GOVERNMENT CRITICIZED FOR FAILING TO REMOVE ZARTAJ GUL’S NAME FROM TRAVEL BAN LIST

Posted on September 25, 2024 by News Desk

Government questioned over failure to remove Zartaj Gul’s name from travel ban list

The Islamabad High Court has requested an explanation from the government for its failure to remove Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Zartaj Gul’s name from the travel ban list, despite a prior court order.

During a contempt of court hearing, it was revealed that Zartaj Gul’s name remained on the no-fly list even though her bail in a related case had been confirmed on September 5. A government lawyer informed the court that an FIR had been registered against her in Dera Ghazi Khan, but her lawyer argued that bail had already been granted in that case.

Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri noted that her bail had been confirmed earlier in September and questioned why her travel restrictions had not been lifted. The government lawyer said he would seek further instructions on the matter.

Expressing her frustration, Zartaj Gul stated, “How can I travel when they refuse to give me my passport? I am an elected member of parliament, and it is my right to travel freely.” She also revealed that multiple secret FIRs had been filed against her, resulting in her inclusion on the travel ban list.

Previously, the Islamabad High Court had granted Zartaj Gul bail in cases 567 and 340 and ordered the Additional Attorney General (AAG) to remove her name from the Exit Control List (ECL).

Justice Jahangiri criticized the situation, saying, “You don’t add terrorists’ names to the list, yet members of the assembly are brought to court. Should I summon the Inspector General (IG) and ask?” He further questioned the rationale behind placing a political leader on the ECL for holding a rally, pointing out that no gang or terrorist cases had been presented before him.

The court also inquired about the cases against Zartaj Gul, who has been appointed as the parliamentary leader of the SIC.

Her counsel, Osama Tariq, confirmed that responses had been submitted for cases 567 and 340, and both were under urgent miscellaneous applications. The court verified that she was on bail in both cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *