Thai Opposition Prepares No-confidence Debate Amid Corruption Allegations

The Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) has rejected a statement issued by eight members of the council, saying their views represent their individual opinions and cannot be considered the collective position of the institution. In a statement issued from Islamabad, the Vice Chairman said the Pakistan Bar Council has 23 members, while only eight members had issued the statement in question. He stressed that in a democratic institution, a minority cannot impose its position on the majority. He said the views expressed by the eight members should therefore not be presented as the official stance of the Pakistan Bar Council. According to him, the council’s collective position can only be determined through its proper institutional process. The Vice Chairman further said the Pakistan Bar Council must remain above political interests and personal agendas. He stressed that the institution should work to protect the independence of the legal profession and uphold the rule of law rather than become involved in political disputes. He also warned against using platforms of the superior judiciary and bar associations for political purposes. He said legal institutions and professional forums should maintain their dignity and should not be turned into platforms for advancing individual or political interests. The Vice Chairman said the Pakistan Bar Council strongly condemned the statements issued by the eight members and formally distanced itself from them. He made it clear that the statements did not represent the collective position of the council. He also criticised a statement issued by the Lahore High Court Bar Association, describing it as condemnable. He maintained that statements issued by individual members or groups within bar bodies should not automatically be treated as the official position of the entire legal community. The development comes amid growing debate within legal circles over the role of bar councils and associations in political and judicial matters.

Lahore: The Punjab Assembly has ordered an investigation into a suspected irregularity involving the transfer of 30 kanal of land after a fee was reportedly collected for only 2 kanal. The issue was raised during a session of the Punjab Assembly, prompting Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan to express concern over the alleged shortfall in fee collection. The Speaker questioned how land measuring 30 kanal could be transferred after charging a fee applicable to only 2 kanal. He also raised concerns about the potential loss caused to the national exchequer. The Speaker said that if the reduction in the fee had been made under a court order, the relevant senior official of the Board of Revenue should appear before the court and explain the circumstances surrounding the decision. The matter also drew the attention of Opposition Leader Rana Aftab Khan, who raised concerns over possible revenue losses and weaknesses in the land administration system. The discussion highlighted questions about the procedures followed by the revenue authorities while assessing land and collecting transfer-related fees. Members stressed the need to determine how the discrepancy occurred and who was responsible for approving the transaction. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, the Speaker referred the issue to the relevant assembly committee for detailed examination. He directed that the matter be properly investigated and that the facts behind the alleged irregularity be established. The development has raised broader concerns about transparency in land transfers, assessment procedures and revenue collection in Punjab. The committee is expected to examine the relevant record and determine whether any official negligence or violation of rules occurred. The investigation will also seek to establish whether the fee was reduced under a valid legal or judicial order and whether the provincial or national exchequer suffered a financial loss as a result.

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. The prosecution submitted that hearing the suspension petitions before deciding its objection would make its legal challenge ineffective. It therefore requested the court to first determine whether the petitions were legally maintainable. Counsel for Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha opposed the objection and said he was ready to argue the prosecution’s application immediately. He suggested that both the objection and the suspension requests should be heard together to avoid unnecessary delays in the proceedings. The judge advised the defence to fully prepare its arguments, observing that doing so would better protect the legal rights of the convicted lawyers. However, the defence maintained that it was prepared to proceed without delay and formally waived any request for additional preparation time. After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Azam Khan stated that the court would first determine whether the petitions seeking suspension of sentence were legally maintainable. Only after resolving that issue would the court consider the merits of the requests for suspension of the sentences. At the end of the hearing, the Islamabad High Court reserved its decision on the prosecution’s objection. The ruling will determine whether the petitions can move forward for further consideration. Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha were convicted by a sessions court earlier this year and received a combined sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment on multiple charges under PECA

ISLAMABAD: Heavy rain lashed Islamabad and Rawalpindi, while several parts of Lahore also received showers, providing relief from hot and humid weather. The rainfall lowered temperatures in many areas, although it also caused traffic disruptions and water accumulation on some roads. The downpour began in the morning and continued intermittently in the twin cities. Residents experienced cooler weather after several days of warm and humid conditions. In Lahore, rain was reported from different localities, bringing pleasant weather to the provincial capital. According to the Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD), a weak monsoon system is currently affecting parts of the country. The weather department said the monsoon winds are interacting with a westerly weather system, which is influencing the northern regions and increasing the chances of rainfall. The PMD has forecast that Islamabad, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are likely to receive rain at isolated places during the day. Some areas may experience moderate to heavy showers accompanied by gusty winds. The weather department has advised the public to remain cautious during periods of heavy rainfall, particularly in low-lying areas where water may accumulate. Motorists have also been urged to drive carefully on slippery roads and avoid unnecessary travel during intense downpours. Authorities are monitoring the weather situation and have asked relevant departments to stay prepared for any emergencies caused by heavy rain. Citizens have also been encouraged to follow official weather advisories and take precautionary measures where needed.

