The controversial tweet published on April 29 by Director General of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) is still on the timelines of the @OfficialDGISPR handle.
In late April, the Prime Minister issued a notification with regard to Dawn Leaks story, ordering the removal of Special Assistant on Foreign Affairs Tariq Fatemi from his post and to take action against the Principal Information Officer at Press Information Department Rao Tehseen. Journalists Cyril Almeida and Dawn editor Zafar Abbas were referred to the All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) for action.
Responding to PM’s orders, DG ISPR rejected this notification in a tweet as “incomplete”, directly questioning the authority of the PM and hence reigniting the rift in civil-military relations.
Notification on Dawn Leak is incomplete and not in line with recommendations by the Inquiry Board. Notification is rejected.
— Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor (@OfficialDGISPR) April 29, 2017
The issue was however declared “settled” in a meeting between PM Nawaz Sharif and COAS Qamar Javed Bajwa on May 10, which also included the presence of Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and DG ISI Gen Naveed Mukhtar.
“The tweet on 29 April 2017 was not aimed at any government office or person. Recommendations as contained in Para 18 of the Inquiry Committee Report, duly approved by the Prime Minister, have been implemented, which has settled the Dawn leaks issue. Accordingly, ISPR s said Twitter post stands withdrawn and has become infructuous”, said ISPR on the eve of May 10.
“PM is the final authority, his orders should be implemented”, he further added.
Despite the settlement reached on May 10 between the government and the army, the tweet is still on the @OfficialDGISPR account. It is, therefore, pertinent to ask if the tweet is to be withdrawn despite ISPR’s affirmation in this regard and if the “Dawn Leaks” issue between the government and the army actually stands “settled”.
It is common amongst high-level personalities and celebrity circles to remove “notorious” tweets which contradict their later positions. It is to be seen if ISPR acknowledges the contradiction in its statements and upholds its latest remarks.
