space as “repressed,” the second-worst category, citing a pattern of escalating state controls on expression and assembly.

“Since coming to power, the Shehbaz Sharif government has escalated its repression of activists… silencing critical voices,” said Josef Benedict, an Asia researcher at CIVICUS, calling on authorities to “reverse course” and protect fundamental rights.

The report highlights arrests, legal cases and surveillance targeting prominent activists and lawyers, as well as a broader clampdown on ethnic Baloch and Pashtun movements demanding accountability for enforced disappearances. It also documents increasing use of laws such as the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act to pursue online critics and block digital content.

Journalists have faced mounting pressure, including arrests, investigations and alleged attacks, contributing to what CIVICUS described as a “chilling effect” on media freedom. Protest restrictions have also intensified, with authorities frequently imposing blanket bans and using force to disperse demonstrations, per the report.

The findings come against the backdrop of political tensions following Pakistan’s 2024 elections, which the report says were marked by restrictions on opposition activities and media coverage. Despite these concerns, the country was elected to the UN Human Rights Council for a three-year term earlier this year.

CIVICUS said the situation runs counter to Pakistan’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Pakistan’s Civic Freedoms Deteriorate Amid Crackdown on Dissent: Report appeared first on Dissent Today.

Islamabad – Shafiullah Jan, special assistant to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) chief minister, appeared to refuse to categorically label the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) a “terrorist organization” in an interview with a national news anchor last week – drawing sharp criticism from opponents, activists and media commentators.

At a press appearance this week, federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar played a video clip in which Jan was asked whether the outlawed TTP is a terrorist group. Jan declined to give an unequivocal “yes,” saying “there are groups within the TTP and those who are against the state are terrorists.”

The federal minister seized on the remarks, accusing Jan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) of soft-pedaling Pakistan’s insurgent threat and extended an “olive branch” to militants.

“The spokespersons of the political party are afraid of talking about the terrorist group,” Tarar said, claiming that PTI leaders fear being attacked by the TTP and therefore won’t condemn them outright.

The comments reignited long-standing debates in Pakistan about counterterrorism, messaging and political strategy — and drawn fire on social media from journalists and activists.

“Inexcusable behavior. You cannot complain or clutch pearls about being smeared as terror sympathizers when your own government’s spokesman can’t muster the bare bones clarity or spine to call the mass murdering butchers of TTP a terrorist group,” wrote activist Ammar Rashid on X.

Raza Haroon, a former provincial minister, wrote: “#PTI appears visibly confused and lacking clarity. Today, the party’s Secretary General, @salmanAraja, categorically acknowledged the #TTP as a terrorist organisation, ironically on the same show..”, adding, “This only exposes the party’s persistent policy incoherence and internal contradictions.”

Some commentators also mentioned older controversies around incarcerated former premier Imran Khan’s statements on militant figures.

In June 2020, Khan drew international and domestic rebuke when he used the Urdu word “shaheed” (martyr) to describe slain Osama bin Laden during a National Assembly speech – language critics said blurred the line between strategic critique of U.S. foreign policy and reverence for a globally designated terrorist.

Opposition leaders at the time said bin Laden was “a terrorist through and through,” pointing to the attacks he orchestrated at home and abroad, including against Pakistani citizens, and questioning the prime minister’s choice of words.

The TTP has been proscribed in Pakistan for years and is widely accused of orchestrating deadly attacks across the country, particularly in the north-west.

Against that backdrop, critics argue that any ambiguity in public rhetoric undermines counterterrorism efforts and emboldens extremist narratives.

Political rhetoric that fails to clearly denounce militant groups like the TTP is problematic because it dilutes public understanding of the threat the group poses and weakens a unified national response to ongoing violence, including numerous recent attacks the TTP has carried out in Pakistan.

Ambiguous language from political figures, especially when they avoid plainly calling an active militant group a terrorist organization, can create confusion among citizens about who is a threat and why, making it harder to sustain broad support for the hard security and legal measures needed to counter the challenge, especially given that there has been a resurgence of the TTP threat recently.

