Mazari rejects report

ISLAMABAD: Shireen M Mazari, Central Information Secretary PTI, rejected a report, headlined “Where is the evidence?”, appeared in ‘The News’ on Friday.
She said it is sad to read conjecture and some blatant falsehood attributed to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Vice Chairman Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi. She said the reporter, Ahmad Noorani, referred to Shah Mehmood Qureshi signaling Imran Khan when Aitzaz Ahsen began speaking “suggesting that PPP leader’s arguments carried no weight.” She said how can he know what the signal meant? “I was in the courtroom also and as far as I could make out, both Imran Khan and the Shah Mehmood Qureshi exchanged looks of appreciation when Aitzaz spoke,” she said.
In a statement Mazari said, “Even worse, Noorani wrote a complete fabrication stating when the court was adjourned ‘Imran told his party leaders that the remarks given by Aitzaz Ahsan were useless.’ I was present when Khan spoke to us immediately after the adjournment in the courtroom and he pointed out how relevant Aitzaz Ahsan’s remarks were and how well he had spoken. In fact we all appreciated Atizaz reference to the ballot bags issue. So either was Mr Noorani unable to hear the conversation or was he not present and was given wrong information.”
Mazari said, “Imran Khan has always held the position that the ballot bags of each polling station must be examined as they contained one of the most substantive proofs of rigging and that was the position also put forward by Aitzaz Ahsan – not only in the courtroom on Thursday but also in his White Paper on how the election was stolen. So there is no question of Khan saying Aitzaz’s remarks were useless. As I said earlier, I was present and part of the conversation wrongly cited by Noorani.”
Mazari further said, “It is unfortunate that Mr Noorani has chosen to give such a fabricated account of what happened simply for his own catharsis. I hope in

the interest of fair play and truthful reporting, this rejoinder (by someone who was present on the occasion and a party to the conversation in question) will be printed in Saturday’s edition so people know the context.
Ahmad Noorani Adds: My story carried many points with the major focus on explaining stance of PTI counsel that Judicial Commission should decide the issue on basis of “generally prevailed perception” instead of asking for evidence as required during trial.
One aspect of story was views and discussions of PTI leaders on arguments and suggestions of Aitzaz Ahsan. I clearly wrote that PTI chief was initially happy but after Aitzaz presented a proposal, there were mixed reactions. I was present there and spoke to PTI chief and other leaders. Ms Shireen has said that she also has seen expressions of Shah Mehmood Qureshi on arguments of Aitzaz Ahsan. However, it is humanly impossible as she was sitting on back-benches on 8th or 9th row of the courtroom No-1 while PTI chief Imran Khan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Jahangir Tareen were sitting on very front row reserved for lawyers. I was simply at a distance of four to five feet from there and was facing them. Ms Shireen came on front side only after conclusion of hearing. Lastly, the story also narrates my conversation with PTI chief. If Ms Shireen was to question my presence in courtroom No-1, she first has to deny my conversation with PTI chief and his statement quoted in the story. I reported what I witnessed and also mentioned when and where PTI chief praised Aitzaz Ahsen. PTI should also have reacted to all other points of story. It is up to the readers to go through both my story and this clarification and decide about the truthfulness on basis of credibility of both the sides and facts presented.