The Independent Election Commission (IEC) of Pakistan summons Achakzai for remarks on Pak army

Achakzai600PAKISTAN: The Independent Election Commission (IEC) of Pakistan called up Mahmood Khan Achakzai to clarify his remarks on the Pakistani military establishment.

After deadly suicide blast in Quetta City of Balochistan, the leader of Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) Achakzai said that Pakistani intelligence agencies were spying on politicians rather than doing their job—“to foil terror attacks in the country.”

On the floor of the National Assembly of Pakistan, he termed the Quetta blast a failure of Pakistani intelligence agencies and military.

According to the BBC, the election commission summoned Achakzai to clarify his stance on the Pakistani military establishment.

The election commission said that complaints against Achakzai have been lodged regarding his remarks on the Pakistani army. The commission was asked to suspend membership of the Achakzai “because a lawmaker cannot speak against” the powerful military establishment.

The IEC summoned the Pashtun nationalist leader on September 1.

Pointing to statement of Achakzai, Pakistan’s military chief Gen. Raheel Sharif said that such statements are hurting the national policy on terrorism. Backing the military establishment, Interior Minister of Pakistan, Chaudhry Nisar, termed the statement baseless.

Many jurists and analysts expressed wonder on the decision of the election commission, saying that according to Article 66 of the Constitution, every member of the parliament has the right to discuss any national issue. They said that no organization is allowed to summon a lawmaker over statement made on the floor of the parliament.

Mahmood Khan Achakzai and his party are criticized regularly by the pro-military establishment circles.


One comment

  1. A law maker cannot speak on the powerful Military establishment . What a silly allegation. Have they descended from heavens. If law maker has the guts to challenge the security lapse, is there any clause in the constitution to bar him?
    It is an argument of those who think that heavy weights have priority over state. Security forces are to protect the state not vice versa.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *