Islamabad: PTI on Sunday rejected reports that its core committee had been sidelined or stripped of its decision making powers, clarifying that no changes had been approved to the party's internal leadership structure.
The clarification comes amid speculation over a possible redistribution of authority within the opposition party, particularly proposals to strengthen its parliamentary committee. The debate has renewed attention on how PTI makes political and organisational decisions while its founder and former prime minister, Imran Khan, remains in prison.
PTI Central Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram said the party's core committee, political committee and parliamentary party continued to operate as separate bodies, each responsible for distinct areas of decision-making.
According to Akram, organisational and political matters fall within the jurisdiction of the core and political committees, while the parliamentary party handles legislative affairs and issues concerning elected representatives.
He explained that recommendations from the parliamentary party could be referred to the relevant committees for consideration but did not automatically constitute binding decisions.
Akram maintained that ultimate authority remained with Imran Khan, who had delegated specific responsibilities to the party's committees.
PTI leader Naeem Haider Panjutha told Dawn that Barrister Ali Zafar had proposed strengthening the parliamentary committee during an internal meeting. However, he stressed that the suggestion had not been formally approved.
Panjutha explained that the political committee was established partly to address difficulties arising from the core committee's large membership, which could complicate decision-making and increase the risk of confidential discussions being leaked.
Under the existing arrangement, the political committee exercises powers delegated by Imran Khan, while the core committee is expected to be consulted before decisions are finalised.
Another proposal under consideration includes adding the heads of PTI's organisational bodies to the political committee.
Panjutha also pointed to the party's existing distribution of responsibilities, saying Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Raja Nasir Abbas had been entrusted with political mobilisation and negotiations, while Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi had been assigned leadership of the street movement.
He questioned how any fundamental restructuring could take place without Khan's approval.
Why the committee dispute matters
The controversy highlights a broader challenge facing PTI: maintaining a coherent decision making structure while its founder remains incarcerated and different party forums oversee parliamentary affairs, political strategy and public mobilisation.
Although the party maintains that its committees have clearly defined responsibilities, the discussion over strengthening the parliamentary body raises questions about the balance of influence between elected lawmakers and the wider organisational leadership.
The distinction is politically significant because decisions concerning parliamentary strategy, negotiations and street protests may require coordination across several party bodies.
A stronger parliamentary committee could potentially give elected representatives a greater role in shaping the party's direction. However, PTI officials insist that no such transfer of authority has taken place and that the existing leadership arrangements remain intact.
The party also rejected a statement attributed to its interim chairman, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, suggesting that Chief Minister Sohail Afridi's detention could have been avoided had he remained in Mardan instead of travelling to Peshawar as part of an alleged pre planned strategy.
PTI denied that Gohar had made the reported remarks.
PTI raises concerns over Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi's detention
Separately, PTI condemned what it described as the prolonged detention of Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, alleging restrictions on their constitutional rights, legal representation, family meetings and access to appropriate medical care.
In a statement, Akram claimed that Khan had spent 1,177 days in detention, including 356 days in solitary confinement, while Bushra Bibi had been imprisoned for more than 911 days.
These figures were provided by PTI and have not been independently verified.
The party expressed concern about Khan's health and demanded regular access to his family, lawyers, and political representatives, as well as medical examinations by qualified specialists under the supervision of his personal physician.
PTI further alleged that state institutions were being used to intimidate political opponents and restrict political activity.
The party warned that continued preventive detention and restrictions on legal and constitutional safeguards could set precedents that affect civil liberties beyond the immediate political dispute.
Party demands release of detained leaders and workers
Akram also criticised the continued detention of Khan's sisters, claiming they remained in custody despite the reported completion of a 30 day detention period under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law.
He demanded their immediate release, together with detained PTI leaders, elected representatives and party workers.
The MPO framework permits preventive detention under specified legal conditions, but applying it to political activists has repeatedly sparked controversy over due process and freedom of political expression.
PTI maintained that preventive detention should not be used to suppress political dissent or punish opposition figures.
The party's latest statements highlight two challenges facing its leadership: managing internal political authority in Khan's absence and sustaining pressure over the detention and treatment of its founder and other party members.
For now, PTI insists that its internal decision making arrangements remain unchanged, with Khan retaining final authority over major political and organisational decisions.