Analysts and security experts have noted that shifting or evasive narratives around the TTP have left the Pakistani public “poorly informed and confused about the nature of the threat,” and have at times emboldened the insurgents by suggesting there might be political space for negotiation without accountability, a distinction crucial for effective counterterrorism policy and public resilience.

This ambiguity also has real implications for national cohesion and counterterror strategy. When elected officials hedge on defining terrorism, it can erode confidence in government commitment to security policy, weaken cross-party cooperation on counterterrorism, and even be exploited by militants in their propaganda, which actively seeks to shape narratives in their favor.

Such rhetoric risks normalizing extremist violence in public discourse and undermines long-standing frameworks like Pakistan’s National Action Plan, which was built on broad consensus to crack down on terrorism and eliminate proscribed organizations.

Fariha Ijaz

The writer is an Assistant Editor at Dissent Today, focusing on extremism and political violence.

The post PTI’s Ambiguous Rhetoric on Taliban Is Dangerous for Pakistan’s Counter-Extremism Efforts appeared first on Dissent Today.

Any comment on the upcoming elections in Pakistan must begin with an unequivocal acknowledgement that these polls are going to be neither free nor fair.

For months, the military establishment has worked behind the scenes to ensure a result that aligns with its interests, relying on a pliant caretaker administration and the courts to engage in a wave of repression primarily targeted at the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The creation of new “king’s” parties in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, comprised of defectors from the PTI, the incarceration of the party’s leaders and activists, and curbs on the media, all are indicative of the kind of pre-poll rigging that is routinely employed to shape electoral outcomes.

The conviction of former prime minister Imran Khan and party stalwart Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the so-called ‘cipher’ case, just a week before polling day, must also be seen in this context. Many observers agree the case against Khan is flimsy but believing these proceedings have anything to do with legal principles is naïve; if anything, the dubious processes used to convict former prime ministers for allegedly undeclared income or the dissemination of ‘official secrets’ demonstrates how these cases are simply pretexts for eliminating those deemed to be politically undesirable.

Some may argue that what is happening today is no different, in principle, from what happened in 2018. Then, the elected PML-N government was essentially hounded out of office as the military sought to install Imran Khan and the PTI as more pliant governing partners. Indeed, many will recall how Khan and the military repeatedly emphasized they were on the ‘same page’ as part of a hybrid regime. It is also true that once in power, Imran Khan and his party displayed authoritarian tendencies, including cracking down on opposition and dissent, that undermined the slow progress Pakistan was making towards democratization.

None of that, however, can serve as justification for the political manipulation we are currently witnessing. Since the 1950s, the principal impediment to democratization in Pakistan has been the military and its constant interventions in politics. Imran Khan and the PTI were a symptom, not the cause, of Pakistan’s political malaise, and replacing one hybrid regime with another is not reason for celebration. As noted by many of the party’s critics, the crackdown on the PTI is neither unprecedented nor is it the most severe in Pakistan’s history, but that does not excuse it. If anything, it is yet another reminder of just how predictable and cyclical Pakistan’s politics is; once again, as was the case in the 1950s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, we are witnessing little more than a rearrangement of the political chessboard with the military picking and choosing partners it hopes will be aligned with its interests.

For months, the military establishment has worked behind the scenes to ensure a result that aligns with its interests, relying on a pliant caretaker administration and the courts to engage in a wave of repression primarily targeted at the PTI.

Those inclined to take a more charitable view of current events might suggest that undoing the hybrid project of 2018 necessitates the measures that are currently being taken by the military establishment, not least of all because there are elements within the military itself that were and are sympathetic to the PTI. Following from this, it is also suggested Nawaz Sharif, the PML-N more generally, and other parties like the PPP may take a more anti-establishment stance once in power. Having dealt with the supposedly existential threat posed by the PTI, it is argued, these parties will make use of the space available to them to push back against the military and strengthen civilian democratic institutions.

