umair ahmed
MPA (400+ posts)
I am only presenting the Shafqat mahmood part . . .
This refers to the latest report of Mr Umar Cheema on PTI, published in The News. The grand conclusions reached on flimsy evidence, the slants and innuendos colouring the story, and morphing personal conduct of individuals into party bashing is clearly not fair play.
In his latest report, Mr Cheema implies that radical changes in the party constitution “would grant immunity to the office bearers facing corruption charges,” etc etc. And what is the radical change that Mr Cheema is referring to? That the earlier version of the constitution while prescribing qualifications for party office bearers says that a person is eligible “who has not been convicted or charged with an offence of moral turpitude”. This has been changed to “who has not been convicted of an offence of moral turpitude”.
Mr Cheema seems to think that by removing the word ‘charged’ a huge door has been opened for corrupt individuals. This is strange because all that has been done is to bring the party constitution in line with the settled principle of law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Why is this such a strong legal principle? Because, it is the easiest thing in the world to accuse someone; The real test is to back up the accusation with evidence. And if this is not available then accusation itself becomes meaningless.
Also unfortunately, given the predominant culture in Pakistan, false accusations and getting fake FIRs registered is common practice. Why go far, Mr Cheema must be aware of whispering campaigns over the years against prominent journalists for accepting lifafas, against politicians for all kinds of misconduct, against cultural personalities, in fact against anyone who has any prominence. Does he feel that mere hurling of these accusations or in some cases, even FIRs being registered by people in power, should be held against them?
The changes in the PTI constitution acknowledge this difference and hence conviction has been made the basis of disqualification to hold party office. Mr Cheema should also recognize that this change reflects the spirit of a fundamental human right that everyone is entitled to due process of law, which means a fair trial. Thus, instead of concluding that the changes in the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf constitution actually make it more democratic and in line with the constitution of Pakistan, he has drawn the strange conclusion that it opens the doors for shady characters to join the PTI. What can one say except shake ones head in sadness.
Moving on Mr Cheema digs up details of business dealings between various party members. This part of his ‘charge sheet’ is a masterly example of inferences and innuendos that seem to make straightforward transactions look shady. First, let me say something that was repeatedly conveyed to Mr Cheema. Business dealings between party members or any dispute arising therein has nothing to do with the party. It is between individuals and something that they have to resolve between themselves.
Secondly, Mr Cheema does not say that any of the deals was illegal; only that they happened between certain individuals who are in most part PTI party members. He then rushes to a pejorative conclusion that the party seems like a ‘property guild’. Give us a break Mr Cheema. Either say, that the deals are illegal and let the individual concerned explain himself or report the matter to the police and let the law take its course. Just throwing dirt without alleging illegality is questionable to say the least.
Lastly, Mr Cheema has made a big deal of a dispute between two party members, Col Younis (retd) and Mr Amir Kayani. As I said earlier, this is a matter between two individuals and has no concern with the party. Disputes are common in our society. They can also happen between party members. The correct forum to resolve them is either bilaterally or in a court of law. The party’s responsibility does not include personal business dealings of members unless they are illegal and declared so by a court of law. It certainly would not adjudicate business disputes between party members.
This refers to the latest report of Mr Umar Cheema on PTI, published in The News. The grand conclusions reached on flimsy evidence, the slants and innuendos colouring the story, and morphing personal conduct of individuals into party bashing is clearly not fair play.
In his latest report, Mr Cheema implies that radical changes in the party constitution “would grant immunity to the office bearers facing corruption charges,” etc etc. And what is the radical change that Mr Cheema is referring to? That the earlier version of the constitution while prescribing qualifications for party office bearers says that a person is eligible “who has not been convicted or charged with an offence of moral turpitude”. This has been changed to “who has not been convicted of an offence of moral turpitude”.
Mr Cheema seems to think that by removing the word ‘charged’ a huge door has been opened for corrupt individuals. This is strange because all that has been done is to bring the party constitution in line with the settled principle of law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Why is this such a strong legal principle? Because, it is the easiest thing in the world to accuse someone; The real test is to back up the accusation with evidence. And if this is not available then accusation itself becomes meaningless.
Also unfortunately, given the predominant culture in Pakistan, false accusations and getting fake FIRs registered is common practice. Why go far, Mr Cheema must be aware of whispering campaigns over the years against prominent journalists for accepting lifafas, against politicians for all kinds of misconduct, against cultural personalities, in fact against anyone who has any prominence. Does he feel that mere hurling of these accusations or in some cases, even FIRs being registered by people in power, should be held against them?
The changes in the PTI constitution acknowledge this difference and hence conviction has been made the basis of disqualification to hold party office. Mr Cheema should also recognize that this change reflects the spirit of a fundamental human right that everyone is entitled to due process of law, which means a fair trial. Thus, instead of concluding that the changes in the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf constitution actually make it more democratic and in line with the constitution of Pakistan, he has drawn the strange conclusion that it opens the doors for shady characters to join the PTI. What can one say except shake ones head in sadness.
Moving on Mr Cheema digs up details of business dealings between various party members. This part of his ‘charge sheet’ is a masterly example of inferences and innuendos that seem to make straightforward transactions look shady. First, let me say something that was repeatedly conveyed to Mr Cheema. Business dealings between party members or any dispute arising therein has nothing to do with the party. It is between individuals and something that they have to resolve between themselves.
Secondly, Mr Cheema does not say that any of the deals was illegal; only that they happened between certain individuals who are in most part PTI party members. He then rushes to a pejorative conclusion that the party seems like a ‘property guild’. Give us a break Mr Cheema. Either say, that the deals are illegal and let the individual concerned explain himself or report the matter to the police and let the law take its course. Just throwing dirt without alleging illegality is questionable to say the least.
Lastly, Mr Cheema has made a big deal of a dispute between two party members, Col Younis (retd) and Mr Amir Kayani. As I said earlier, this is a matter between two individuals and has no concern with the party. Disputes are common in our society. They can also happen between party members. The correct forum to resolve them is either bilaterally or in a court of law. The party’s responsibility does not include personal business dealings of members unless they are illegal and declared so by a court of law. It certainly would not adjudicate business disputes between party members.

Last edited by a moderator: