Protection of Pakistan Ordinance: Govt moves controversial bill in National Assembly

No debate on legislation after MQM, Fata lawmakers walk out and govt ally voices opposition.


Azam Khan/our Correspondent April 02, 2014
Lawmakers from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) walked out of the session to lodge a protest against what they said were the ‘extra-judicial’ killings of their workers by security forces in Karachi. PHOTO: APP

ISLAMABAD/ GHALLANAI:


The government finally presented the controversial Protection of Pakistan (Amendment) Ordinance (PPO) 2014 in the National Assembly, amid resistance from both major opposition parties and some members of the treasury.


Debate on the bill could not commence, however, due to two walkouts and a vociferous protest by an ally of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz in the lower house.

Lawmakers from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) walked out of the session to lodge a protest against what they said were the ‘extra-judicial’ killings of their workers by security forces in Karachi. MQM parliamentarian Asif Husnain accused certain departments of the security forces of having formed ‘death squads’ to target workers of his party.

“Don’t create a Balochistan-like and Bangladesh-like situation in Karachi,” he said as MQM legislators proceeded to boycott the session.

Shah Gul Afridi, an MNA from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) also spoke out against the negligence of the government and complained that nothing had been done for the region over the last eight months. All lawmakers from Fata then also walked out of the session, criticising Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for not giving the issues of their areas any time or attention.

Talking to The Express Tribune later on Wednesday, an MNA from the Khyber Agency said the Fata lawmakers decided to boycott proceedings because they have not been consulted over major policy decisions in the region.

“We are the main stakeholders [in the peace process] and it is the prime minister’s responsibility to take us into confidence… but no one has even met us so far,” he said. Similarly, he said Fata parliamentarians have been given no role in other decision-making processes.

“Everyone is doing his or her own politics in Fata, but we, the elected representatives of the region, have been ignored,” complained MNA from South Waziristan Moulvi Jamal Din.

As soon as Rana Shamim Ahmad, chairperson of the NA Standing Committee on Interior, presented the bill before the house for approval, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F) MNA Maulana Mirzaman rose up and said: “We are part of the ruling coalition, but we still oppose this bill.”

The committee, which cleared the bill on Tuesday, did not take JUI-F into confidence while doing so.

“Some clauses of the bill are against the people of the country and we will oppose it until the government addresses our concerns,” said Mirzaman.

Resolution against medicine price hike

Pakistan Peoples Party’s Shazia Marri moved a resolution against the hike in prices of essential medicines.

In response, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s Sara Afzal Tarar said that while the prices of some medicines had been increased by pharmaceutical companies, there was no hike in the cost of essential and life-saving drugs. She added that the premier has taken notice of the issue and has formed a panel to carry out a survey of the markets.

‘PML-N has reintroduced RPPs’

Speaking on a point of order, PPP’s Nafisa Shah sought an explanation from the government as to why controversial rental power projects (RPPs) have been re-launched with a change in terminology.

She pointed out that the projects, when they were first launched by the PP government, were opposed ‘tooth and nail’ by the PML-N. “The PPP government was also taken to court and serious charges were levelled against several of PPP’s ministers and even a prime minister,” she added, asking how the same projects could now be declared transparent.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 3rd, 2014.

COMMENTS (1)

Usman | 9 years ago | Reply

As Adil Najam rightly pointed out, this is average journalism at best, the entire story on the PPO does not once mention what is actually in the law?

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