This, however, may be little more than wishful thinking. If the elections yield a result in which no party has a clear majority – the most likely outcome – independents and smaller parties will wield effective veto power enabling the military establishment to rely on ‘parliamentary’ measures to keep the government in check. The fractured and opportunistic nature of the political elite, within and across parties, also means that the military will likely continue to exert influence using its old tricks – court cases, defections, engineered protests by groups like the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), and so on. If recent history is anything to go by, those within the PML-N and PPP inclined to take a more confrontational approach to their relationship with the military will find themselves sidelined by their own parties.

Perhaps more importantly, it is necessary to recognize that for all the sound and fury of the elections and the drama surrounding them, there are some structural regularities that will remain in place regardless of who comes to power. All the mainstream parties, without exception, act as little more than vehicles for the protection and articulation of elite interests. On questions of policy, for example, there is little daylight between the parties – particularly when comparing their actual records in office – and there is scant evidence to suggest there are new ideas or commitments to reform that will help Pakistan navigate the difficult times ahead. The blueprint for governance remains the same; reliance on external donors for funding, illusory ‘growth’ fueled by aid, inability and/or reluctance to tax (or in any way inconvenience) the rich, and the abdication of foreign and internal security policy to a military whose primary motivation remains the collection of geo-political rents and safeguarding its own corporate interests. Whatever the outcome in February, there is little reason to expect any meaningful change to the dysfunctional civil-military dynamic that has brought Pakistan to this point.

If there is any cause for optimism, it is to be found outside the rigged arena of mainstream electoral competition. In Balochistan, tens of thousands continue to march against and protest enforced disappearances. Organizations like the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM), Aurat March, and progressive student groups continue to mobilize against the state’s excesses. Even in the electoral arena, smaller parties, like the Haqooq-e-Khalq party, and their candidates, offer the promise of radical, progressive change aimed at producing a more inclusive, democratic, and equal Pakistan. Online, despite the curbs imposed by the state, an extremely young and dynamic citizenry continues to evade attempts to police what they can see and say, mobilizing and making use of memes, satire, and other media to have their voices heard. The military establishment and its ever-changing cast of allies will not stop trying to impose their will on Pakistan but they are ultimately fighting a losing battle.

Hassan Javid

The writer was previously an Associate Professor of Sociology at the Lahore University of Management Sciences and is currently based at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, Canada.

The post Neither Free, Nor Fair: The 2024 Elections in Pakistan appeared first on Dissent Today.

Not to mention General Zia ul Haq’s Islamization process which did undoable damage to the country. 

The history of this phenomenon dates back centuries. In 1857, when the Mughal Empire breathed its last and power transitioned from the Muslims to the British Raj, Muslims were humiliated by the Raj, whereas Hindus were quick to adapt to the methods of their new masters. But the demoralized and humiliated Muslim nation without power for the first time in centuries was not so quick in adapting to the changing circumstances. Instead of introspecting on their own failures, they were quick to bring in Islam and saw their loss as a divine punishment. They thought that Allah had inflicted his anger and displeasure on the Muslims because they didn’t follow the teachings of Islam and left the path of the Almighty, and for Muslims to reclaim their glory, they must return to Islam.

Eight years after the rebellion against the British, in 1866, Dar ul-Uloom Deoband was established by two renowned Muslim scholars, Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi. The effort was first aimed at preaching Jihad against the British Raj; as viewed by Nanautavi, “European Christians were now masters of the land long ruled by Indian Muslims”. Similarly, for Khan, he is the only one who deserves to have the throne which was “stolen” from him by his political rivals.

He promised an Islamic utopia to his followers and sought their loyalty by promising to turn Pakistan into a “Riasat e Madina” (state of Medina), but failed. In October 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan announced its verdict in blasphemy-accused Christian woman Asia Bibi’s case and acquitted her. The verdict sparked fierce outrage from Islamic hardliners, whom Khan once sided with during the Faizabad protests against the then government of Pakistan Muslim League – N (PML-N) just a year ago. Workers and supporters of religious extremist group, Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) took to the streets and vandalized public property. Khan then addressed the nation and defended the Supreme Court’s verdict, only to take a u-turn later. Khan played the politics of appeasement and capitulated to the demands of the TLP. It was the first of many instances where his government sided with hardliners to appease them. In October 2021, a parliamentary committee rejected the Anti-Forced Conversion Bill, which criminalized forced conversions, terming the bill “anti-Islamic and against the Constitution of Pakistan.”

