Prime Minister (PM) Mian Shehbaz Sharif ordered Chief Minister Punjab (CM) Hamza Shehbaz Sharif to hold an inquiry into the disruption caused by security officials after a judge and others complained of being harassed by security officials.
The orders came after the Special Court (Central-I) judge Ijaz Hassan Awan complained his car was intercepted and others were stopped from entering the court premises.
The premier passed the orders as he stood in court for the first time after coming into power on April 9. The judge was hearing the pre-arrest bails of Shehbaz Sharif and Hamza Shehbaz Sharif in the money laundering case of Rs16 billion.
PM Shehbaz and CM Hamza Shehbaz remained in the courtroom for around two and half hours for the proceedings.
During the morning hours, after the arrival of the prime minister at the court premies, that gate was closed by security personnel and litigants, lawyers, court staffers, and journalists were not allowed inside.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) Attaullah Tarar, who was along with the PM, said the prime minister was also not able to enter the courtroom until the journalists were allowed. “The PM waited there until the journalists were allowed into the premises,” he said.
During the court proceedings, the judge expressed his dismay over the security personnel intercepting his car and staffers. Shehbaz took the rostrum and told the court that he was also stopped by the security at the main gate. “Mr prime minister, you are the prime minister in or outside the courtroom”, the judge remarked. “Who will take action? You have administrative control, it is also your obligation to see things and decide what sort of action may be taken in such a situation”, he furthered. Upon this, the PM directed CM Punjab to hold an inquiry into “why or who created such a situation at court premises”. The court also took the Superintendent of Police (SP) Civil Lines, Safdar Raza Kazmi, to task over the conduct adopted by the security officials. SP Safdar Raza ensured the court that such a situation will not arise in the future.
The statement irked the judge who then directed the SP to state in categorical terms what action he intended to take and what had already been done. While the police official stated that there had been some miscoordination and assured the judge that the police respected the courts, the court nonetheless issued a notice to the SP and directed him to submit a written reply.
