Shehbaz calls for official inquiry into President Arif Alvi’s conduct

London: The former Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, has demanded an official inquiry into the actions of President Arif Alvi following a tweet that sparked a constitutional crisis in Pakistan.

Speaking to the media, Shehbaz Sharif emphasized the need for a transparent investigation into President Alvi’s conduct “in order to establish the facts through an impartial probe.”

Shehbaz, who is presently in London for medical treatment and to meet his elder brother Nawaz Sharif, asserted that the inquiry should ascertain whether there was an error committed by the president’s staff or if Alvi himself provided inaccurate information.

He further elucidated that according to legal requirements, prime ministers and other officeholders are obligated to sign summaries and bills.

“In the capacity of a premier, one is obliged to consistently endorse documents, and the president, in a similar vein, is required to affix his signature,” Shehbaz Sharif added.

Shehbaz Sharif meets Nawaz Sharif in London

Underscoring the importance of formal and documented procedures in conducting state affairs, Shehbaz Sharif highlighted that decisions pertaining to bills are not conveyed through verbal or informal channels. He stressed that the president’s endorsement or dismissal of a bill is expressed through his signature, and there is no room for verbal agreements.

Given that President Alvi holds the highest constitutional position in the state, Shehbaz Sharif articulated that an inquiry is imperative to ascertain the veracity of the situation. He expressed curiosity regarding the extended period of silence observed by President Alvi and urged him to clarify the reasons for not fulfilling his responsibilities promptly, only recollecting information at a later point.

Furthermore, Shehbaz Sharif questioned the president’s adherence to established protocols, highlighting that if bills were returned, such actions should have been explicitly communicated.

However, the president neither assented to the bill nor gave a written decision for returning the bill for reconsideration by the parliament.