Usman Dar leaves. Politics and PTI
Usman Dar, a close aide and former SAPM, declared on Wednesday that he was leaving the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and politics, dealing another blow to ousted prime minister Imran Khan.
Usman Dar claimed that “Imran Khan presided over a meeting where the planning and implementation of the events of May 9 took place and accused Imran Khan of endorsing a narrative that is hostile to the state, and blames him directly for the PTI’s current situation.”
The goal of the May 9 events, he claimed, “was to put pressure on the army chief to resign,” and he suggested that Imran Khan might be getting guidance from within the organisation.
The former SAPM said, “I now feel ‘unfit’ in PTI, so I announce my resignation from politics along with party.” He added that the planning for attacking important sites was done in the meeting presided over by Imran Khan.
He claimed that during the meeting, instructions were given that if the PTI chairman is detained, key installations would be attacked.
The PTI leader added that General Asim Munir’s appointment as Army Chief was the reason behind the party’s long march in October 2022.
He claimed that the anti-army group’s Murad Saeed, Hammad Azhar, Farrukh Habib, and Azam Swati sought a fight.
Dar went on to say that this particular group had a tight relationship with Imran Khan.
He made it clear that May 9 was just a date and that the plot against the military had been in the works for a while.
It was even mentioned during the Imran Khan-led conference that they might, in order to apply pressure, be willing to target state institutions.
He claimed that workers brainstormed ideas and individuals were brought in from all around the nation to stop Imran Khan from being arrested.
The PTI was shocked following the attacks on the institutions.
The Sindh High Court ordered the police to report Usman Dar missing on Tuesday and to turn him in on October 18.
Before the bench, attorney Ali Tahir stated that the high court had already ordered the police to file the missing person case.
The court voiced its displeasure and questioned the police as to why the case had not been reported. SHO informed the court that the applicant had not approached the police.
