PTI skips electoral reforms meeting

Political parties, public asked to provide suggestions by September 1


Azam Khan August 13, 2014

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) skipped one of the key meetings of the electoral reforms committee on Tuesday in which proposals for electoral reform were sought from all political parties and the general public.

During the last meeting, the PTI had demanded a public hearing and asked the panel to reconsider the decision to appoint Senator Ishaq Dar as the head of the committee.

According to sources, Pakistan Peoples Party’s MNA Naveed Qamar demanded an explanation for the PTI’s absence. He suggested to Ishaq Dar that another meeting should be convened so that the PTI does not complain about not being included in the deliberations.

Confidentiality

Senator Ishaq Dar informed the committee that some staff members were revealing inaccurate information about the proceedings to the media.

However, Dar said that this would not be a solution to the problem and it was best not to allow staff members to attend the meeting next time. A final decision will be taken on this matter at the next meeting scheduled for August 19.

PML-N leader Anusha Rehman backed this solution and decided there was no other solution to stop such revelations.

Framework of rules

The Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms also framed its rules and regulations. According to the new rules – which would be made public after getting approval – the chairperson of the committee would convene a meeting within seven days. Alternatively, one-fourth of the members can summon a committee meeting.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 13th,2014.

COMMENTS (15)

Malveros | 7 years ago | Reply

@Sara: You got that right sis.

Kaleem | 7 years ago | Reply

@KN: It was first introduced in India 10 years ago, in second last elections. It got 3 elections for AVMs to mature in India. One year thing does not make sense.

VIEW MORE 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

E-Publications

Most Read