Info minister says Maryam ‘voicing public concerns’ through tweets


ISLAMABAD: State Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb on Wednesday claimed that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Nawaz’s controversial tweets were an attempt to raise public concern, and should not be taken as an attack on the judiciary.

Talking to the media outside the accountability court on Wednesday, the information minister said, “Maryam is voicing the public concerns; if justice is being done, it should be evident to all.”

Following grant of bail to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in four under-trial cases on Tuesday, Maryam Nawaz appeared critical of the judicial system that only held ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family accountable in her tweet.


“No one asks proclaimed offender (Imran Khan) where was he in last two years,” Maryam tweeted.

“There is no question from others for skipping the proceedings; no one even asks the absconder (Imran Khan) for evading court proceedings for last two years [in cases concerning attack on PTV, parliament, SSP Asmatullah Junejo],” she underscored.


In response to a comment made by the chief justice during the disqualification case hearing that the court is in no hurry to give its decision, Maryam complaining about ‘dual standard of justice’ had retorted, “Yes indeed there is no hurry. The only hurry was for Nawaz Sharif case. Because for judgement against Nawaz Sharif, new rules of justice were laid down.”


The information minister said that when justice is not seen to be done and verdicts are given in haste, it does raise many questions. She added that an elected prime minister was sent home on the basis of an iqama because it had been decided beforehand, notwithstanding the fact that there were neither any corruption charges against him nor there was any evidence available to corroborate them.

However, efforts were now being made to frame some allegations and ferret out the supporting evidence, she said. The minister observed that the joint investigation team (JIT) report was an interim submission as its volume 10 was incomplete and the process of mutual legal assistance had also not been concluded.

Marriyum Aurangzeb further said that concluding four references in six months meant that for each reference only one and a half month would be allowed. She asked as to why there was so much haste and urgency involved in these cases while the verdict against an absconder from the anti-terrorism court, who appeared before it after two years, had been reserved.