Islamabad: The Pakistan Climate Change Authority has been called back before a Senate committee only days after Chairperson Sherry Rehman strongly questioned why a new authority was operating alongside the Climate Change Ministry, asked what new work it was actually doing and raised concerns over staff costs, duplication and the use of public money. The fresh meeting will again focus almost entirely on the authority, its work, projects, programmes and progress. The quick return of the issue to the committee has increased pressure on the authority to clearly explain why it exists and what results it has produced that the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination could not already deliver. At the previous meeting, Sherry Rehman repeatedly asked officials what work the authority was doing that the ministry was not already responsible for. She questioned whether the government had effectively created a parallel structure carrying out the same work on climate mitigation, adaptation, coordination and policy implementation. Rehman said the presentation before the committee did not show a clear new role for the authority. She also questioned why another institution was being created at a time when the ministry itself was facing shrinking development budgets. One of the strongest moments came when the committee discussed the authority’s staffing and expenditure. Rehman referred to a sanctioned strength of 24 positions and said employee related expenditure had already reached around Rs 80 million according to the presentation placed before the committee. She questioned why these costs were being incurred when she could not see a clear difference between the work of the authority and the ministry. She warned officials not to treat the meeting as a routine presentation exercise and demanded direct answers about public spending and actual results. Rehman also questioned whether creating the authority had brought new climate experts into government. Members asked whether the purpose was to recruit technocrats who could not otherwise be brought into the ministry. However, Rehman said the presentation appeared to show many of the same officials who had already worked inside government departments. She described the situation as a reshuffling of bureaucracy rather than the creation of a new technical institution. She said fragmentation was already a major government problem, with different organisations working separately on connected climate and disaster issues. According to her argument, creating another body without a clearly different mandate could increase costs while making responsibility more confusing. Rehman also questioned why the authority had been activated years after the law creating it first appeared. She said the law allowed the authority to exist but argued that this did not necessarily mean the government was forced to operationalise it. She said earlier governments had discussed removing such overlapping structures instead. During the exchange, she said she had opposed operationalising the authority while serving as minister because she feared it would create duplication. She told the committee that the result now appeared close to what she had warned about: officials were moving between the ministry and the authority instead of creating a completely new technical team. The authority defended its role. Dr Muhammad Rafiq told the committee that the authority was originally designed to provide technical support to the ministry. He acknowledged that more explanation was needed regarding what the authority was delivering against its original responsibilities. He suggested that the ministry and authority should be given an opportunity to return with a clearer presentation explaining what results they expected to achieve and what the authority could do that the ministry could not. The committee was told that the authority was still incomplete. Officials said a permanent chairperson was still being appointed and that only three members were working at the authority with a limited number of staff against the total positions planned. The authority also presented one of its strongest arguments in defence of its performance. An authority member told the committee that it had become Pakistan’s first public sector organisation to qualify as a delivery partner with the Green Climate Fund through the relevant mechanism. The official said this had been achieved by only three members and without technical assistance. He argued that this status could help the authority develop technical proposals and bring more climate finance into Pakistan. Rehman was not convinced that this achievement alone justified a separate authority. She argued that Green Climate Fund financing had already been coming to Pakistan through government structures and questioned why a completely new authority was needed when a climate finance office could operate within the ministry. She again asked why project development and technical hiring could not be handled directly by the ministry. Her central question remained the same throughout the discussion: what exactly could the new authority do that the ministry could not already do? The ministry told the committee that it had a supervisory and controlling role over the authority and that the authority’s budget passed through the ministry. However, Rehman continued to question how effective that control was if the authority could hire staff and exercise statutory powers separately. She asked officials to explain how rotating officials into a separate authority would make climate work more efficient when the ministry itself was losing development resources. Professor Dr Zahoor Ahmed Bazai, who identified himself as an unpaid member nominated to the authority and as a climate change academic, defended the institution. He told the committee that the authority was included in the climate law and that members had been nominated through the formal process. He argued that the authority was intended to provide expertise and serve an advisory role. Rehman said her criticism was not directed personally at individual members. She said the bigger problem was duplication between institutions and the growing number of attached bodies dealing with similar climate matters. The committee chairperson was also critical of the presentation the authority gave. Rehman said the presentation was not strong enough to be used by Pakistan at an international climate forum and described it as outdated in style. She said that if the authority wanted to demonstrate its value and