PESHAWAR: The Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) has moved the Peshawar High Court against the formation of a special committee of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Assembly tasked with probing the 2023 attack on the Radio Pakistan building in Peshawar. The corporation has asked the court to strike down the assembly speaker’s notification, arguing that the inquiry committee encroaches upon the judiciary’s domain.
Read More: Five names okayed for appointment as PHC additional judges
The petition, filed through PBC’s Peshawar station director Tufail Ahmad, challenges the Dec 26, 2025 notification issued by Speaker Babar Saleem Swati. It also requests interim relief through suspension of the notification until the final disposal of the case.
The provincial assembly speaker and the KP government, represented through the additional chief secretary for home and tribal affairs, have been named as respondents. Counsel for the petitioner, Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, argued that the special committee’s mandate interferes with an ongoing judicial process.
The ransacking and burning of the Radio Pakistan building on May 10, 2023 occurred amid protests following the arrest of former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan. An anti-terrorism court is already conducting trial proceedings involving 75 accused, including sitting and former legislators, who were indicted in June 2025 and have pleaded not guilty.
Last month, the trial court accepted PBC’s request for forensic analysis of video footage and ordered facial recognition of suspects through Nadra, with a report due on Jan 10, 2026. The PBC now contends that the assembly committee risks disrupting criminal prosecution and could prejudice judicial findings.
Read More: NA committee approves Protection of Parents Bill
PBC challenges KP Assembly probe panel in high courtThe KP Assembly had passed a motion on Dec 16, 2025 to constitute a 15-member committee, chaired by provincial law minister Aftab Alam, to determine causes, circumstances and potential conspiracies linked to the incident. However, the petitioner maintains that the speaker’s initiative is unconstitutional and “takes over” a field reserved for the judiciary.