ISLAMABAD: The committee formed under Raja Zafarul Haq to fix responsibility for the introduction of the controversial amendment to the Khatm-e-Nabuwwat declaration in the Elections Act, 2017, has in its report, suggested that action be taken against those responsible but under “good vision and good sense”.
The report of the committee, of which Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal and Minister for Climate Change Mushahidullah Khan are also members, came to the light on Monday.
Compiled on the directives of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, the report says that those to whom the report will be submitted to should use their “good vision and good sense” to take actions against those who were responsible for the controversial amendment.
To start their investigation, the three ministers reportedly procured “the original bill, the amended form and the verbatim of the Senate proceedings” to look at the language used by the lawmakers of various parties and the amendments that were proposed during the Senate session.
The report reads that there were several amendments proposed during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the Senate, but none related to the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat affirmation.
“It was only after the bill was sent by the standing committee to the House that Hafiz Hamdullah, a senator from JUI-F, objected to the change in the language of the solemn affirmation,” the report points out.
It goes on to read that the PML-N supported the JUI senator, however, by that time the bill had already been tabled in the National Assembly, and “a general realisation dawned upon the members from all the parties that they had committed a mistake” which needs to be corrected.
‘”But due to a rumpus created by the opposition regarding Section 203, the bill was passed as amended and then it was sent to the Senate for the final passage.”
The bill was passed in the Senate and subsequently corrected, however, the committee was formed to probe the matter and find out those responsible for the error.
According to the report, several meetings were held with various concerned people after which one person admitted that it was his “primary responsibility to see that the draft does not contain anything controversial but somehow he felt that he could not perform his duty despite his legal acumen, experience and command of the language.”
Members of the committee said they later read the statement of JUI-F chief Fazlur Rehman in a newspaper, saying we were “collectively responsible for not doing our duty during the debate on the affidavits.”
“We have a feeling that people are expecting action against those who changed the affirmation and caused this problem,” the report said.
“In light of the above, we suggest that action must be taken against those responsible but we leave it to your vision and good sense,” it added.
The change in the language of the candidates’ declaration form through a controversial amendment to the Elections Act, 2017, had provoked religious parties as they alleged that this had intentionally been made to fulfill the western agenda.
Although parliament rectified this mistake, the religious parties sought the resignation of federal law minister Zahid Hamid and started a sit-in at Faizabad.
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui in the order issued on Nov 24, while hearing petitions filed by religious parties, had directed the secretary ministry of interior to ensure production of the report of the committee headed by Senator Raja Zafarul Haq. He had also directed that the “report shall not be made public till next date of hearing.”
The report has not been submitted to any office as yet.
REPORT POINTS TOWARDS TWO MINISTERS;
The Raja Zafarul Haq probe report points towards two ministers’ role in the controversial amendment of the declaration regarding the finality of Prophethood, however, it remains vague and inconclusive it terms of pointing out whether they were responsible for the matter or not, The News reported.
The report suggests that action must be taken against those held responsible.
In the report, Zafarullah states that the three-member committee comprising of Mushahid Ullah, Ahsan Iqbal and himself had been appointed to probe the circumstances leading to the amendment of the declaration pertaining to the finality of Prophethood. He further stated that he had contacted the other two members, but owing to their unavailability at the time, he gathered the original bill; its amended form as well as the verbatim of the proceedings of the Senate to ascertain the changes. The report further stated that there had been various changes that had been proposed by the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the Senate but none pertained to the solemn affirmation of the candidate regarding his belief and the finality of the Prophethood of Hazrat Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon Him).
The report further points that it was only after the bill had been sent by the Standing Committee to the House that Hafiz Hamdullah, a senator from JUI raised the objections regarding the amendment in the language of the solemn affirmation and he demanded that the original affirmation be restored. Zafarullah stated that during the session he subsequently stood up and supported what Hamdullah demanded.
The report also details that the law minister also stated that he did not object to the amendment that Hamdullah pointed out but he did not accept the amendment at that point in time.
Subsequently, the bill was sent to the National Assembly again as there were changes to the original text of the bill sent to the Senate by the National Assembly, as per the constitutional procedure. By the time the bill was being tabled in the National Assembly, and the members from all the parties felt that they had committed a wrong which must be rectified but due to the ruckus created by the opposition parties regarding Section 203, the bill was passed as amended and then it was sent to the Senate for the final approval following which it became law after being endorsed by the president.
The report then states that the appointed probing members tried consulting the concerned individual who had also prepared the draft at the committee level to investigate how and why the original affidavit had been amended. Following meetings, he conceded to the fact that it was his primary responsibility to made sure that the bill did not contain any controversial points but stated that he could not decide whether the clause contained anything controversial despite his legal acumen, experience and command of language.
Zafarullah further stated that it can be anticipated that the general sentiment prevailing in the people points that the government needs to take action against those responsible for the amendment. The report states that the probe team suggests action be taken against those held responsible.
test censorship
Comments are closed.