PESHAWAR: As the PTI continues to insist on a meeting with party founder Imran Khan, the fate of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa budget remains uncertain after Speaker Babar Saleem Swati postponed the provincial assembly session scheduled for Wednesday until Friday. The assembly session has now been summoned for 2:00 pm on Friday, June 19.
Exercising his authority, Speaker Babar Saleem Swati deferred the sitting for the fifth consecutive time that was due to take place on Wednesday, June 17. Before Eid, on May 18, the speaker had adjourned the assembly session until June 1 at 2:00 pm after a lack of quorum was pointed out. Since then, the session has been repeatedly postponed—to June 8, June 15, June 17, and now June 19.
The Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Secretariat has formally issued a notification convening the assembly session at 2:00 pm on June 19. A PTI special team of legal experts was examining all constitutional and legal matters about the provincial budget as the ruling party awaits permission to meet its incarcerated founder, Imran Khan.
Earlier last week, Aleema Khan, sister of Imran Khan, had also asked the K-P chief minister Sohail Afridi to not present budget without meeting Imran Khan. A similar situation had also emerged earlier last year over consultation with Imran Khan before the passage of budget.
On the other hand, Leader of the Opposition in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Dr Ibadullah Khan had warned that if the provincial government refused to present the budget for the next fiscal year, a "strong reaction" would come from the opposition benches.
K-P adviser to the chief minister on finance Muzzammil Aslam told the media that he had also asked the federal side to arrange their meeting with Imran Khan to get his approval for the budget. He said that the PTI founder had also supported the decisions made for national interest and security and would do the same this time, too. The adviser, however, said the meeting with the party's founder was their legitimate demand and the federal government should allow them to meet him. He said that they had so far not received a go-ahead for the meeting with Mr Imran.
Aslam said the finance department had prepared a budget for a year and ready to present it whenever directed by the provincial government. "We have done our work and ready to present it whenever government tells us to do so," he said.
Meanwhile, a statement issued after a recent parliamentary party meeting read that the participants were informed that if access to jailed former PM Imran continued to be denied, the legal team would undertake a detailed review of all constitutional and legal options concerning the budgetary process and formulate a comprehensive legal course of action to safeguard the constitutional rights of K-P. It added that the meeting unequivocally declared that any attempt to undermine the province's budgetary autonomy or curtail its development resources would be unacceptable.
Also, the party decided that any attempt by the federal government to reduce the province's budgetary allocations or development resources would not be accepted without consultation with Imran. The meeting undertook a comprehensive review of the federal government's recent conduct, the emerging situation surrounding the provincial budget, the possibility of reductions in development allocations and the prevailing political environment.
The participants agreed to pursue a robust political and legal strategy aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the province and its people. "The parliamentary party emphasised that any effort by the federal government to restrict the province's democratic mandate, financial entitlements or development interests would invite strong political resistance," it said.
It said that those responsible for undermining the public mandate, the meeting noted, would be challenged and exposed through all constitutional, political and public forums. The meeting also reiterated that every constitutional and democratic avenue would be pursued to protect the rights of the people of KP and that no unconstitutional action would be met with silence or acquiescence.
