Type to search

Politics

‘Message Before No-Confidence: Sindh Govt Would Be Toppled In Case of Cooperation Against Sanjrani’

  • 82
    Shares

A business tycoon met a Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader as a messenger on Wednesday night, conveying a message that the Sindh government would be toppled if they cooperated in removing Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani through the no-confidence motion, said a report by Umar Cheema for The News.

It was also conveyed that other facilities would also be withdrawn after which the PPP leader “passed on message to a blood relative who is also in politics”. Resultantly, five PPP senators were instructed to vote against the party line.

The next day [Thursday], PML-N Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed shared this information at a meeting held four hours before the presentation of no-confidence motion to review the preparations.

Raza Rabbani told participants that he couldn’t either deny or confirm the meeting but was pretty sure that no instructions had been conveyed to the PPP senators. Sherry Rehman was dismissive too. Mushahid, who also named the businessman and the PPP leader, then advised them to disregard what he had said but keep an eye on their senators.

According to Cheema, a government source said two other PPP senators had also voted for Sanjrani, as they opted for defection, independent of the party leadership’s instructions. Meanwhile, the remaining seven are from PML-N and smaller opposition parties.

At the meeting held after the failure of no-confidence motion, PML-N president Shehbaz Sharif proposed formation of a joint committee to unearth the names of defectors and suggested uniform punishment regardless of their party affiliation. Everyone agreed but the PPP representatives opposed it, saying they will investigate the matter separately.

And the PPP also decided that the opposition should not vote for Saleem Mandviwalla.

There were 50 opposition senators, out of 64, who had supported the no-confidence move against Sanjrani. Mandviwalla would have been defeated if the same voting pattern had prevailed, triggering a new debate in case of more than 53 votes in his favour.

Tags:

1 Comment

  1. shoaib August 3, 2019

    can u at least proof read what u r writing…It’s such a shame to read this writing.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.