ISLAMABAD: Questioning the prime minister’s statement after the JIT investigation, Senator Sherry Rehman asked, “Why and how did he read from a pre-prepared statement after three hours of investigation? Does this mean the difference in all his conflicting statements was not squared?”
Objecting to the fact that the ruling party had said that no prime minister faced such accountability, PPPP Vice-President Sherry Rehman said in a statement that such a shocking amnesia about the history of democracy in this country was not expected from those who had witnessed the struggle of the PPP from safe havens.
“The PPP’s first PM shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced his judicial execution without flinching, while his daughter faced all sorts of jail sentences and courts through[out] her life. President Zardari was tortured during 12 years of imprisonment with no plea bargain, and PM Yusaf Raza Gilani stood in the docks, bowed his head and stepped down. Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is still answering for the rental power cases that this government has adopted with other names, and they say no one has faced accountability like this?” she asked.
Sherry Rehman said, “I’m sorry but a three-hour investigation is no patch on what even the workers of the PPP have faced in multiple incarcerations and whip lashes.”
“History certainly has not been made, although facing a JIT of officers that report to his juniors is a telling case of how this ‘moving away from the moral core of democracy’ is perceived by some. It is not as if there were options left! Any other prime minister would have resigned until such an inquiry was over. So yes, a new red line has been set in moving the bar further down for the embarrassments that Pakistan faces!” concluded the senator.
In another statement, Sherry Rehman slammed the government for amending the definition of public debt without the approval of the federal cabinet.
“The government has quietly pulled this move while public attention is on the Panama case and its investigations. To say that this is alarming is an understatement. It is unconstitutional and in direct violation of a Supreme Court judgement!”
She said that in 2005 the definition of public debt was ‘total public debt is a sum of total outstanding borrowings’. “After changing it in 2016, it became, ‘total public debt means the debt of the government serviced out of the consolidated fund and debts owed to the International Monetary Fund’,” she said. “This definition does not take into account publicly guaranteed debt and public debt taken by public sector enterprises.”
Voicing her concern, the senator said, “This change in definition, which the government has done twice already, will cosmetically reduce public debt to Rs 18.9 trillion. What makes this all the more questionable is that this amendment was not mentioned in the finance bill approved by the federal cabinet. This is a blatant disregard of the Supreme Court judgement, which bars changing procedures without approval from the federal cabinet. Does the government have a penchant for unlawful acts?”
