Citing the Peshawar nazim’s condescending attitude, a member of PTI’s district chapter, Rehman Afzal, confirmed that at least 40 PTI members had decided to move against him for antagonizing not just party members but also his constituents.
According to him, as many as 45 opposition members had also assured PTI of their support for the move.
He said that the district nazim had not yet released development funds amounting to Rs2 million set aside in the budget for fiscal year 2015-16 for all district level representatives.
“The Nazim is so arrogant that he does not have time to meet with members of the city council,” Afzal said, adding that because of his harsh behavior, departments devolved under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act of 2013, were defying his orders.
He said that the situation would be discussed in a meeting convened by the chief minister on Friday (today).
According to rules, at least 92 votes are required in the district council for removing the Nazim. The number of chagrined members ready to move against the nazim falls short by barely five votes.
Officers privy to the development said that more members would be required to carry through the motion.
Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a JI member, told The Express Tribune that his party supported the incumbent Nazim because the JI considered him to be a real representative of the people.
When asked about the issue of funds, he said that it was not such a big issue at all.
Leader of the Opposition in District Council Saeed Zahir said that a 40-member PTI delegation, led by Rehman Afzal, had met him and both sides had pledged to support the no-trust move.
A PTI member, who is opposed to the move, told The Express Tribune that Afzal, who is leading the campaign against the sitting nazim, had developed some personal issues with the nazim.
He rubbished Afzal’s claim that he had the support of 40 members of his party.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 2nd, 2016.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