Why Was Imran Khan Allowed to Meet His Lawyers? Rana Sanaullah Breaks Silence on 28th Amendment Speculation

Prime Minister’s Adviser on Political Affairs Rana Sanaullah has rejected claims that former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s recent meeting with his lawyers was arranged in connection with the proposed 28th Constitutional Amendment.

Speaking on Geo News’ programme Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath, Rana Sanaullah described the speculation as completely baseless, saying the meeting had no connection with any political arrangement related to the constitutional amendment.

He stated that the rumours and confusion surrounding the matter would come to an end once a decision was announced on Imran Khan’s appeal.

During the interview, Rana Sanaullah also discussed the government’s relationship with state institutions. He maintained that there had been no distance between the government and the institutions, nor was such a situation likely to develop.

According to him, the personalities of the Prime Minister and the Field Marshal remain a major source of mutual trust and confidence.

The statement comes after Imran Khan’s lawyers, Sardar Latif Khosa and Salman Safdar, met the former prime minister in jail on November 11.

According to jail sources, the meeting lasted more than two hours and focused on ongoing legal cases, various petitions, and other important legal matters.

Imran Khan’s wife, Bushra Bibi, was also present during the meeting. The lawyers reportedly discussed her pending cases and other legal issues as well.

Jail authorities confirmed that the meeting took place in the prison’s conference room following orders issued by the Islamabad High Court.

After the meeting, Latif Khosa told reporters that discussions had covered Imran Khan’s health and legal cases. He claimed that the meeting lasted approximately three to four hours.

The meeting had sparked political speculation about its possible connection to the proposed 28th Constitutional Amendment.

However, Rana Sanaullah has firmly denied any such link, maintaining that the meeting should not be interpreted as part of a political deal or constitutional negotiations.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top