Ex-ISI chief biggest beneficiary of £190m corruption: Vawda

Ex-PTI minister claims Faiz Hameed 'took full advantage of graft scandal'


Our Correspondent May 24, 2023
Faisal Vawda during a press conference. SCREENGRAB

print-news
ISLAMABAD:

Former PTI leader Faisal Vawda accused on Wednesday ex-chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed of having benefited the most from the corruption case involving £190 million.

During the PTI government, Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) seized assets worth £190 million belonging to a Pakistani property tycoon. The agency said the assets would be passed to the Pakistani government.

In a fiery slew of fresh allegations after his appearance at NAB on Wednesday, Vawda claimed that ex-spymaster Hameed was not only involved in the corruption but was the "biggest beneficiary".

"I was the only minister to have opposed the plans," he said, "I told them there would be a NAB case over this."

Read What is the corruption case against Imran Khan?

"People are naming Zulfi Bukhari and Shahzad Akbar in this matter but there is a name that everyone seems to have forgotten about, who just so happens to be the one to have taken the lion's share in the scandal, and it is former DG ISI Faiz Hameed.

"He took full advantage of this scandal," Vawda said. "His followers are present in the Senate to this date," Vawda added. "Whether they are politicians or bureaucrats, everyone will be held accountable," he continued, "I have simply led the nation to the tip of the iceberg."

The ex-minister also said that he has submitted his statement to the anti-graft body investigating the matter. "Billions of rupees were not gained overnight just like that, it was all planned," he added.

"I had already warned that Faiz Hameed wants to eliminate Imran Khan and take his place," he said, "the plan to cause harm to national assets and spread unrest was finalised long before May 9."

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