Govt is not trapping Mansoor Ijaz: Malik

The nation demands explanation for all the claims made by Ijaz, says the interior minister.

Ferya Ilyas January 23, 2012

ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Monday refused to accept the claims made by Mansoor Ijaz’s lawyer Akram Sheikh that his client was being trapped by the government.

Speaking to media in Islamabad, Malik said that Ijaz himself made statements against the army, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and about toppling Benazir Bhutto’s government. “We, as a stakeholder, have the right to form a commission and investigate these issues,” Malik said.

“The nation demands explanation for all these claims,” Malik added.

Malik also said that Ijaz had refused to come to Pakistan because he was scared.

"If Ijaz was an honest and brave man, he would have come to testify," he said.

Responding to Ijaz’s statements that he was at war with him, Malik said that he had been fighting against terrorists and other enemies of Pakistan for the last four years and if he wants to join those ranks, “he is most welcome.”

“But I will not allow anyone to insult my country and my people,” Malik asserted.

Calling Ijaz’s revelations a publicity stunt, the interior minister said that Pakistani media had helped him become popular.


Imran Haider | 11 years ago | Reply

The Memogate issue, a political scandal at best, seems to have developed into a matter of great import because the Supreme Court (SC) has decided to hear a petition related to the controversial memo. It is quite embarrassing that two supreme institutions parliament and the SC are investigating the same issue. When the prime minister had already ordered an inquiry into the matter through the parliamentary committee on national security, there was no need for the matter to be taken to the highest court. According to Article 184 (3.1) of the Constitution: “Exercise of jurisdiction. Court has to see that discretion is exercised in such a way that mischief and chaos is prevented. It should be exercised only when necessary, for injudicious exercise of such power, might result in grave and serious consequences.” Is it appropriate that the court and parliament are seized of the same matter? Should the petition be heard when it involves a spurious unsigned memo? It is important that the maintainability of the petition should first be addressed before the honourable justices exercise their jurisdiction so that mischief and chaos is prevented.

Disco | 11 years ago | Reply

Whatever Rehman Malik says, the opposite is the real truth.

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

Most Read