ISLAMABAD: Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar and his friend Ahsan Jameel Gujjar on Saturday rejected an inquiry report blaming them for using influence in transfer of former Pakpattan’s district police officer (DPO) Rizwan Gondal in August.

The report prepared by Mehr Khaliq Dad Lak, national coordinator for the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (Nacta), on the orders of the Supreme Court has claimed that the orders for the DPO’s transfer in the middle of the night on Aug 27 came from the chief minister’s office and that the former inspector general of Punjab police, Kaleem Imam, acted only as a ‘rubber stamp’.

In an eight-page reply furnished to the apex court, CM Buzdar said the report should be discarded as being “lopsided, presumptuous and conjectural”. He requested the court to dispose of the matter on the assurance that he would ensure non-interference in the work of police.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, a three-judge SC bench on Monday will resume hearing in the case initiated on a suo motu notice taken by the CJP on reports that the Pakpattan DPO had been transferred after allegedly having an altercation with Khawar Fareed Maneka, former husband of first lady Bushra Imran.

Buzdar urges apex court to dispose of the matter, holding out the assurance that police work won’t be interfered with

The SC bench had ordered CM Buzdar and Mr Gujjar to come up with their rejoinders to the Lak report.

In his reply, the CM pleaded before the court that an independent commission headed by a respectable former IG had been constituted to review the legal regime applicable to the police force with the predominant agenda of ensuring independence of the force and excluding any element of interference in its working.

Mr Buzdar contended that he had already appeared before the apex court and had assured the bench that he had only interfered in the matter at the initial stage to ensure an amicable settlement in line with the duties and responsibilities of a tribal elder.

The CM’s reply dubbed the Lak report as conjectural, based on figment of imagination of a fertile mind, rooted in probabilities and surmises and, therefore, not worthy of reliance whatsoever.

The message of the apex court about ensuring independence and impartiality of the police force had been conveyed loud and clear and understood completely by the chief minister and his government, the reply assured the court, adding that in future all police officers would be contacted through the agency of the IG and that he had nothing further to do with the matter.

The reply claimed the obser­vations in the Lak report about IG Kaleem Imam being more loyal than the king betrayed a case of sour grapes and nothing more.

The reply contended that the Lak report was totally lopsided and tilted in favour of DPO Gondal as it treated the statement of the DPO as gospel truth but rubbished all other statements without justifiable reasons and without much ado.

In fact the inquiry report had merely rubber-stamped the statement of DPO, the reply alleged, adding the CM was cognisant of his duties to uphold the rule of law and would not allow his office to be misused.

Likewise, Mr Gujjar — who is a leader of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf — said in his reply that he was an ordinary citizen and did not hold any government or public office, therefore, he could not be held liable for misconduct having breached any code of discipline.

He said the Lak report had neither carried any definite finding against him nor fixed a strict liability on him.

The Lak report had merely indicated his presence in the meeting at the chief minister house which was purely on account of the fact that he was asked to join in the meeting as a close friend of the aggrieved family (Maneka family) to put up their stance, Mr Gujjar said.

He said his conduct had not squarely been turned as intimidating or daunting in the inquiry report, adding he merely acted in good faith as per the norms of society in his capacity of a close friend of the aggrieved family and simply conveyed the grievances and complained of the outrage of the police.

Mr Gujjar argued that he was a law-abiding and ordinary citizen; therefore, he could not cause any state of susceptibility or intimidation on part of the state functionaries who even otherwise were not so gullible in terms of their official/administrative functions.

Published in Dawn, October 7th, 2018