While PTI could not hold its planned protest in Islamabad on Friday due to the imposition of Section 144, the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) went ahead with a similar plan, claiming several party workers were arrested by the capital police.
A day ago, the district administration in a statement had stated that Section 144 was already imposed in Islamabad.
“Any kind of protest or rally will not be allowed in the federal capital. No one will be allowed to violate Section 144 and strict action will be taken against the violators,” the Islamabad administration had warned. Similarly, Section 144 was also imposed across Punjab from July 26 to 29.
The restrictions had come as the capital braced for another political showdown, with the JI announcing a sit-in at D-Chowk from today and PTI-led opposition alliance, Tehreek Tahaffuz-i-Aaeen Pakistan (TTAP), also calling for countrywide protests.
The JI has planned a sit-in against price hikes, exorbitant electricity bills and the increase in income tax, while the TTAP had announced protesting the alleged political victimisation of the opposition parties along with demanding ex-premier Imran Khan’s release from jail.
The district administration had last night sealed D-Chowk by placing containers on the nearby roads and the police had arrested more than a dozen JI activists and local office-bearers.
While the PTI sought permission for a protest from the Islamabad High Court, — which urged the capital administration to allow it on July 29 — it shared visuals of small-scale protests held in other cities across the country, including in Mirpur Mathelo, Moro, Lodhran, Muzaffargarh and Shangla.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur also addressed a public gathering in Bannu.
Meanwhile PTI Islamabad President Amir Masood Mughal issued a video message announcing that the party had called off its protest and scheduled it for Monday after the Islamabad High Court’s hearing.
‘Arrests made’ as JI begins protests
Meanwhile, JI’s protests in Islamabad began in the evening and were soon met with arrests, the party claimed.
In a statement, JI information secretary Sajjad Ahmed Abbasi called on supporters to gather on Islamabad Highway at the H-8/I-8 bridge situated between Faizabad and Zero Point at 5:30pm.
The party, in a post on X, said that its workers had “reached D-Chowk after surpassing all obstacles”, adding that police were arresting its workers while sharing a video of a person being forced into a police van.
Protesters gathered at Express Chowk, chanting “Jamaat-i-Islami zindabad” as well as slogans against high electricity bills and inflation, video footage showed. A video showed police detaining a man and putting him into a police van.
In multiple posts on X, the JI said supporters from various cities — including Peshawar, Chitral, Swat, Lahore, Gujranwala, Faisalabad, Narowal and Sialkot — had departed towards Islamabad for the sit-in.
Video footage shared by a Dawn.com correspondent earlier today showed containers placed on Islamabad roads, with police contingents deployed at various points.
Containers were placed on the Expressway Zero Point bridge while the capital police were also deployed in the nearby areas.
The Islamabad Traffic Police also issued a plan detailing alternative routes for the public in case certain main arteries were blocked.
It suggested that in the case of the Peshawar-GT Road being blocked, the public should use the motorway and if the Srinagar Highway was closed off, Peshawar Road and Colonel Sher Khan Road could be used.
In case Faizabad was shut for traffic, vehicles coming from Rawalpindi could be diverted to Khanna Bridge, Captain Tufail Shaheed Road and Park Road while if Murree Road was blocked, traffic from the garrison city could be sent to 9th Avenue.
IHC suggests govt allow PTI protest on Monday
Separately, IHC’s Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz urged the capital administration to allow the PTI to hold a protest on July 29 as she heard the party’s petition seeking permission for today’s planned demonstration.
On Wednesday, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had set aside the deputy commissioner’s (DC) July 5 order, which had turned down the PTI’s request to hold a rally in the capital on July 6 citing law and order situation due to Muharram.
Justice Farooq had also ordered the DC to decide on the PTI request in accordance with the law by treating it as pending.
Today, Justice Imtiaz took up a petition filed by PTI leader Aamer Mughal seeking permission to stage a protest. Shoaib Shaheen appeared as Mughal’s counsel while state counsel Malik Abdulrehman was present on the district administration’s behalf.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge gave them two hours to discuss the matter and reach a solution.
When the hearing resumed in the afternoon, Justice Imtiaz suggested that the administration allow the PTI to hold a protest on July 29 — which the state counsel argued was difficult to guarantee — and reserved the verdict.
At the outset of the hearing, the state counsel informed the court that the PTI’s request had been received and an order had also been issued on it.