Imran Khan also formed the “Rehmatul-lil-Alameen Authority”, tasked with keeping the state structure in alignment with the teachings of Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Writing for The Express Tribune in January 2022, Imran Khan laid more emphasis on the purpose of Rehmatul-lil-Alameen authority, which would engage in “amr bil maroof” (doing good), with its primary duty being the moral, ethical, and spiritual development of youth at the school and university levels.

This is where Imran Khan was wrong. Religion is a private matter. No state should use its authority to intervene in it at any level, as it drifts the state away from its other obligations. The continuous use of religion in politics also shifts the focus of public debate away from real-world issues, such as law and order, poverty, inflation, governance, terrorism, etc., that weaker democracies like Pakistan face. But for Khan It appears that he has mastered the art of nationalism. The agitation we saw since April 2022, which peaked on May 9, was to create a political crisis to force the state to bow down before Khan directly, but he failed to make that happen.

Imran Khan thinks the country cannot survive without him. He does not believe in dialogue, and he is willing to hold negotiations with the Taliban but not with his political rivals. Since the vote of no confidence against him, Khan has played all his hands to force one political crisis after another. First, his party resigned from the National Assembly, 123 of his party members submitted their resignation en masse to the speaker of the National Assembly and walked out of the parliament. Then Khan dissolved the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies; his party was majority in both provinces, yet he failed to get early elections.

The current position of Khan is like that of a lone warrior who burned all his boats long before entering the endgame. Now a challenge awaits him at the battlefront. To keep his warriors charged up to fight the battle, he needs something. With no governance performance to his credit to show to his supporters, he will be on a Religious Nationalism run. One cannot ask or expect Khan to stop using the religion card, because it pays dividends without any big investment.

Zubair Ahmad

The writer is a graduate of FAST National University.

The post How Imran Khan Mastered the Art of Manipulation appeared first on Dissent Today.

Further, the Committee notes that “the trial of civilians in military or special courts may raise serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned.” Accordingly, “trials of civilians by military or special courts should be exceptional, i.e. limited to cases where the State party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials.” 

In Pakistan, court martial trials of civilians are opaque, biased and heavily dependent on the whims and wishes of military high command. There is no meaningful right of appeal; no free and unimpeded access of accused to counsel; no provision of record/documentation to counsel for the accused; and perhaps most concerning of all, military officers take on the role of judges, when they do not possess the requisite training or capacity to do so. Imagine the converse if your mind cannot process the nature or magnitude of the problem: judges being sent to defend our borders with a copy of the Constitution. If that is laughable, so is the idea that those tasked with defending Pakistan against external aggression, have the training or capacity to dispense justice. Different organs of the State/Government have differing responsibilities — for good reason.

Following the horrific cold-blooded murder of Pakistan’s children in the Army Public School (APS) terrorist attack, the nation was traumatized and that trauma resulted in poor decision-making (there were only a handful of people who chose principle over panic – the late Asma Jahangir included of course). If anything was Pakistan’s “9/11”, it was that absolutely tragic mass murder of this country’s children. Anyone who recalls the waves of terrorism that engulfed Pakistan, and the indiscriminate military operations ostensibly aimed at countering that terrorism, will remember that despite us ceding our civil liberties by allowing the 21^st Constitutional Amendment, we were not safe then and we are not safe now. In fact, even after our 9/11, we refused to course correct. Ehsanullah Ehsan – the man we were told made it necessary for us to surrender our civil liberties – roams free while a young man who stole a peacock from the Corps Commander House Lahore is languishing in prison. So in the eyes of the state, the value of the Corps Commander’s peacock far outweighs the value of human life – in fact a Pakistani child’s life.

