NAB?s homeopathic clarification says neither yes **r **
 

ISLAMABAD: Without clarifying its already doubtful role in regard to a probe into PanamaLeaks disclosures, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Saturday furthered the ambiguities by issuing a “clarification” that neither says “yes” **r a “**” to the important question about the initiation or halting of inquiry into the matter.

In response to The News story “NAB, FBR to stay away from Panama Papers probe”, the NAB issued the following clarification:

“Apropos news item appearing in the daily “Jang” and “The News” of April 27, 2016 and April 30, 2016 on the same subject viz “NAB and FBR stay put inquiries into Panama Leaks”.

The NAB would like to vehemently refute the contents of the story on the above **ted dates in as far as it pertains to NAB and suffice it to say that it is based upon conjectures, rumors and hypothesis.

“There is ** basis of the news story and why it was **t refuted on the first instance was **t to lend credibility to such conjectures. But the repeat assertions compel the organization to issue this rejoinder by stating unequivocally that the story is misleading and erroneous. Making a story out of leaks from lower level contacts from within an organization do **t go well with the professionalism of senior journalists who have opportunities to get the correct version from senior management. Without dignifying the story any further, NAB would like to reiterate the fallaciousness of the story issued on the above dates.”

Does this clarification make any sense? What the NAB is denying or clarifying and what is “misleading and erroneous” in the stories referred to? What is “fallacious” about these stories? Instead of clearing the *****, the NAB clarification has raised more questions.

The two stories of The News, seen by NAB as based on “conjectures, rumors and hypothesis”, referred to two developments within the Bureau in relation to the official communications and file work on the appearance of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children’s name in PanamaLeaks.

These stories were based on the information shared by NAB sources. This correspondent has even the names of the ******rs, who **t only previously interacted for linking PanamaLeaks information about Sharifs with a pending inquiry against the ruling family but those who **ted the “Put on hold” remark and endorsed it on the relevant file. The information as provided by this newspaper could be cross checked from official files and diary numbers.

About the NAB’s contention, “Making a story out of leaks from lower level contacts from within an organization do **t go well with the professionalism of senior journalists who have opportunities to get the correct version from senior management”, it is pertinent to **te that on both the occasions the official spokesperson for the NAB was approached but he was shy to even take the questions for official response.

Moreover, the head of the Operation Division of the NAB was also contacted. Although the ******r concerned avoided receiving the call, still this correspondent sent him a question through mobile message which remained unanswered. He was asked, “Is it a fact that your division has frozen NS-PanamaLeaks file?”

Despite getting ** response from the NAB’s official spokesperson and the ******r concerned heading the Operation Division, The News stories contained the viewpoint of a senior NAB official on PanamaLeaks.

Despite best efforts from The News to get official stance of the Bureau on the all important issue of PanamaLeaks, even today the NAB is avoiding to state whether it is interested in the probe or wants to ig**re it altogether.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/YEor/~4/Lxkm8qKd4v4

أكثر...