ISLAMABAD, Sept 23: The opposition lost opportunity to agitate some very critical issues in the Senate due to its week-long boycott of the proceedings because of what it said the illegality of the nomination of presiding officer Dr Khalid Ranjha by Chairman Mohammedmian Soomro.

Some opposition members had asked very loaded questions the replies to which were placed before the upper house. However, due to boycott, the questions were merely treated as read with no supplementary questions asked.

Senator Farhatullah Babar of the PPP had asked about the status of NAB investigations in cases against some retired senior officers of the armed forces who had earlier been named as being “under investigation.”

In its reply on September 15, the NAB said that investigation in cases against former Wapda chairman Lt-Gen Zahid Ali Akbar and former secretary Lahore Commercial Cooperative Housing Society (LCCHS) Brig Karar Ali Agha were still continuing.

Both the officers had also been named in a December 2003 reply by NAB as being under investigation and that cases had been initiated against them in 2002 for possessing “assets beyond means.”

The fact that three years later in September 2005 these cases were still “under investigation” and yet no arrests had been made would have provided enough ammunition for fireworks to the opposition.

In another reply the NAB claimed to have made direct recoveries of over Rs116 billion of pilfered money from October 1999 to December 2004. Out of this amount nearly Rs797 million given to the NAB.

The NAB in its reply did not give the names and addresses of the persons from whom the recoveries had been made as was asked in the question 31 on September 15 by the PPP senator.

Supplementary questions could not be asked about non-disclosure of the names and addresses from whom recoveries had been made despite being asked. Nor about how the Rs797 million paid to NAB, more than its budget of Rs752 million for the current year, was being spent.

A reply to another question by Senator Babar has revealed that bungling has taken place in the dumping of petroleum products in Northern Areas and in Kashmir. An inquiry has also been ordered into the dumping but it has not been completed for the past over one year, the reply by the Petroleum Minister said.

The opposition has been crying hoarse that the increasing prices of petroleum products had little to do with international price rises and more with the multinationals and petroleum marketing companies.

Another question asked by the same senator was about the petroleum development levy recovered on the POL products during January to June 2004 and July to December 2004. The Petroleum Minister replied that over Rs21 billion were recovered as petroleum development levy during January to June 2004 and less than Rs4 billion during July to December 2004.

This raises serious questions as to who is the beneficiary of over Rs17 billion lost to the government as petroleum development levy during the second half of 2004.

The opposition has all along alleged that the oil marketing companies have been benefiting while the nation has been losing as is seen from the loss of over Rs17 billion in the petroleum development levy.

The second part of the question was also ducked. In it, the senator had asked “the inland freight margin reimbursed to the oil marketing companies during the periods January to June 2004 and July to December 2004.”

A straight answer to it would have revealed how much money the MNCs made during these periods. The minister replied “there are no re-imbursements to oil marketing companies (OMCs) inland freight margin (IFEM) because under the existing pricing mechanism, the IFEM is being managed by the OMCs at oil advisory committee level.”

None of these issues could be raised because of the opposition’s boycott of the proceedings. The opposition has now invoked Rule 58 of the Senate to demand a debate on these issues, Dawn has learnt.

Rule 58 says “once in a period of seven consecutive working days, the chairman may, on three days notice being given by a member, allot half an hour for discussion on a matter which in his opinion is of sufficient public importance and has recently been the subject of a question, starred or un-starred.”

A notice submitted in the Senate Secretariat by Senator Babar said, “I wish to give notice under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate 1988 for taking up discussion on reply given to the un-starred question 52 on September 15, 2005 about the petroleum development levy and the inland freight margin to the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs).

The reply given to the said question has raised a serious issue concerning whether the decrease in the petroleum development levy has benefited the common man or the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs).

This is an issue of immense public importance and arising out of the reply given in the Senate needs to be discussed under Rule 58.