In a June 2016 briefing paper by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), titled “Military Injustice in Pakistan,” it was observed that “Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.” It would appear that Law Minister Adam Namer Tarar was in a deep slumber from 2015 till date because there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for why he is actively misleading the public today with entirely false statements claiming that Pakistan’s military courts comply with international minimum protections for fair trial and due process. This is not only disingenuous but also in breach of the Minister’s oath, which places on him the obligation to “do right to all manner of people, according to Law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” That “all manner of people” includes all of Pakistan’s citizens, irrespective of whether they are Baloch students, activists of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) or even political workers of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI).

In Pakistan, court martial trials of civilians are biased and heavily dependent on the whims of military high command. There is no meaningful right of appeal, and most concerning of all, military officers take on the role of judges.

Such barefaced defense of the unjustifiable isn’t limited to the Law Minister. The Government machinery has gone into overdrive to defend military court trials of civilians, which they themselves will likely be the victims of a few years from now. One must remember to ask the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant Mr. Atta Tarar how he feels about the “three rights of appeal” in that eventuality. After all, in Pakistan, we only seem to care if and when we become victims of an injustice.

In a country where even the mildest of criticism of the military high command can result in trial by court martial, it is alarming that the entire civilian set up (that holds power as a trust for the people of Pakistan) is performing mental gymnastics to deal a final blow to any prospect of civilian supremacy or control. 

Action against May 9 rioters 

The acts that took place on 9 and 10 May are nothing more than offences triable under the Pakistan Penal Code – they neither require trials by anti-terrorism courts nor court martial trials. To suggest that acts of arson or attacks on public property – criminal offenses under the Penal Code – require civilians to be subjected to trials by military officers, who do not even have basic understanding of the law, is beyond absurd and dangerous.

One need only recall the enforced disappearance and secret trial of human rights defender, Idrees Khattak, resulting in his continued incarceration. In November 2019, Idrees Khattak was forcibly disappeared and there was no information available on his fate or whereabouts up until several months later. In June 2020, it was discovered that Idrees Khattak was in the custody of the agencies working under the Ministry of Defence, in connection with a case under the Official Secrets Act. What followed exactly, no one knows (due to the inherent non-transparency and secrecy that surrounds military courts which is not denied but in fact justified on grounds of “confidentiality” and “national security”). However, Idrees Khattak was tried and sentenced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. He is not the only civilian who has been subjected to biased and opaque court martial proceedings. In Pakistan, where all power rests with Rawalpindi (with zero accountability for exercise of that power), there can never be even the remotest possibility of fair trial of civilians by court martial.

Have civilian courts failed to serve justice?

There is no weight in the argument being deployed by the civilian face of the present martial law to justify court martial of civilians. However, so that the uninterrupted flow of disinformation can be countered, the same is addressed below. The main (and rather audacious) line of argument adopted by those who lectured us on giving “respect to the vote”, is that the ordinary courts have failed to dispense justice and so there is a need for military courts. 

First, this flawed argument presumes (incorrectly) that military courts ensure fair dispensation of justice. This is contrary to the facts, research, judicial record and our history. Second, these courts which are being looked down upon by the civilian leadership are the same ordinary courts that are flooded each time it rains, where lawyers, judges and litigants alike sit for hours on end, covered in dirt and sweat in a tiny court room, functioning within a system that is heavily overburdened as a result of both frivolous/fake cases by the State against its own citizens and a refusal by the very same State to allocate sufficient funds/resources for functioning of the judiciary. Further, these are the same courts that rely on effective and timely investigations to proceed. How effective will those investigations be when investigating officers carry out the same on their own personal expense (with no proper reimbursement) because each successive government refuses to treat them as public functionaries, deserving of dignity in their work? Where for several decades the bulk of this country’s resources have been misallocated towards defense and defense-related expenditures, and luxuries for the ruling elite, what court system can deliver justice in these circumstances? More importantly, is it even reasonable to have this expectation when the civil-military imbalance has resulted in complete disintegration of all civilian institutions? And finally, with constant interference in the judiciary, brazen flouting of court orders, and intimidation of judges, by the military establishment, are we really to expect that those who dismantled our civilian structure will adhere to fair trial and due process guarantees in a system run entirely on their whims and wishes?

When the ordinary criminal law punishes arson, rioting and attacks on public property, there is no cogent reason why these offenses should be tried in anti-terror courts or by court martial.

