ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) said on Friday remarks by the chief of staff to former Prime Minister Imran Khan deemed seditious by the country’s media regulator were “reckless” and reflected a lack of understanding of the Pakistani constitution.
Police arrested Dr. Shahbaz Gill, Khan’s chief of staff and a prominent politician, on August 9 for allegedly attempting to incite soldiers to revolt against the country’s top military leadership. Last month, the aide said in a TV appearance on ARY News, which was subsequently taken off air, that there were attempts to create hatred against Khan’s PTI party among the middle and lower ranks of the military, whom he said were supporters of the party.
He suggested the junior ranks were being pressured by the top brass and that these orders were against the wishes of the majority, and that the junior ranks should reconsider following orders that were against their principles.
On Thursday, a little over a month after he was arrested, the IHC accepted Gill’s request for bail.
“The statements made by the Petitioner were indeed reckless and reflect lack of appreciation of the scheme of the Constitution,” the IHC said in its detailed order on Gill’s bail plea. “Such reckless statements were not expected from a person who claims to be an academician and is held out as a spokesman of a political party.”
The court observed that the prosecution had not brought on record any evidence to show that a complaint had been filed by, or on behalf of Pakistan’s armed forces, against Gill.
“The discipline of the Armed Forces is indeed not frail nor weak to be affected or influenced by reckless and irresponsible statements made by those who claim to be political leaders,” the IHC noted.
The high court said the prosecution had also not brought forth any “incriminating material” during the investigation which would indicate Gill had attempted to contact an officer or other members of the army before or after making the controversial statement.
The IHC said the investigation had been concluded and there was no more need for Gill to remain in jail.
“In such an eventuality, incarceration of the petitioner [Gill] would not only be futile but rather amount to punishing him before the conclusion of the trial,” the order said, adding that there was no reason to believe Gill would repeat the offense, abscond or tamper with evidence after his release: “There is therefore, no justification for this Court to refuse the grant of bail.”
Gill has separately filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking that it determine if physical custody was necessary to complete criminal cases. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued notices to federal investigators and summoned them in the case on a date yet to be confirmed.