Upon Justice Imtiaz observing there was a second protest also planned for today, Abdulrehman said he was not aware of it and that the district administration had dismissed all applications seeking permission for protests.
Here, Shaheen recalled that his party had submitted a request for a rally permit and that a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) had been granted but then was revoked.
“Regarding the rally, talks with them are ongoing. That is a separate matter,” the PTI leader said while referring to the IHC’s Wednesday order on July 6 rally.
“Right now, we want to hold a peaceful protest outside the National Press Club, which is our Constitutional right. There is no need to seek permission to hold protests, meetings, etc as a high court order on it is present,” the lawyer asserted.
The state counsel rebutted that the said order did not pertain to Section 144’s imposition. Addressing him, Justice Imtiaz remarked, “According to the reasons you are giving, no one can hold a protest.”
“Is it stated anywhere in the law that a large number of public or a huge number of women cannot gather in one place?” the judge asked. “The press club is situated in the city’s heart [so] there is a chance [of an incident] and hence, a protest outside it can never be held,” she added.
“Are you saying that a protest outside the press club cannot be held at all?” Justice Imtiaz asked the state counsel, wondering if he ought to specify the maximum number of people who could protest there. “Or you should bring a law that more than a certain number of people cannot gather outside the press club.”
The judge then adjourned the hearing till 12:30pm, ordering both sides to hold a discussion among themselves and apprise the court of it.
When the hearing resumed, the Islamabad advocate general also appeared before the IHC and informed it that protests by the JI and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam—Fazl (JUI-F) were scheduled for today in the city.
The counsel claimed that “entire Islamabad was shut” due to JI’s sit-in, at which Justice Imtiaz asked him whether the party had been given permission for it.
“I am saying [to allow PTI protest on] Monday, then why are you not allowing it? Why can they not protest? What connection does a sit-in have with a protest?” she asked the advocate general. To this, the counsel replied that the JI had announced a sit-in while the JUI-F was to protest an order of the Supreme Court.
Here, PTI’s Shaheen highlighted that the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) had “staged a sit-in without permission, yet the DIG (deputy inspector general) had chanted slogans there that their cause was the same”.
Justice Imtiaz then observed that the locations where Section 144 had been imposed did not include F-9 Park’s area. However, the advocate general insisted that while the Red Zone was highlighted, Section 144 was imposed in the entire city.
The judge then asked him when the TLP’s recent sit-in at Faizabad took place, to which he replied: “We had not allowed them. They forcefully entered and sat there.”
Shaheen stressed that TLP supporters had continued their sit-in during the initial days of Muharram.
The judge then remarked that the matter of concern was not the imposition of Section 144 but denying a political party the right to protest. “A political party has not been permitted to stage a protest but they are still coming here.”
Justice Imtiaz then asked Shaheen if a protest announced by another party would pose any issues to the PTI, to which he replied in the negative, explaining that his party’s workers would come from within Islamabad. “How should I assume or believe that your supporters would not come from outside [the city]?” she asked.
“Kindly allocate us a location where our workers can also come and there wouldn’t be any issues either,” Shaheen requested the judge, at which she said the press club’s area was dedicated for such activities.
Justice Imtiaz then asked the advocate general what issue was posed by the date of July 29 proposed by her for the PTI protest. “If today’s circumstances continue till Monday, there cannot be any protest on that day either,” the counsel replied.
“Why would there be such circumstances? It is your government and your responsibility,” Justice Imtiaz observed.
She urged the advocate general to allow the PTI to protest on Monday, to which the former said: “We cannot give permission for Monday [as] we don’t know what the situation would be like then. If Jamaat-i-Islami’s protest is prolonged till Monday then we cannot allow [the PTI].”
“There would be no ifs and buts. The government should have trust in itself that it can control the situation. Do not make such statements that expose your incompetence,” Justice Imtiaz told the counsel.
“Do not prove yourself so helpless. You are the government. So many enemies are situated in the neighbourhood. What impression would be given if they heard this?” she said.
“We will deal with enemies [but] difficulty arises when it comes to our own people,” the advocate general responded.
“Then should I write [in the order] that the government is helpless as it cannot control the situation within three days?” Justice Imtiaz quipped, to which the counsel replied: “If you have to order so, then you may but we cannot give [PTI] the permission.”
Subsequently, the court reserved its verdict on the PTI petition.
