AGL40.03▲ 0.02 (0.00%)AIRLINK129.31▲ 2.31 (0.02%)BOP6.8▲ 0.11 (0.02%)CNERGY4.64▲ 0.13 (0.03%)DCL8.63▼ -0.01 (0.00%)DFML40.95▼ -0.09 (0.00%)DGKC85.74▲ 0.13 (0.00%)FCCL33▼ -0.11 (0.00%)FFBL66.53▲ 0.43 (0.01%)FFL11.46▼ -0.09 (-0.01%)HUBC110.58▼ -0.53 (0.00%)HUMNL14.63▼ -0.19 (-0.01%)KEL5.24▲ 0.07 (0.01%)KOSM8.11▲ 0.45 (0.06%)MLCF40.07▼ -0.14 (0.00%)NBP60.51▲ 0 (0.00%)OGDC195.47▲ 1.37 (0.01%)PAEL27.1▲ 0.38 (0.01%)PIBTL7.64▲ 0.27 (0.04%)PPL155.82▲ 2.03 (0.01%)PRL27.37▲ 1.16 (0.04%)PTC18.56▲ 1.38 (0.08%)SEARL85.1▼ -0.5 (-0.01%)TELE7.9▲ 0.33 (0.04%)TOMCL34.88▲ 0.49 (0.01%)TPLP9.22▲ 0.4 (0.05%)TREET16.81▼ -0.01 (0.00%)TRG62.86▲ 0.31 (0.00%)UNITY27.75▲ 0.46 (0.02%)WTL1.3▲ 0 (0.00%)

IHC questions govt over not disclosing gifts received by PM

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]
Staff Reporter
Islamabad

The federal government on Wednesday sought more time from Islamabad High Court to submit details of gifts presented to Prime Minister Imran Khan by foreign leaders.

During the hearing, the court asked why the government is getting embarrassed again and again by not revealing the information regarding gifts.

The Pakistan Information Commission had earlier accepted an application on the matter and directed the Cabinet Division to “provide the requested information about the gifts received by Prime Minister Imran Khan from foreign heads of states, heads of government and other foreign dignitaries …description/specification of each gift, information about the gifts retained by the prime minister and the rules under which gifts thus received are retained by him”.

The Cabinet Division had opposed the request, taking the stance before the PIC that this matter did not fall within the ambit of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017

Referring to a letter dated April 4, 1993, that had declared the details of Toshakhana “classified/secret”, it had argued that the information could not be requisitioned under the Access to Information Act.

Subsequently, the Cabinet Division had challenged the order in a petition before the IHC, claiming that the PIC order was “illegal, without lawful authority”.

The government took the stance that disclosure of any information related to Toshakhana jeopardises international ties.

Related Posts

Get Alerts