Abbasi says govt has no mandate to ban a political party

Former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has said that the permission to tap phone calls is a clear violation of the constitution and the law, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

Addressing a press conference on Monday, the leader of the Awami Pakistan Party Abbasi asserted that the government's notification permitting such actions is in direct conflict with the constitution.

Abbasi questioned why such a sensitive issue was not brought before the parliament for discussion and debate.

Commenting on the government’s decision to ban the opposition’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), he said that the government has no mandate to impose a ban on a political party.

He highlighted the absence of any precedent where a democratic government had imposed a ban on a political party, stating that the government does not have the authority to do so.

"The government is attempting to repeat the mistakes made by the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan.

“This is particularly problematic because the government's mandate is weak," Abbasi stated.

He further elaborated,” Article 14 provides protection, and Article 19 gives freedom of expression. If Article 6 invoked against anyone then those in government today could also face it.” 

 “This is the time to unify the country, Do you want more grouping and chaos,” he questioned.

 Abbasi criticized the government's inaction following the events of May 9, stating that a year and two months have passed, and the government didn’t prosecute.

  “Three days after the supreme court decided on reserved seats, the government has started talking about a ban on a political party,” he said.

“These decisions of courts boost democracy. The government’s holding press conferences and criticism have not been appropriate,” Abbasi said.

“What impression do you want to give, confrontation among institutions,” the former PM questioned. “Do you want more chaos,” he asked.

“You were happy when these judges were giving decisions in your favor,” he remarked.

He questioned why the idea of imposing a ban came only after the Supreme Court's decision, suggesting that the timing and motivation behind this move could raise suspicions among the public.