France tightens borders after deadly Ceuta migrant crisis

PTI leader and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi has said that the party does not want any harm to befall its founder, Imran Khan. Speaking at a press conference alongside other PTI leaders, Afridi said there was no alternative to resisting what he described as a “fake government”. He warned that young people were increasingly frustrated about their future and would come out of their homes on September 27. Afridi said PTI leaders had repeatedly sought a meeting with Imran Khan but had received no positive response. He said Khan’s family members were non-political and that both his family and lawyers were willing to give assurances that no political press conference would be held after the meeting. The chief minister also expressed concern about Khan’s health. He said the party wanted him to receive proper medical treatment and warned that PTI workers would stage a sit-in outside the Supreme Court if they were not allowed to meet him. Afridi reiterated that the party did not want Imran Khan to suffer any harm. He said PTI’s political struggle was centred around its founder and that his supporters would continue to raise their concerns over his treatment. Speaking on the occasion, PTI leader Salman Akram Raja said Imran Khan’s health was currently the party’s most important concern. Raja said no further interference with Khan’s health would be tolerated. He also indicated that the political campaign being planned by the party would continue and would not be stopped. He criticised the government and alleged that PTI supporters were being treated unfairly. He said the party would continue its political struggle against what he called an imposed government.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reserved its verdict on the maintainability of a petition challenging the delay in the approval of judicial appointments for high courts across the country. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir heard the petition filed by advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhary through his counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry. The petitioner requested the court to direct President Asif Ali Zardari to approve a summary forwarded by the prime minister for the appointment of 19 additional judges and the confirmation of five judges in the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh, Balochistan and Peshawar high courts. During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) had recommended the appointments during its meetings held on July 20 and 21. He said the summary was later sent to the president for approval, but no decision has been made despite the passage of more than two weeks. The counsel maintained that the delay is affecting the functioning of the superior judiciary. He informed the court that the tenure of an additional judge of the Sindh High Court has already expired, while the terms of four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court are expected to end within the coming days. The lawyer also told the court that reports suggest the government may issue notifications regarding the appointments within the next 48 hours. Justice Tahir repeatedly questioned whether a constitutional petition could legally be maintained against the president. He asked the petitioner’s counsel to cite any previous court ruling in which a writ had been issued against the president regarding the exercise of constitutional powers. The court observed that the judgments presented by the petitioner did not support the argument that courts could direct the president in matters governed by Article 48 of the Constitution. Justice Tahir asked whether any legal precedent existed requiring the president to act on such matters through a judicial order. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Article 48 requires the president to act on the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet. He maintained that the president has no independent authority to indefinitely delay judicial appointments once the Judicial Commission has completed its recommendations. The lawyer further argued that the Ministry of Law is the competent authority to issue appointment notifications after the completion of the constitutional process. He claimed that the president’s role in the appointment process is largely formal and that unnecessary delays should not hinder the functioning of the judiciary. The petitioner requested the court to seek responses from the federal government, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Law regarding the status of the pending summary. However, the court declined to issue notices at this stage.