JI calls for sacking law minister

JI leader Mushtaq Ahmad says that federal government was telling lies about 'controversial' amendments to Election Act


Our Correspondent November 24, 2017
Federal Law minister. Zahid Hamid. PHOTO: PID

PESHAWAR: Harshly reacting to advertisements appearing in national dailies, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) on Thursday called for immediate sacking of Law Minister Zahid Hamid.

A press statement quoted JI’s provincial Ameer Mushtaq Ahmad as saying that the federal government was telling lies about the “controversial” amendments to the Election Act, 2017.

Supreme Court takes notice of Faizabad sit-in

He said if these changes had been discussed by parliamentary committees, the federal government should make the record of the meetings of the committees public. This, he said, would clarify everything.

“Zahid Hamid is a sympathiser of Ahmadis… he must be sacked from his post,” Ahmad said, adding that the government should also make the report compiled by Raja Zafarul Haq public.

He explained that none of the controversial amendments were discussed in any meeting of the parliamentary committees. When the amended draft of the act was tabled in the National Assembly, JI’s parliamentary leader Sahibzada Tariqullah had pointed out the changes in the act, he added.

JI announces long march against federal government

The JI leader demanded that those who actually made the amendments to the election act should be identified and punished.

“Whoever tries to change the blasphemy laws, their hands will be chopped off,” he warned.

Furthermore, he said the government was conspiring to hide the perpetrators of the changes in the election oath about the Finality of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

The federal government published an advertisement on November 23 in national dailies to resolve the controversy triggered after the “controversial” amendments “somehow creeped into the election act”.

COMMENTS

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