PTI Long March: IHC Seeks Affidavits From KP Chief Secretary, Police IG
Mian Nadeem
Published September 11, 2026 | 02:45 PM
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general argued that the court’s suo motu powers had ended and that public-interest petitions were now creating a trend of suo motu proceedings; he also sought the inclusion of the KP chief minister and PTI as parties to the case.
ISLAMABAD, (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News – 11th Sep, 2026) A larger bench of the Islamabad High Court, hearing a petition against the PTI’s protest and long march scheduled for September 27, sought affidavits from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary and inspector general of police by Monday. The court allowed the parties to file rejoinders and stated that, apart from the KP chief secretary and IG, other officials would not need to appear at the next hearing.
Before the hearing, KP Chief Secretary Shahab Ali Shah, Additional IG Abbas Ahsan, Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zafarullah, the interior secretary, the Punjab IG, and other officials reached the court. The three-member bench was headed by Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and included Justice Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif.
At the outset, the KP advocate general raised a preliminary objection to the Islamabad High Court’s jurisdiction. He stated that the court had been established under the Islamabad High Court Act and its jurisdiction was limited to Islamabad. According to him, issuing directives to officials from Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and KP did not fall within the court’s jurisdiction.
He argued that separate high courts had been established for each province and Islamabad. Islamabad was a territory rather than a province, which is why a separate act had been enacted for it. He added that judicial precedents established that a person should approach the court having jurisdiction over the relevant area. If one high court interfered in the jurisdiction of other provinces, he argued, the 18th Amendment would become ineffective. He requested the court to first determine whether it could hear the case before arguments on its maintainability were presented.
Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar directed the KP advocate general to continue his arguments.
The advocate general also questioned whether the petitioner was an aggrieved party, stating that the alleged activity had not yet taken place. A heated exchange subsequently occurred between him and the petitioner’s counsel. The advocate general claimed the petitioner had not presented arguments and that the attorney general had argued on the petitioner’s behalf. The petitioner’s counsel objected, asserting he had argued the case and calling the statement inappropriate.
The chief justice intervened and instructed the petitioner’s counsel to allow the advocate general to speak. The court later repeatedly directed the petitioner’s counsel to remain silent.
The KP advocate general continued…
