.
ISLAMABAD:
The country’s cybercrime watchdog has told the capital’s high court that former prime minister Imran Khan has refused to cooperate with it in connection with its investigations into the PTI founder’s alleged social media posts from inside a prison.
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has submitted a report to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which is currently hearing a petition filed by a citizen, Ghulam Murtaza, seeking blocking of Imran Khan’s X account.
Imran Khan, detained in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail since September 2023, regularly posts on social media, particularly on X, to criticize the government and state institutions.
According to the agency, the NCCIA teams visited the PTI founder several times in Adiala jail, in connection with an earlier case registered against Imran on September 13, 2024 for allegedly publishing anti-state publications, with court permission.
“[However]he [Imran Khan] “he did not cooperate and did not say who is using and operating his social media accounts,” the report says.
The NCCIA claimed that it had already registered investigations against the former prime minister in connection with controversial posts.
On January 21, the IHC, while hearing the petition seeking closure of Imran’s social media accounts, said it could move forward only if the authorities allowed the PTI founder’s lawyer in the case, Salman Akram Raja, to meet his client in jail.
An IHC bench headed by Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir also sought a written reply from the Islamabad attorney general on a contempt of court petition filed by Raja over the authorities’ failure to arrange his meeting with Imran despite a court order.
During the hearing, Justice Tahir also termed the response submitted by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) as unsatisfactory.
It noted that responses had been received from the prison authorities, the PTA and other respondents, but noted that the PTA’s response did not correspond to the nature of the court petition.
Addressing the PTA’s counsel, Justice Tahir said the authority should compare its response with the actual relief sought in the petition.
During the hearing, Raja informed the court that he had not been able to consult his client in connection with the case, despite a Nov. 4 court order allowing a lawful meeting.
The court noted that final arguments in the account X case would be heard on February 24, subject to the meeting being arranged.
The government’s lawyer argued that matters related to meetings with detainees fall within the jurisdiction of a broader court. However, Justice Tahir commented that the case could not proceed unless the petitioner’s lawyer was allowed to meet his client.
