Pakistan dissidents slam Imran Khan; say his actions are 'unconstitutional'

Pakistani dissidents expressed "trepidation and worry" over the political situation in Pakistan, saying that all norms of civility, parliamentary ethics have been thrown to winds by Imran Khan govt

A group of Pakistani dissidents on Tuesday expressed "trepidation and worry" over the political situation in Pakistan, saying that all norms of civility, democratic behaviour, parliamentary ethics, and adherence to the Constitution" have been thrown to the winds by the government of Imran Khan.

The embattled Prime Minister Khan stunned the Opposition parties on Sunday by recommending snap elections after a no-confidence motion against him was dismissed by the deputy speaker of the National Assembly. Khan then got Pakistan President Arif Alvi to dissolve the 342-member National Assembly before its term ended in August 2023.

Even after losing the support of a majority in parliament, Imran Khan unlawfully dissolved parliament. The (former) Prime Minister still enjoys the perks of office such as using State Television to send out political messages and criticising the Opposition, said a statement issued by South Asians Against Terrorism and for Human Rights (SAATH), a grouping of pro-democracy Pakistanis.

It is sad that the Higher Judiciary of the country is looking most casually at the illegal and unlawful and unconstitutional ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly in not allowing the Vote of No Confidence against Imran Khan. Institutions of National Security have failed to contradict (or confirm) claims that the Vote of No Confidence was launched by the traitorous Opposition' under instructions from the United States of America, SAATH said.

They expressed "trepidation and worry" at the political situation in Pakistan saying that all norms of civility, democratic behaviour, parliamentary ethics, and adherence to the Constitution" have been thrown to the winds by the outgoing government.

In any other country, such allegations would demand a high burden of proof, the statement said, adding that violation of the Constitution in the absence of evidence should have attracted a serious and immediate response from the judiciary, it said.