Rawalpindi: Senator Sania Nishtar, a prominent leader of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI), underwent an extensive questioning session lasting over an hour at the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) Rawalpindi office on Thursday. The inquiry pertained to the Al-Qadir Trust case involving £190 million.
Credible sources have confirmed that Senator Nishtar, a former federal cabinet member, was thoroughly examined in connection with the aforementioned financial case.
During the interrogation, an interesting revelation emerged. Senator Nishtar disclosed that during a cabinet meeting, Shahzad Akbar, a key government official, had presented a confidential envelope instructing the cabinet members to simply affix their signatures, as per insider sources.
Moreover, Senator Nishtar willingly shared with the investigating team the identities of two former ministers, further adding depth to the ongoing investigation. NAB primarily focused its inquiries on matters related to money transfers, and upon receiving satisfactory responses, Senator Nishtar was allowed to leave.
In a parallel development, NAB has also summoned another prominent PTI leader and former Minister, Malik Amin Aslam, for questioning.
This development comes as PTI Chairman, accompanied by his wife Bushra Bibi and other party leaders, faces a NAB inquiry concerning an agreement between the PTI government and a property tycoon. This agreement allegedly resulted in a £190 million loss to the national treasury.
The allegations suggest that the former Prime Minister and other accused individuals manipulated £190 million, equivalent to Rs50 billion at the time, provided by Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) to the Pakistani government as part of the arrangement with the property tycoon. Additionally, they are accused of receiving undue benefits, including acquiring over 458 kanals of land in Mouza Bakrala, Sohawa, for the establishment of Al-Qadir University.
The investigation continues as NAB diligently seeks to unravel the intricacies of this significant financial case.
Comments are closed.