Bilawal terms SHC ‘B-team’ of Chaudhry Nisar

0
197
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, son of assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, makes a speech to launch his political career during the fifth anniversary of his mother's death, at the Bhutto family mausoleum in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh, near Larkana December December 27, 2012. Benazir Bhutto was killed in a gun and suicide bomb attack after an election rally in the city of Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007, weeks after she returned to Pakistan after years in self-imposed exile. REUTERS/Nadeem Soomro (PAKISTAN - Tags: ANNIVERSARY POLITICS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY) ORG XMIT: PAK21

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Saturday termed the Sindh High Court (SHC) a “B-team” of Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan.

In a message on Twitter, Bilawal stated: “SHC sounds like Bteam of inferior minister. Judicial integrity important 4 legitimacy & impartiality. Justice must be done & seen 2 b done.”

Bilawal’s remark comes a day after the SHC directed the federal government to submit comments regarding the security of the PPP chairman.

A two-member bench, headed by SHC Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, was hearing a petition filed by the PPP chairman’s counsel.

Bilawal, in the petition, had requested the court to direct the Sindh and federal governments to provide him security as he faced threats to his life. The provincial government had submitted its reply that Bilawal was being provided complete security.

The court had directed the federal government to submit comments on the matter at the next hearing.

The SHC had also sought assistance from the petitioner’s counsel for understanding which policy or law bound the provincial and federal governments to provide security to the head of a political party or others who faced threats to their lives.

During the hearing, the SHC chief justice had remarked that how the PPP chairman was was demanding security from the government of his own party.

“How can the court issue an order for providing special security to individuals exclusively although the protection of life is a right of every citizen?” the court had asked the petitioner’s counsel.