AGL40▲ 0 (0.00%)AIRLINK129.06▼ -0.47 (0.00%)BOP6.75▲ 0.07 (0.01%)CNERGY4.49▼ -0.14 (-0.03%)DCL8.55▼ -0.39 (-0.04%)DFML40.82▼ -0.87 (-0.02%)DGKC80.96▼ -2.81 (-0.03%)FCCL32.77▲ 0 (0.00%)FFBL74.43▼ -1.04 (-0.01%)FFL11.74▲ 0.27 (0.02%)HUBC109.58▼ -0.97 (-0.01%)HUMNL13.75▼ -0.81 (-0.06%)KEL5.31▼ -0.08 (-0.01%)KOSM7.72▼ -0.68 (-0.08%)MLCF38.6▼ -1.19 (-0.03%)NBP63.51▲ 3.22 (0.05%)OGDC194.69▼ -4.97 (-0.02%)PAEL25.71▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PIBTL7.39▼ -0.27 (-0.04%)PPL155.45▼ -2.47 (-0.02%)PRL25.79▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PTC17.5▼ -0.96 (-0.05%)SEARL78.65▼ -3.79 (-0.05%)TELE7.86▼ -0.45 (-0.05%)TOMCL33.73▼ -0.78 (-0.02%)TPLP8.4▼ -0.66 (-0.07%)TREET16.27▼ -1.2 (-0.07%)TRG58.22▼ -3.1 (-0.05%)UNITY27.49▲ 0.06 (0.00%)WTL1.39▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

Wazirabad attack JIT members claim CCPO Lahore not considering ‘divergent’ views

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

Four members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Wazirabad incident in which shots were fired at a convoy carrying former premier Imran Khan have submitted a letter to the JIT convener in which they have emphatically stated that they do not agree with the unilateral findings of investigation.

Some of the conclusions being drawn and shared on the media are not shared by us. We hold very different views about the issue,” the authors of the letter stated.

Sources familiar with the investigation say no member of the JIT was allowed to investigate or question the accused. This led to complete disagreement by the four JIT members with the findings being reported in the media. These four members of the JIT have informed the Home Department and Punjab IGP about their concerns.

The four JIT members questioned the claim of involvement of more than one assailant. The members also pointed out that there was no evidence that showed that the assailant was linked to any other person in carrying out the attack.

The letter also noted that differences within the JIT had been brought to the notice of the convener several times but they were ignored. “The worthy CCPO (convener) was requested time and again to give importance to our divergent views on the subject case but for reasons best known to him, our opinion was not given due weightage.”

 

Related Posts

Get Alerts