Prime Minister Imran Khan on Friday defended the power tariff hike announced by the government on Thursday, saying in an interview that the increase was necessary to prevent the country’s slide into a debt trap.
In the interview with a private news channel, the prime minster emphasised that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government had nothing to do with the ongoing Broadsheet saga, because the agreement with the asset recovery firm was made with the then Pervez Musharraf government.
Live Stream: Prime Minister @ImranKhanPTI's Exclusive Talk on ARY News with Adil Abbasi (22.01.2021)#PrimeMinisterImranKhan https://t.co/HSY2eF0Pki
— Prime Minister's Office, Pakistan (@PakPMO) January 22, 2021
On Thursday, Energy Minister Omer Ayub Khan at a press conference in the federal capital announced a Rs1.95 per unit hike in the electricity tariff, which he blamed on the agreements made by the previous government with “bad intentions and corrupt practices”.
The minister had said that PTI government inherited from the previous Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government an unsustainable level of capacity payments, which he described as “land mines” that the previous government gifted to our nation”.
When asked about the increase in the interview, Prime Minister Imran defended the increase. “It [the power tariff hike] was done so that the country does not fall further into debt,” the prime minister added.
Imran was also asked to comment on ongoing hot topics being discussed in the country’s politics, including the Broadsheet LLC saga and the foreign funding case against the PTI, which has been pending with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) since 2014.
In the last week of December, a high court in Britain ordered debiting millions of dollars from a bank account of the Pakistan High Commission in London for payment to the Isle of Man-based asset recovery firm.
Broadsheet LLC was hired to help Pervez Musharraf's government and the newly established National Accountability Bureau (NAB) track down foreign assets purchased by Pakistanis through ill-gotten wealth. NAB terminated the contract in 2003.
Later the company claimed that Pakistan owed it money according to the terms agreed upon since the government was taking action to confiscate some of the assets they had identified. A UK court ruled in favour of the firm in 2016.
A day earlier, the government named retired Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed as the head of an inquiry committee to probe into the Broadsheet case. The investigation into the issue was ordered by the federal cabinet in a meeting earlier this week.
When asked in the interview, Imran said that he had “nothing to do” with the issue, adding that the agreement with the firm was made by former president Pervez Musharraf. He added that the government was bound to pay the amount otherwise interest of £5,000 per day would have been charged.
Imran, however, acknowledged that the asset recovery firm found Nawaz Sharif’s assets worth $800 million “and a court declared that assets of $100 million were actually owned by the former prime minister”.
The prime minister said the foreign funding case was filed against the PTI with mala fide intent and that he trusted the ECP scrutiny committee, which is currently hearing the matter. He insisted that the PTI's entire funding was legal and on record.
When asked about opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) leaders’ allegations that the ruling party received funds from Israel and India, Imran said that these accusations would soon be put to rest.
The prime minister added that if he had any worries over this case, he would not have called for an open hearing of the foreign funding case. He challenged the opposition to come forward and settle the matter, once and for all.
He said that the opposition could not give an account or record of their funding. The reason for the six-year delay in the foreign funding case was something else, he added. “The PTI has confidence in the Election Commission,” he added.
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