LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday gave the last opportunity to the law officers of the federal and provincial governments to submit replies on the petition of PTI leader Aliya Hamza Malik against the alleged misuse of public funds for personal publicity by the Punjab rulers.

At the outset of the hearing, the lawyers for both governments sought more time to furnish their replies.

Justice Farooq Haider expressed regret that the governments’ lawyers had failed to file replies for the last three hearings and they again sought more time from the court.

The judge observed that the conduct reflected the government’s lack of respect for the judiciary as even submitting a reply had not been deemed necessary.

Justice Haider allowed the adjournment request, however, he warned the law officers that if the replies were not submitted by the next hearing, the right to file a reply would be forfeited.

The judge would resume the hearing on June 13.

The petitioner, PTI’s former MNA Aliya Hamza Malik, through her counsel Azhar Siddique challenged the media advertisements featuring Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz.

The counsel argued that the Supreme Court had taken a suo motu notice of political figures’ photos appearing in government advertisements. As a result, he said, PM Shehbaz, as then chief minister, had to return Rs5.5m to the national exchequer. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had ordered the formulation of a policy on government advertisements. However, the lawyer said, instead of complying with the order, the Punjab government used electric buses to promote the chief minister’s image.

The lawyer argued that personal branding through government advertisements like placing posters of CM Maryam and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on electric buses and other projects, violated the Supreme Court’s ruling. He alleged that PM Shehbaz and CM Maryam had been violating the apex court’s order by continuing self-promotion through media advertisements. He asked the court to initiate contempt proceedings against those responsible for violating the Supreme Court’s directives.

Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2025