National Party announces movement against Reko Diq deal

Demanded details of the agreement should be shared with the media


Our Correspondent January 06, 2022
PHOTO: FILE

print-news
QUETTA:

The president of National Party and former chief minister Balochistan Dr Abdul Malik Baloch has rejected the proposed agreement on Reko Diq and announced launching a movement to save the gold project, saying that the in camera briefing itself is very mysterious.

He demanded that the details of the agreement should be shared with the media.

He expressed these views while addressing a press conference at Quetta Press Club along with party leaders Mir Rehmat Saleh Baloch, Dr Ishaq Baloch, Khair Bakhsh Baloch, Zubair Baloch, Mir Rahab Buledi Advocate, Haji Ata Muhammad Bangulzai and Ali Ahmad Langove.

Malik said that by repeatedly changing the Balochistan mineral rules, the Balochistan Development Authority (BDA) benefited the company working on the Reko Diq project.

He said Reko Diq misfortune started the day when the Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected the stance of the mining company and as a result it moved the international court against Pakistan and won the case.

He said that the company was given a mining licence in 1993 without consultations. When the matter was settled, it was found that the government had sold 100,000 acres of land to Tethyan for at throwaway price of just Rs80 crore, a blunder which has no parallel in history.

“The PC-1 that is submitted to the Balochistan government has a very low price and a twist. It is very dangerous. These in-camera briefings are very mysterious,” he said.

Malik said that the National Party rejects it outright and believes that Reko Diq agreement should be made public and openly discussed in the Senate, the National Assembly or the Balochistan Assembly.

He said that some people were playing blame game which is not good.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2022.

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