He says the PTI was offered to hold a protest at Sanjgani instead of D-Chowk in exchange for concessions for the PTI founder.
PML-N leader Rana Sanaullah. PHOTO: Express
Prime Minister’s Political Affairs Advisor Rana Sanaullah on Wednesday claimed that during Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) November 2024 protest, party founder Imran Khan initially agreed to hold talks and not protest against D-Chowk but later backed out, adding that it was a missed opportunity for his release.
In November 2024, PTI supporters left Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa for Islamabad, demanding the restoration of the party’s electoral mandate, the release of detained party members, and the revocation of the 26th Amendment. However, the protest in the federal capital came to an end after the government launched a major operation to stop the protesters from reaching D-Chowk, forcing senior party leaders to “escape” from the venue.
In an interview on a private media outlet’s ‘Capital Talk’ show, Sanaullah revealed that the government, including Home Minister Naqvi, had made an offer to Imran, proposing that the party hold its planned November 2024 sit-in at Sangjani instead of marching towards D-Chowk.
“He (Imran Khan) was being given wise advice, and Mohsin Naqvi was directly involved in talks with him, telling him not to come towards Islamabad or go to D-Chowk, but to sit at Sangjani and hold talks there. Initially, Imran Khan agreed to this, but after agreeing, he backed out and said that Bushra Bibi would decide. He then took the decision that they would go to D-Chowk,” Sanaullah said.
He explained that if Imran had agreed, he would have received concessions, adding that the decision lost an opportunity for his release.
When asked if Imran had allegedly said that he did not want to come out, Sanaullah replied: “You can say it.”
The prime minister’s aide said the PTI founder could have secured his release from Adiala jail if the party had chosen a more peaceful course of action during its 2024 protest.
Sanaullah noted that the PTI miscalculated the potential outcome of its street agitation, believing it would spark a revolution. “They thought the street movement would cause a revolution,” he added.
“Imran Khan wants to get out of jail; he does not want to stay in jail even for a single day,” Sanaullah continued. “However, PTI and Imran Khan are misjudging the situation. They were under the illusion that their strike on February 8 would create a significant impact.”
The prime minister’s aide also alleged that Imran was no longer making decisions for PTI independently. Instead, he claimed that Imran’s wife, Bushra Bibi, was influencing party decisions. “Imran fully followed his wife’s advice when he was prime minister and still listens to her today,” Sanaullah said. He dismissed claims that Imran had ever resisted his family’s influence on party decisions.
Referring to PTI’s announcement today of another street agitation after Eid, he said: “It is understood that Imran’s rally will be stopped during Ramadan following the announcement of launching the street movement.”
He further commented that the PTI leaders lacked the capacity to start a successful street movement for Imran’s release. He warned that they would be dealt with accordingly if they attempted to create chaos.
Sanaullah said the move proposed by the PTI after Eid was a “conspiracy” against Imran and the party, adding that the PTI founder had been living in good conditions in jail and receiving quality treatment. He also made reference to PTI’s February 8 strike call over wheel jams, which he claimed had received a poor response.
The prime minister’s aide also advised the PTI to hold talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who had invited them to discuss the country’s stability. “They can receive concessions if they take positive initiatives for the development of the country,” he said, adding that street protests and sit-ins were only further complicating the situation.
He criticized the PTI for complaining about Imran’s lack of meetings with his family and PTI leaders. “PTI itself was responsible for the situation due to its use of derogatory language after the meeting with Imran,” Sanaullah said.
“If these meetings were not used to abuse the state and state institutions or for clandestine propaganda, then who stopped them from holding the meetings?” asked.
