Licence Renewal Goes Online for Thai Motorists Under 55 Starting June 2026

The Anti-Corruption Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged irregularities and appointments to key positions at Hayatabad Medical Complex (HMC), raising questions over the appointment procedures and eligibility of several candidates. The inquiry report identified alleged violations of rules and regulations in appointments to important positions, including Director Finance, Chief Internal Auditor, Director Supply Chain, and Director Research and Clinical Audit. According to the report, a person was appointed as Director Finance despite allegedly failing to meet the prescribed eligibility criteria. The inquiry also found that the candidate who secured the top position on merit for the post of Chief Internal Auditor was allegedly overlooked. The report further stated that the appointment of the Director Supply Chain was made despite the candidate allegedly not meeting the required technical expertise criteria. Similarly, the inquiry raised objections to the appointment of the Director Research and Clinical Audit, stating that the appointee allegedly did not meet the required eligibility criteria. The Anti-Corruption Department said the appointments allegedly violated provisions of the Medical Teaching Institutions (MTI) Act and relevant rules and regulations. Based on its findings, the inquiry recommended that the disputed appointments be cancelled. The report also recommended action against the Chairman and members of the Board of Governors, along with other officials allegedly involved in the appointment process. According to the inquiry report, the disputed appointments remained in place for around three years, allegedly causing a financial loss of approximately Rs150 million to the public exchequer. The inquiry recommended recovering the alleged financial loss from the individuals responsible. The Anti-Corruption Department has also recommended verification of the educational qualifications, professional experience and certificates of the officials concerned. The verification is aimed at determining whether the documents submitted by the candidates at the time of their appointments met the prescribed criteria and were in accordance with the relevant rules. The matter has already been under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Department. A petition challenging appointments to key posts, including Director Finance, Chief Internal Auditor and Director Supply Chain, is also pending before the Peshawar High Court.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar and several other senior government officials received a total of 21 official gifts during the April to June period, according to the latest Toshakhana record released by the Cabinet Division. The official record shows that the prime minister and deputy prime minister were among the senior officeholders who received gifts from foreign dignitaries and officials during official meetings and state engagements. In line with the Toshakhana rules, both leaders deposited all the gifts with the Toshakhana instead of retaining them. According to the Cabinet Division, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif received several gifts, including a decorative sugar bowl, a luxury pen, a model of Masjid-e-Nabawi (PBUH), a shield and a tie. He also received a model of the Chinese Space Station, a commemorative cup, a wristwatch and another shield during separate official engagements. The records further show that Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar received a Chinese leather belt, a model of an Egyptian statue and a pair of cufflinks as official gifts. These items were also submitted to the Toshakhana in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Cabinet Division said all gifts received by the prime minister and deputy prime minister have been deposited with the Toshakhana. It added that the process of assessing the monetary value of the gifts is currently in progress. The estimated value will be determined before the record is finalized, following the standard rules governing official gifts received by public officeholders. The Toshakhana maintains a record of gifts presented to government officials by foreign leaders, diplomats and visiting delegations during official visits and meetings. Under the applicable rules, such gifts must be declared and deposited, while their valuation is carried out through the prescribed official mechanism.

The Islamabad High Court has declared admissible the petitions seeking suspension of sentences of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chatha, who were convicted by a trial court in the controversial tweets case. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan of the Islamabad High Court issued a reserved verdict, rejecting a miscellaneous application filed by the prosecution challenging the admissibility of the petitions. The court had reserved its decision yesterday after hearing arguments from both sides. The prosecution had argued that the petitions for suspension of sentence filed by Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chatha were premature. It is pertinent to mention that Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka had sentenced both Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chatha to a total of 17 years in prison each under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). Both convicts have approached the Islamabad High Court seeking suspension of their sentences. Earlier, The Islamabad High Court on Friday reserved its decision on whether petitions seeking the suspension of prison sentences awarded to lawyers and human rights activists Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha can proceed. The petitions relate to the couple’s convictions in a case involving alleged controversial social media posts under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). The hearing was conducted by Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, who considered preliminary arguments from both the prosecution and the defence before reserving his ruling on the maintainability of the petitions. During the proceedings, lawyers representing the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) argued that the requests for suspension of sentence had been filed too early. They maintained that the court should first decide the prosecution’s objection challenging the admissibility of the petitions before considering any request for relief