PTI leader and former MNA Zartaj Gul filed an appeal in the Punjab High Court on Saturday against the 10-year prison sentence and fine of Rs1 million handed to her last week.
On May 9, 2023, PTI supporters, protesting the party founder Imran Khan’s arrest, staged violent protests throughout the country, following which thousands of protesters were arrested. On July 31 this year, an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Faisalabad sentenced PTI leaders including Gul to 10 years of imprisonment for their involvement in the riots.
The Election Commission of Pakistan had later disqualified Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan, Opposition Leader in the Senate Shibli Faraz, MNA Zartaj Gul, and other PTI lawmakers following their convictions.
Following the ECP’s disqualification, opposition leaders in the NA and Senate Ayub and Faraz, respectively were removed from their seats, according to notifications by the respective houses’ secretariats.
Gul filed an appeal against the sentence, as well as a fine she received for Rs1 million. She is the first PTI leader in Punjab to file an appeal against her conviction as the Peshawar High Court in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had halted the ECP from taking any action against PTI leaders Ayub and Faraz after they moved the court.
“I am innocent in the case,” Gul said, wrote in her plea.
The appeal was filed through Gul’s lawyers, Barrister Ali Zafar and Muhammad Hussain Chotia.
Gul had previously served as the minister of state for climate change in Imran Khan’s ministry until 2022, when the latter was ousted from government following a no-confidence motion.
In June of last year, she was nominated as the parliamentary leader of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in the National Assembly by the PTI.
The petition, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, requested the court to quash the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment as well as the fine.
Among other grounds for the appeal, it cited a lack of sufficient and unimpeachable evidence, also stating that Gul was convicted “without valid reasoning”.
