In its latest attempt to suppress the PTI, the federal government on Monday announced that it has decided to ban the party and seek Article 6 proceedings against its founder Imran Khan, ex-president Dr Arif Alvi, and former National Assembly (NA) deputy speaker Qasim Suri.

The move appears to be an attempt to prevent the PTI from becoming the single largest party in the NA.

The announcement was made on the heels of relief given to the party by the top court in the reserved seats case as well as to the party chief in the Iddat case.

It has yet to be determined what impact the planned ban would have on the top court’s decision on reserved seats as well as the PTI-affiliated lawmakers.

Speaking during a press conference in Islamabad, Information Minister Atta Tarar said that if the country is to move in a forward direction, it cannot do so with PTI’s existence.

“In view of the foreign funding case, May 9 riots, and the cipher episode as well as the resolution passed in the US, we believe that there is very credible evidence present to have the PTI banned,” he said.

“We are going to impose a ban on PTI and we believe that Article 17 of the Constitution gives the government the right to ban political parties, and this matter will be referred to the Supreme Court.”

Article 17 (2) of the Constitution states that “every citizen, not being in the service of Pakistan, shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan.”

It further adds that “such law shall provide that where the Federal Government declares that any political party has been formed or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, the Federal Government shall, within fifteen days of such declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court whose decision on such reference shall be final.”

The information minister added that whether it was the foreign funding case, the May 9 riots or the manipulation of the cipher saga, the party prioritised its own interests.

In terms of the cipher episode, Tarar said the former Pakistani ambassador to the US, Asad Majeed — who authored the cipher — clarified that there was “no threat”, but the PTI continued decrying that the country was in danger.

“You tried to damage the country’s diplomatic relations for the sake of your political interests and went on to get a resolution passed against Pakistan in the US,” he said.

‘Article 6 reference to be moved against Arif Alvi, Imran Khan, and Qasim Suri’

To further tighten the noose around the PTI, Tarar said that the government had decided to file a reference against Alvi, Khan, and Qasim Suri, under Article 6 of the Constitution — which corresponds to high treason — for dissolving the assemblies in April 2022 despite a motion of no-confidence being moved against Khan in the Parliament.

“The reference, under Article 6, will be sent to the Supreme Court after being approved by the cabinet,” he announced.

Article 6 of the Constitution says: “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or hold in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

Govt to file review petition against SC’s reserved seats verdict

The information minister said that the government would also submit a review petition to the apex court against its last week’s verdict which declared that the PTI would be eligible for reserved seats for women and minorities.

The top court had given its verdict in PTI’s favour following the closure of hearing on a set of appe­als moved by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) aga­inst the denial of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to it by the Pesha­war High Court (PHC) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

PTI-backed candidates, who had contested and won the February 8 elections as independents after their party was stripped of its election symbol, had joined the SIC to form a coalition of convenience.

The top court on July 12 annulled the decision of the PHC while also declaring the decision of the election regulator null and void, terming it against the Constitution.

Tarar said that regarding the apex court’s verdict, an impression was created that the party was given relief without asking for it.

“However, Tehreek-i-Insaf was not a party in the case, the members [in question] did not claim to be PTI candidates, and all of them submitted SIC affidavits and joined the party”, he said, adding that according to the manifesto of the SIC, a non-Muslim could not become a member of the party which is why the party could not get minorities’ seats.

“The [SIC] MNAs never expressed their desire to join the PTI before the Supreme Court, therefore, given the legal inaccuracy in this decision, the ruling governmental party and its allies have decided to submit a review petition against the Supreme Court’s verdict,” Tarar said.

The government later submitted a review petition to the apex court calling for the verdict in the case of the reserved seats to be recalled and its operation suspended.

Reproducing the court’s declaration that the PTI was indeed a political party, the petition said: “These findings are even beyond the pleadings of the Parties. The issue of granting the reserved seats to PTI was not even in the pleadings of SIC and hence the same cannot be granted. It is a cardinal and well settled principle in our jurisprudence that ‘parties are bound by their pleadings’. In the instant case, neither SIC sought this relief, nor pleaded for the same.”

Reacting to the petition while assailing Tarar’s announcement in a press release, PTI leaders said the plea would fail and achieve nothing.

Barrister Gohar Ali Khan said all 41 PTI lawmakers had submitted their affidavits about their identification with the party.

Ban will uproot foundations of Pakistan: PTI

In response to the government’s move, the PTI said that the government’s decision to impose a ban on the party could “uproot the foundations of the country”.

“No patriot can think of banning the largest and most popular party of the country, as doing so would be tantamount to uprooting the foundations of Pakistan and sending the country towards civil war,” the party said in a post on social media platform X.

PTI Punjab Acting President Hammad Azhar also condemned the move and said: “Allowing/facilitating TLP (Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan) to come to Islamabad & have a sit-in whilst at the same time trying to ban PTI. The establishment is going by the old playbook but times have now changed.”

Senate opposition leader Shibli Faraz said that the government was fearful of Khan after the SC decision, following which it decided to ban the party in a “last-ditch effort”.

“You can try this tactic as well, go ahead,” he said in a video message, posted on the party’s X account.

He went on to say that the government was more concerned about Khan rather than focusing on the basic problems plaguing the country.

“Unfortunately, the country is in the hands of people who are neither capable nor eligible to run it,” he said.

PTI Senator Barrister Ali Zafar rubbished the talk about banning the party under Article 6 while talking to Geo News, saying that the government could not ban any party.

He said that if the government tried to move forward with its decision, the local courts would not let the government implement it.

“They have jumped to this escalation after the judgement of reserved seats,” he said, adding that the court’s decision “shocked them and left them homeless”.

“This is completely unfair and we reject it,” he added.

Zafar said the government failed to understand Article 6 as it could only be applied for “high treason”.

“Breaking the law is not treason,” he said, adding that banning any political party had never worked in the past.

Rights group ‘shocked’ by announcement

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) was “shocked” by the government’s decision to ban the PTI, according to a press release from the group’s spokesperson Asad Iqbal Butt.

He said the move was a “flagrant violation” of party members’ rights and was an “enormous blow to democratic norms” given that the SC had unanimously ruled the PTI was a political party.

Moreover, such a move “reeks of political desperation”, the spokesperson said.

The commission called for the withdrawal of the “unconstitutional decision”, adding, “If pushed through, it will achieve nothing more than deeper polarisation and the strong likelihood of political chaos and violence.

“No government can afford to have a selective memory and conveniently forget the consequences of banning or demonising political parties lest it find itself on the receiving end of such measures.”

The HRCP reminded the government that it needed to prioritise relief for the beleaguered citizens who were “caught in a continuing cost-of-living crisis and rising violence, crime and militancy”.

Butt added the government could not achieve this without its allies and rivals.

What happens next?

According to lawyer Rida Hosain, the majority order in the reserved seats verdict held that the “PTI was and is a political party, which secured or won (the two terms being interchangeable) general seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies in the General Elections of 2024”.

She said the result of the order was that the PTI would have a presence in the legislature and be granted reserved seats in accordance with its proportional strength of general seats.

“The government’s decision to ban the PTI appears to be a reaction to this verdict,” she said.

Hosain explained that Article 17(2) was “clear as day”, adding that the procedure it outlined for banning a party was a “mandatory provision and the matter must be placed before the SC, which has the final say”.

Additionally, she said that Section 212(3) of the Election Act 2017 stated that a political party may only be dissolved after the SC upheld the declaration.

“The government’s declaration would, therefore, not impact any existing members of the assemblies until the SC upholds it. If the SC does endorse the government’s declaration, members of the political party will stand disqualified (Section 213).”