Shutting down your own province in the name of protest will not work at all Salman Akram Raja

PTI’s central leader, Barrister Salman Akram Raja, has strongly criticized the denial of his meeting with the party’s founding chairman in his capacity as a lawyer. Speaking alongside Barrister Gohar in Rawalpindi, he argued that receiving instructions from the chairman is his constitutional and legal right, which cannot be taken away. He questioned how dozens of cases could be pursued against one person while his lawyers are denied access.

Raja also rejected the stance that family members cannot engage in political discussion after meeting the chairman, calling it unconstitutional. He stressed that both the chairman and his family have the right to communicate freely, and preventing this violates fundamental rights. On the issue of medical examination, he clarified that the party did not miss any opportunity by not participating, explaining that their involvement could have been politically exploited. He insisted that transparency required the presence of a family member or personal physician during the process.

Criticism of Protest Politics and Call for Legal Solutions

Barrister Gohar echoed Raja’s concerns, expressing regret over the denial of lawyer access and emphasizing that legal requirements must be respected. Raja further clarified that PTI is not engaged in any backdoor negotiations, stating, “Whatever happens will be through the front door,” dismissing rumors of secret compromises.

Separately, Raja criticized the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government for shutting down its own province in the name of protest politics. He argued that such actions are not an appropriate way to address issues. Instead, he emphasized that political and constitutional matters should be resolved seriously and within the framework of law, so that democratic processes and public trust are not harmed.

Background

These remarks come at a time of heightened political tensions in Pakistan, where PTI leaders continue to face multiple legal challenges. The debate over lawyer access, family rights, and protest strategies reflects broader concerns about constitutional protections, transparency, and the future of democratic governance in the country.