Imran Khan granted bail in more cases, warns of his re-arrest

• 

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan has been granted bail in numerous more cases as he continues to warn that the military eyes rearresting him imminently.

Khan, who is accused of more than 100 offenses, was given bail by courts in Islamabad and Lahore in a number of cases, including allegations of terrorism and corruption.

Khan's attorneys also came before the Lahore high court, claiming that other "secret cases" had been filed against him without their knowledge, and they were seeking bail in all of the cases. The court has reserved its decision until later in the week.

Bushra Bibi, Khan's wife, had been given bail in a corruption case the day before after Khan warned in a string of tweets that the military intended to detain her as part of a plot to "humiliate" him.

This is happening as the crackdown on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) opposition party shows no sign of let-up as senior officials, Shehryar Afridi and Fayyaz ul Hassan Chohan, were detained on Tuesday in relation to the nationwide demonstrations that broke out last week, Pakistani broadcaster ARY News reported, citing the police.

The government and military also intensified their rhetoric against pro-Imran protesters across Pakistan last week, accusing Khan and PTI members of conspiring to ignite violence.

The Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, said during a meeting with the country’s national security committee on Tuesday, “I believe that whoever planned this and incited the vandalism, they are certainly guilty of terrorism.”

Shockingly, the army declared its intention to charge civilians who had taken part in "violent attacks on military and government buildings" under the Pakistan Army Act, which is normally reserved for military servicemen.

It was denounced by one politician from the ruling coalition as a “dangerous move” while Amnesty’s deputy regional director for South Asia, Dinushika Dissanayake, labeled it “alarming” and warned that “trying civilians in military courts is contrary to international law.”