The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the interior ministry to submit rules for the provision of security to former prime ministers in a case pertaining to PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s request for security.

The former premier — who survived an assassination attempt on Nov 3, 2022 from which he is still recuperating — has been demanding security, especially after a statement from Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah that was considered by the PTI as a death threat.

On March 7 — before Sanaullah’s statement — Imran had moved the Lahore High Court for “foolproof security arrangements” as well as permission to attend court proceedings via video link. That same day, an Islamabad sessions court judge had observed that arranging security was the court’s responsibility and had asked Imran’s counsel to inform him of their reservations.

Today, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq presided over the hearing while Barrister Salman Safdar appeared as Imran’s counsel in place of Advocate Faisal Chaudhry as he had commitments at the Supreme Court.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal was also present during the hearing along with the interior ministry’s representative.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Farooq said, “Tell the court what and how much security is to be provided to a former prime minister.”

Here, Barrister Safdar informed the court that Imran could not appear personally, to which the IHC chief justice clarified that “an appearance is not due in this case”.

Justice Farooq continued, “The petitioner is a former prime minister. What is the rule on security?”. AAG Duggal responded that Section 17 (security) of the Prime Minister’s Salary, Allowances and Privileges Act, 1975 was the relevant rule.

He added that “appropriate security” would be provided and the notification for it will be issued in the Special Gazette as per the law.

The IHC chief justice then asked the AAG if any security had been provided to Khan currently to which the official replied affirmatively that “one bullet-proof car” has been provided. “[Even] I did not come in a bulletproof car right now,” the justice remarked.

The AAG further said that after the 18th Amendment, the matter of security was a provincial matter to which Justice Farooq responded that it was “done after April 9 [last year]” and asked AAG Duggal to re-read the notification issued previously.

“Bring these instructions from your office; you are asking the official standing behind you,” the IHC chief justice said addressing the AAG. To this, the AAG replied that an assessment committee decides on what security to provide.

Justice Farooq then asked if a “well-educated” person from the interior ministry was present during the hearing, upon which the ministry’s representative appeared in the court.

The interior ministry official told the court, “Lifetime security is given but notification for this has to be issued, which has not been yet. As far as Islamabad is concerned, the federal government looks over it while in the rest of the provinces, they review it by themselves.

“The DIG (deputy inspector general) looks over the security. In the matter of Punjab, the Punjab IG (inspector general) will look over it. While Imran Khan was in Islamabad, he was given fool-proof security,” the official added.

Justice Farooq what the situation was currently, to which the interior ministry representative replied that security is being provided to the PTI chief.

“If it’s an order of generalised security then that has to be implemented. What is the order for the petitioner?” the IHC chief justice asked. “I have been asking repeatedly that when a former prime minister — whoever it is — comes to Islamabad, who will provide him security?”

To this, AAG Duggal responded that security was being provided in the provinces “as a response to a writ petition”.

Here, Imran’s counsel said, “The Wazirabad incident happened; that is in front of everyone. Salman Taseer’s incident had also taken place already.”

Justice Farooq then ordered the AAG to provide details of the “law or the custom — whatever it is — in the court”.

He further remarked, “Prisoners in jail have rights as well. Everyone has rights. Today we are a judge, tomorrow we would not be.

“Why is the West ahead of us today? Because they have rules.”

At one point during the hearing, the IHC chief justice asked AAG Duggal about the whereabouts of the orders for fool-proof security provided to Imran when he appeared in court hearings “twice or thrice” recently.

The AAG answered that the letter was presented in the court upon which the judge further asked about the letter which specifically mentions the petitioner’s name, as the letter the AAG mentioned was a “general letter”.

Here, Imran’s counsel told the court that a security plan was not there for the hearings, and cited a past observation made the by IHC that the petitioner be provided security according to their satisfaction.

On this, Justice Farooq remarked, “It is upsetting that the state does not do such minor things. Why does one have to come to the court?”

Addressing the AAG, the IHC chief justice said, “Regarding the threat alert, you will have to assess security from time to time. One should get their legal rights. A former prime minister should get security according to their status. Establish good examples.”

Justice Farooq then directed AAG Duggal to present the security rules so that “an appropriate order” could be given.