There is no dispute over the poor functioning of our ordinary courts, however, military courts are not – and can never be – a solution to the problem because they are in fact an illustration of the State’s skewed priorities that have caused the problem in the first place. It is truly baffling why the civilian government is insistent on defending what is glaringly unconstitutional. Is the desire to completely dismantle and punish the PTI really greater than the desire for civilian supremacy? And is that desire to dismantle still greater than the desire for self-preservation of civilians/politicians in the long run?

Amidst all the propaganda and miscalculated defense of military court trials of civilians, it is pertinent to remember that when the ordinary criminal law protects against, and punishes, arson, rioting and attacks on public property, there is no cogent reason why these offenses should be tried in anti-terror courts or by court martial. To do so is also contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and in contravention of Article 4 of the Constitution, as held in the Waris Ali Case (2017 SCMR 1572): “The phrase ‘to be treated in accordance with law’ includes that every citizen must be dealt with according to law applicable to him, subject of course to the facts and circumstances of the case. If any citizen is triable under the ordinary penal law of the land, then treating him harshly under special law, not clearly applicable to him, would be a violation of the command of the Constitution.” 

Unfortunately however, the theater of the absurd continues in Pakistan as the climate of fear is at an all-time high. Politicians scramble to snatch the polish out of each other’s hands while the boots reward such servility by momentarily lifting their weight off the polisher’s neck. Tomorrow, each one of the politicians knows that the might of the boot will once again endanger their very own existence, but the choice is pettiness and vengefulness over reason. The delight of watching their opponents suffer (like they suffered in the past) is too good an opportunity to miss. And so it goes on and on, but real power (and exercise of that power with impunity) remains with the military establishment. 

Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir

The writer is an Islamabad-based lawyer and human rights activist.

The post Trial By Firing Squad: Prosecuting Civilians in Military Courts is Unconstitutional appeared first on Dissent Today.

Provincial caretaker information minister Amir Mir issued these remarks while addressing PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s claims that hundreds of PTI women workers are in several jails across the province and are being mistreated.

The caretaker minister said that 32 women were arrested on terrorism charges for their alleged involvement in May 9 attacks on military installations following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan. He added that of the 32 women, only 11 are in prison across the provinces while the remaining have been released.

Amir Mir also dismissed the rumours of mistreatment or alleged rape of the PTI women in jails.

“We can’t even imagine mistreating women,” he said.

On May 9, former prime minister Imran Khan was arrested by rangers from Islamabad High Court (IHC) on corruption charges and was released four days later. Following the arrest, the PTI leaders and workers attacked military installations. Top military brass and civilian leaders have decided to hold trials of PTI protestors in military courts amid severe condemnation from human rights groups.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Punjab Govt Says 11 PTI Women Behind Bars, Rejects Allegations Of Mistreatment appeared first on Dissent Today.

The banners bear pictures of several PTI Chairman Imran Khan and other party leaders, calling them “traitors”.

created & promoted as patriots. Used them to label others as ghaddar. Now thrown as ghaddars & discarded towards the end of the project. On & forward to some new project. pic.twitter.com/EHLGDNtTQ4

— Saleem (@memzarma) May 27, 2023

*Wall of Shame* with top tier PTI leadership pictures Are being displayed in front of judicial complex islamabad at 02:00 am @agentjay2009 @SdqJaan @MashwaniAzhar @PTIofficial @RebelByThought @BeingAddyPTI pic.twitter.com/nJQpSIIEGT

— Democratic Pakistani (@Demopakistani) May 26, 2023

Under the law, banners can only be displayed in cities with the permission of the district administration. In the case of Islamabad, permission is required from the Directorate of Municipal Administration for displaying or hanging of banners in the city.

Several PTI leaders and workers have been arrested for attacking military installations on May 9 following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan. Military leadership has decided to hold trials of civilians who attacked military installations in military courts, drawing severe condemnation from human rights defenders.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Banners Calling PTI Leaders ‘Traitors’ Over Attack On Military Installations Displayed In Several Cities  appeared first on Dissent Today.

