The country’s top court has sought written explanation from the government regarding alleged construction of a hotel inside the US Embassy.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan resumed hearing of the petition, filed by Watan Party representative Barrister Zafarullah against the grant of land to US Embassy on Monday.
The petition was filed in 2009 asking the federation, through the cabinet secretary, secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Capital Development Authority, to explain why 18 acres of additional land was sold to the US Embassy.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the US mission already had 38 acres of land and there was no need to allot an additional 18 acres to it.
He also alleged that a hotel was also being constructed inside the embassy that might pose a risk to national security.
Deputy Attorney General, Sohail Mahmood rejected the allegation, arguing that those were just newspaper reports.
Upon this, the bench asked the deputy attorney-general to file a written reply whether a hotel was being built inside the embassy or not.
The hearing was adjourned for a month.
Earlier, Mahmood read a single-page reply of the interior ministry, wherein it was stated that expansion of the embassy was a matter of bilateral interest and could not be dictated merely on hearsay.
The reply said that the matter was taken up by the security agencies.
It further added that the allegation of turning Pakistan into a proxy of a bigger power was flimsy and sketchy.
“In [the] current era, there is hardly any nation/state, which can stay aloof from the evolving situation in their respective region. Pakistan being [a] responsible state is surely capable of steering the things as per national interest,” it was said.
Moreover, the interior ministry’s reply stated that the rumours of 700,000 hectares of agriculture land being acquired by Qatar and other Arab countries on lease had been doing rounds in various circles for quite some time but if there was any such deal the concerned departments would assert and do prior diligence.
The reply further stated that the security agencies had the mandate of vetting all such cases and all respective departments were fully aware of their mandate.