Political machinations: Political rivals join hands to oust LG official

Motion called after embezzlement allegations

Our Correspondent February 06, 2017
Members of Tehsil Council raise their hands for a no-confidence vote against Naib Nazim Shujjah Ahmed. PHOTO: ONLINE

ABBOTTABAD: Two of the most ardent rivals in the political spectrum joined hands to remove a local government official via voting to move a motion for a no-confidence vote.

Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members demand the removal of Tehsil Council Naib Nazim Shuja Ahmed, who is from Jamaat-e-Islami (JI).

February 15 has been set for a decision on the no trust resolution.

The Tehsil council met with Naeem Lodhi, a member of the panel of chairmen, while Naib Nazim Ahmed was absent during the session where discourse over the decision took place.

PML-N member Ansar Hayat Abbasi accused Ahmed of embezzlement in the purchase of furniture for the Tehsil and Town Municipal Administration offices.

He went on to accuse the naib nazim of bypassing the house’s purchase committee to buy furniture worth Rs870,000.

Abbasi was backed by other members who referred to the findings of the inquiry by the committee. The members also raised a demand to remove Ahmed through a no confidence vote.

After the required voting to move the motion was achieved, 22 PML-N members and 12 PTI members voted in favour of removing Ahmed.

Seven JI members abstained from the proceedings. The convener prorogued the formal voting till February 15.

Ahmed was elected from Bagnotar Union Council.

Talking to The Express Tribune Shuja Ahmed dismissed the allegation that he committed any wrongdoing.

He added that the purchase of furniture was a procedural error which has been branded corruption at the behest of parliamentarian Sardar Idrees, who Ahmed believes he is a political threat to.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 7th, 2017.


Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