Imran Riaz Khan was arrested amid the crackdown on PTI leaders and workers after the May 9 violent protests by party workers protesting the arrest of their leader Imran Khan. PTI protestors attacked military and civil properties. Top military brass and the civilian leadership have decided to hold trials of civilians who attacked military installations in military courts, drawing severe condemnation from human rights quarters.

On May 11, Imran Riaz Khan was arrested at Sialkot airport and since then his whereabouts remain unknown. On May 12, a writ petition was filed over the anchorperson’s arrest in the Lahore High Court (LHC) that had directed the attorney general to present him before the court the same day. However, the attorney general did not follow the court’s orders, the court had ordered Sialkot police to recover Imran Riaz Khan within 48 hours.

On May 16, the anchorperson’s father had registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) of the Pakistan Penal Code, claiming that unidentified persons and police officials had allegedly kidnapped Imran Riaz Khan.

Police had told the court hearing Imran Riaz Khan’s case that there was no trace of the anchorperson in any police station across the country. However, they said, the agencies had asked for a police van, so they might know of his whereabouts.

Reporters Without Borders has said the police statement in the court is a “clear admission” that the anchorperson was abducted by Pakistan’s military intelligence agencies. 

“According to confidential diplomatic sources consulted by RSF, the government’s silence about the TV anchor’s fate suggests that he may have fared badly since his abduction and may even have died in detention,” the report said.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Reporters Without Borders Fears Pro-PTI Anchor Imran Riaz Might Have Died In Security Agencies’ Custody  appeared first on Dissent Today.

An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore ordered the Camp Jail superintendent to hand over 16 civilians to the military so they can be tried in military courts.

Hashir Khan Durrani, who holds a degree in Computer Science and was working for the Punjab government, was also apprehended by police over attack on Lahore Corps Commander’s house.

اس لڑکے حاشر خان کو آج آرمی ایکٹ کے تحت کاروائی کے لئے ملٹری کی تحویل میں دے دیا گیا-
کمپیوٹر سائنس میں ڈگری تھی اور پنجاب گورنمنٹ میں لاکھوں روپے کی تنخواہ پر بڑی اچھی سرکاری نوکری کر رہا تھا-
اس لڑکے حاشر خان درانی کو دیکھ کر عبرت پکڑو-
کسی کے سیاسی مفاد کے لئے اپنے مستقبل… pic.twitter.com/GDpdpDCSrz

— SyedHaneef ShahAgha(JUI) (@Haneef_ShahAgha) May 25, 2023

The Army Act of 1952 established military courts primarily to try members of the military or enemies of the state. Civilians can only be tried there under a federal government order.

Nationwide protests erupted following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan from Islamabad High Court (IHC) on May 9 over corruption charges. During the three-day protests, the PTI workers attacked military and civil properties. At least nine party workers were also killed in clashes with the police across the country.

Top military brass has decided to try the PTI protesters who attacked army installations in military courts, drawing severe condemnation from human rights quarters.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Social Media Influencer Among 16 Civilians Handed Over To Military For Trials Over May 9 Protests appeared first on Dissent Today.

According to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government officials, trials of 16 suspects, who are in police custody for desecrating the statues of Colonel Sher Khan Shaheed and other national heroes in Mardan and other places, would be handled by six military courts.

Their cases would be handled under the Army Act and the Official Secrets Act for their involvement in the attacks, reported Express Tribune.

Earlier, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police arrested 16 suspects for their alleged involvement in the desecration of memorials of martyrs and attacks on military installations from various locations.

Top military brass and civilian leadership have decided to hold trials of civilians who were involved in the May 9 attacks on military installations across the country following the arrest of PTI chairman Imran Khan in military courts.

Human rights activists have condemned Pakistan Army’s decision to try PTI supporters who attacked civil and military installations under the Pakistan Army Act and Official Secrets Act, saying that using laws meant for military personnel against civilians is against the principles of democracy.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Military Courts To Take Up Cases Of 16 PTI Protesters Over Attack On Army Installations  appeared first on Dissent Today.