Alexandrova shocks world No. 1 Sabalenka in Toronto

A meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice was held under the chairmanship of Senator Farooq H Naek, where National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Nazir Ahmed Butt appeared before the committee on its instructions. During the meeting, Senator Farooq H Naek remarked that the NAB chairman had perhaps appeared before the committee for the first time. In response, Nazir Ahmed Butt said that it was his first appearance before the committee as NAB chairman. He added that he had appeared before the committee several times while performing his previous responsibilities. The NAB chairman said he had been assigned the responsibility in 2023. He recalled that ministers he met during his tenure repeatedly complained that the bureaucracy was afraid to make decisions and was therefore reluctant to work. During the meeting, NAB Director General Operations briefed the committee on the bureau’s powers and performance. The official said NAB had received 505,799 complaints since its establishment. He said NAB also operates as an investigative agency under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. According to the briefing, NAB has so far completed 12,147 inquiries, conducted 7,339 investigations and filed 4,105 references. The DG Operations further told the committee that NAB had been allocated Rs22.556 billion over the past three-and-a-half years. Despite the expenditure, the bureau reported significantly higher recoveries during the same period. The committee was informed that NAB had recovered Rs1.069 trillion over the past three-and-a-half years. The briefing highlighted the bureau’s role in investigating corruption, financial crimes and other cases falling under its legal mandate. The committee members discussed NAB’s powers, investigations, recoveries and its overall performance during the meeting. The NAB chairman and officials responded to questions from the committee and provided details about the bureau’s operations and financial performance.

The Muttahida Madaris Council Pakistan has publicly distanced itself from recent remarks made by Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding the Pakistan Army and the country’s martyrs. In an official statement, the council said religious seminaries across Pakistan have always stood with the country’s armed forces and fully respect the sacrifices made by military personnel in defending the nation. It stressed that no seminary or religious educational institution supports any narrative that could be interpreted as being against the armed forces. The council reaffirmed its commitment to national unity and expressed solidarity with Pakistan’s security institutions. It also paid tribute to the country’s martyrs, saying their sacrifices for national security and peace deserve the highest respect. The controversy began after Fazlur Rehman addressed a public gathering in Kasur, where he spoke about the security situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. During his speech, his comments about soldiers and martyrdom sparked widespread criticism from political leaders and members of the public. Several politicians described the remarks as inappropriate and called on the JUI-F chief to publicly clarify or withdraw his statement. They maintained that the sacrifices of soldiers should not become part of political debate and should always be treated with respect. Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan strongly criticised the remarks and urged Fazlur Rehman to issue a public apology. He also proposed the formation of a Senate committee to examine the issue and determine whether the veteran politician should be formally called to explain his comments. The matter has also entered the legal arena. A sessions court has issued a notice to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) regarding the registration of a cybercrime case linked to the controversial remarks. The agency is expected to submit its response during the legal proceedings. Legal experts say the court will review the available evidence before deciding whether further action is warranted under the relevant laws. The controversy has continued to dominate political discussions, with leaders from different parties expressing contrasting views over the issue. While critics insist that the remarks were disrespectful to the sacrifices of the armed forces, supporters of Fazlur Rehman have defended his right to express political opinions.

Lawyer and social activist Jibran Nasir has criticised the country’s political and economic situation, alleging that pressure, censorship and coercive measures have failed to change public opinion about PTI founder Imran Khan. Speaking to anchorperson Ameer Abbas, Nasir said authorities had been unable to alter public sentiment toward Imran Khan despite what he described as years of pressure and attempts to control political discourse. He argued that if public opinion had genuinely changed, millions of people would not have voted for Imran Khan and his political movement in the February 8 general elections. Nasir questioned how the authorities could claim to change broader public thinking about the economy, Constitution and rule of law when they had not been able to change people’s views about a single political leader. He also criticised what he described as restrictions on political expression and media freedom. Nasir alleged that force, state pressure, censorship and arrests were being used to control political developments. According to Nasir, suppressing criticism does not resolve underlying public grievances. He said people who speak about alleged injustices are sometimes portrayed as creating unrest rather than being allowed to raise their concerns. He warned that continued reliance on pressure could increase frustration among citizens instead of resolving political differences. Nasir further claimed that people were now more aware of political developments and could not easily be persuaded through fear or restrictions. He said arrests, cases and harsh measures had not succeeded in changing the position of a significant section of the public. The lawyer maintained that political issues could not be permanently controlled through force. He called for greater space for political expression and a process through which public grievances could be addressed. His comments come amid continued political tensions between the government and PTI. The party has repeatedly raised concerns over the treatment of its leadership, legal cases against its members and restrictions on political activities.