New details have emerged about PTI worker Muhammad Hussain, who was killed after he opened fire at a security forces’ vehicle on Mall Road in Rawalpindi on August 11.
According to security sources, the vehicle was on routine duty when a passerby opened fire at it with a 9mm pistol.
The security personnel responded in self-defence under the law and standard operating procedures. The suspect was killed in the exchange.
Security sources identified the deceased as Muhammad Hussain. He was a resident of Khyber district and an active member of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
New details emerge
According to a report by a Pakistan Connect correspondent, the incident has raised questions about the messages being shared with political workers.
According to the report, it was questioned whether people who spread claims that a party leader’s life is in danger should also be held responsible if such messages lead to violence.
The report said that the authorities identified Muhammad Hussain as being linked to PTI. His social media accounts also showed that he had taken part in several PTI rallies. He was also described as one of the party’s more ‘hot-headed’ workers.
Several videos of Hussain at PTI rallies have also appeared on social media. According to the report, a PTI flag was removed from his possession. Weapons, bullets and some important documents were also reportedly recovered.
A mobile phone and other items were also recovered. The report said this raised the possibility that Hussain had contacts with some members of the party leadership.
Read more: Rawalpindi shooter had close contact with key PTI leaders including KP CM
‘Hussain not mentally stable’
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government spokesperson Shafi Jan also said that the man who attacked the security forces was a PTI worker named Muhammad Hussain. However, he said Hussain was not mentally stable.
According to the shared details, political parties also have a responsibility if their workers are kept in an environment where news is presented as conspiracies.
The report questioned the effect of political opponents often being shown as enemies and political differences being presented as a war.