Pinstech rebuts report

ISLAMABAD: This refers to the news story titled “Cancer injections: Pinstech tampered with report for SC clean chit” by Umar Cheema published simultaneously, in Daily ‘The News’ and Daily Jang on 08-05-2015. Pinstech takes strong exception to the highly objectionable contents of the story on the following grounds:
The matter was taken up by the esteemed Supreme Court of Pakistan through a Suo motto notice after the same reporter filed a similar story dated 25-02-2014 containing identical allegations. In its verdict the honorable bench of the court headed by its then Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani wrote:
“In view of the report submitted, it seems the news item was not based on a correct appreciation of the relevant facts. In any case, it has served a purpose i.e. on intervention of the Court, the Pinstech got the allegations inquired into and the findings referred above lend credibility to the exercise undertaken by the Pinstech. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the proceedings have fructified and are being disposed of accordingly.”
The decision, on one hand, clearly establishes credibility of the SoPs being observed at Pinstech regarding Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) and on the other hand questions the factual presentation of facts by the reporter and hence brings the standard of reporting under a cloud.
It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Riaz Pasha, who has been time and again referred by the reporter, himself prayed to the apex court for a voluntary withdrawal of the Review Petition he had filed by saying, “That the Petitioner has decided to withdraw the above captioned petition with the intent of not pursuing the same and thus the same is voluntarily and without any coercion, inducement and with free will/consent is being preferred to withdraw the Review Petition.” On this, the honorable court ordered: “This is an application seeking withdrawal of the review application. There is no opposition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
It is a norm in the civilised world that matters that are sub-judice are not discussed openly especially on media outlets. In the present case, a seasoned reporter is objecting to the matter that has been settled by the apex court of the country. He also accused Pinstech of tampering the facts for clean chit from the SC. It is further added that it is the honourable court that decides right from the wrong and yet questioning the court’s acumen reflects the ulterior motives of the reporter.
The fact of the matter is that the respected judiciary decided the case in favour of Pinstech.Umar Cheema adds: Pinstech continues to beat around the bush. Neither it addressed the questions when approached for version nor has it done so in this ‘rebuttal’. There are lives of thousands of patients at stake. Intended object of this exercise appears to deflect attention from the issue under question.
Will Pinstech explain whether it informed Supreme Court about the audit observations of Moody International Certification Group? If yes then make that reply public. If that was not done, it is guilty of misrepresenting the facts before the apex court that the “inquiry committee thoroughly checked the QC (quality control) and QA (quality assurance) record of all the molybdenum-99 batches and found it in order as per SOP.” Either the quality audit conducted by Moody International Certification Group is accurate or the Pinstech reply submitted before the SC. Both can’t be right at the same time. Needless to mention that Pinstech has not denied the audit observation by Moody’s auditor mentioned in out report.