‘Threat letter’: Lt Gen (r) Tariq refuses to head commission

Lt Gen (r) Tariq Khan on Friday excused himself from heading the commission formed by the government to investigate the “letter” purportedly containing details of a “foreign conspiracy” to oust Prime Minister Imran Khan, a private TV channel reported. In his statement, Gen Khan said the commission could not last beyond the incumbent government’s tenure, which was expected to end in two days. He said voting on the no-confidence resolution against PM Imran – due to take place tomorrow – would bring into power a new government, which would “dissolve the commission or not cooperate with it, making it dysfunctional”. His statement came a couple of hours after Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said the commission, led by the retired general, would investigate all the “characters” behind the no-trust move against PM Imran and expose them in front of the nation. Fawad also shared the commission’s Terms of Reference (ToRs) with the media persons. He said Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif had contended that there was no such “threat letter” of regime change. Therefore, it was included in the commission’s ToRs that it would determine whether this “letter” and the threat of regime change in it existed or not. It would also dig out as to who supported the regime change plot locally, he added. Fawad, who is also the law minister, alleged that some specific members of the opposition knew everything about the plot. Not the entire members of the opposition were involved in this conspiracy, he added. He said the commission should also investigate the meetings of foreign officials with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) dissident Members of the National Assembly ahead of the no-trust motion. The commission, he said, had been given 90 days for concluding the investigation over the “regime change plot”. The content of the “threat letter” clearly indicated that the no-trust move was not ordinary, rather brought on the whims of foreign powers, he said, asserting that some “big mafias” were behind the no-confidence motion. He said the federal cabinet while reposing full confidence in the leadership of the PM, had decided to present evidence pertaining to the involvement of foreign powers in the no-confidence motion before all the MNAs on Saturday (today). The minister said not only was the whole nation concerned about revival of horse-trading culture in the country, but also rejected the current practice of buying the conscience of MNAs through money. As regards the statement of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) about reparation for the fresh election, he said the government would extend all kinds of assistance to the watchdog for holding free, fair, and transparent elections in the country. “If, even after that, the opposition wanted to go ahead with the no-confidence vote, then the people of Pakistan will decide who’s standing where,” Chaudhry said. “The commission will also disclose the local handlers who were used to take forward this foreign conspiracy,” the minister said. “Of course, not everyone from the opposition was involved in it. But there were some people who knew what the conspiracy was, who was behind it and where it came from.” He claimed that eight dissident MNAs were directly approached by a “foreign embassy” to initiate the no-confidence movement. “Our intelligence agencies have records of their meetings. This commission will review the meetings, what was discussed [in them], the commitments made [in them] and how the plan was chalked out,” Chaudhry said. He added that the commission would review the aforementioned points within 90 days and form its own investigative teams. Fawad also called out the Election Commission of Pakistan for its “irresponsible statement” on holding fresh polls. “The federal cabinet has categorically expressed reservations about the announcement by ECP in which it claimed that elections can’t be held before seven months.” He hypothetically asked had the PM called early elections before the no-confidence movement, would the electoral body’s decision be the same.