‘Public office holders’ vs public office holders?

ISLAMABAD: The minority inquiry report into the Rawalpindi Ring Road project, which the government has owned and approved, refers on two occasions to the dubious role of those referred to as “public office holders”.

Although these public officer holders are not named, the author of the report – Commissioner Rawalpindi Gulzar Shah-- cleverly tries to identify them subtly. However, through various media persons, the names of these “public office holders” have already informally been leaked and made public and it is alleged that this whispering campaign is also being encouraged by some key members of the government. In Para 41, while discussing senior bureaucrat Dr Tauqir Shah – a member of the Shah family that owns much of the land in Sangjani village-- the report says: “An influential close relative currently holding public office is also reportedly associated in augmenting the influence of Dr Tauqir Shah on Ex-Commissioner, as well as on NESPAK.”

The reference of “influential close relative currently holding public office” is made to subtly identify Zulfi Bukhari without actually naming him. The report, however, does not explain that Bukhari is not directly related to Dr Tauqir Shah. Dr Tauqir’s family along with his cousins are the owners of Sangjani village. His cousins are the maternal uncles of Bukhari but the report connected the “influential close relative currently holding public office” with Tauqir Shah and did not mention Bukhari’s actual uncles.

A few days ago, when this correspondent talked to Zulfi Bukhari, he said that neither he nor any of his blood relations has any land in Sangjani and added that his relations with his maternal relatives are not very cordial.

Meanwhile, another member of the government is speculated about in the report without being named. In Para 49 of the report, after discussing in detail the NOVA City Housing society and the issuance of NOC to it by the Civil Aviation Authority, says, “It was however pointed out that various other societies along (the) R3 may suffer from the issue of sale beyond approval, sale without approval, presence of benami interest of public office holders etc.”

Again, the “public office holders” here have not been named but the media was informally fed to speculate about the name of Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar Khan. In Para 48, the report talked about “some powerful benami ownership” in regard to the same society.

It says: “Nova City Advertised Map on social media showing its area well within the SFZ and possibly in Funnel area; How NOVA may have kept operating despite this clear breach of SFZ related notification may have to do with some powerful Benami ownership which needs further investigation.”

In a press conference that he addressed today (Tuesday), the information minister Fawad Chaudhry said that the report did not name any members of the cabinet. Regarding the alleged involvement, as reported by the media, of Zulfi Bukhari and Ghulam Sarwar Khan influencing officials to change the design of the project, Fawad said that there is no evidence so far of the involvement of any minister or adviser in the Rawalpindi Ring Road (R3) project.

He added that Bukhari had tendered his resignation on moral grounds while Sarwar Khan has categorically denied having even an inch of land in the area falling in the RRR alignment that has now been declared illegal. Both the government functionaries have rejected the accusations, saying they have been wrongly dragged into the matter.

However, neither the incumbent Rawalpindi commissioner, who wrote the fact-finding report, nor the government has explained why if there is no evidence against Bukhari and Sarwar Khan did the report refer to the dubious role of influential “public office holders”. If the reference is not to Bukhari or Khan, who are the “public office holders” mentioned in the report and why were they not named?

Is it because some other important “public office holders” associated with the present government have allegedly been leaking the names of Bukhari and Sarwar Khan to the media?