| Welcome to Global Village Space

Saturday, February 4, 2023
Advertising

Maryam Nawaz is not just a liar but also incompetent, Dr. Shahbaz Gill

Dr Shahbaz Gill has said that Maryam Nawaz is not only “a liar” but also “incompetent”. Why has Dr. Gill said this about the PML-N’s vice-President?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Dr. Shahbaz Gill, Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Political Communication, has said that Maryam Nawaz is not only “a liar” but also “incompetent”. He was commenting on Maryam Nawaz’s video clip on Twitter. “It is only a two minutes video and has been edited for 24 times,” Dr. Gill noted.

Maryam, in her message, said that people had approved the Pakistan Resolution at the Minar-e-Pakistan by supporting righteousness and truth and now, InshaAllah, a new history will be written at the same venue.

She said: “The 13th of December will not be a rally day but a day of judgement […] Get out of your homes, raise your voices, and mark your decision.”

The PDM has announced a rally at the Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13 and intends to march to Islamabad in the first week of January.

Earlier, Dr. Gill asked if Maryam Nawaz ca be presented as a hero in any civilized country. He alluded to her political credentials: Maryam has never been a political worker rather being the daughter of the former prime minister she joined the party as a vice-President.

Maryam’s lies?

As Maryam Nawaz’s grandmother recently passed away, Maryam took to Twitter and slammed the government for being ‘inhumane’ as she was not ‘informed about her grandmother’s demise’.

“My father and family kept trying to contact me but could not,” she said, lambasting the incumbent PTI-led government for being inconsiderate and noting how “no government official was humane enough to inform me of my grandmother’s death”.

Twitterati corrected Maryam Nawaz that her grandmother died at 7 am UK time, which is 12 noon Pakistan time. Her grandmother died “when she was at Baloor’s House & not in the “Jalsa”, she must have decided that appearance in the ‘Jalsa’ was important,” wrote Dr. Moeed Pirzada in response to Maryam’s tweet.

There is a strong perception that Maryam was either attempting to seek public sympathy in this critical situation—at the time her grandmother had passed away—- or was smartly clarifying that Nawaz won’t get back to Pakistan. Nawaz left for London for his treatment after an organized campaign was run by media and opinion makers in Pakistan. Reliable sources claim that the PML-N’s supremo went to London after signing a deal with the country’s powerful establishment.

Read More: ‘Real Karma’: PTI reminds Maryam Nawaz that the tables have turned

This is not the first time that Maryam made a controversial statement. In 2011, Maryam Nawaz had said during an interview with a local media outlet that she “does not own any properties in London or Pakistan”. “I live at my father’s house,” she said at the time, denying the veracity documents that purportedly detailed her ownership of property.

Later on, a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) formed by the country’s top court has found Maryam’s property. Maryam Safdar is the real and ultimate beneficial owner of the Avenfield apartments. She never declared the ownership of these overseas properties, submitted fake documents and misled the Supreme Court, concluded the JIT in its report.

“It has been proved beyond doubt that Ms. Maryam Safdar had been the owner of Avenfield properties,” the JIT stated, adding that the documents submitted by the respondents are ‘fake and manipulated’.

It added that the analysis of the tax returns of Maryam – the political heir apparent of the Sharif family – shows that she had never declared the Avenfield apartments as her overseas properties.

It may be worth noting that Maryam Nawaz produced a bogus trust deed before the accountability court in order to conceal the London properties. The anti-corruption watchdog submitted an application to bring the matter into the court’s notice.

NAB application read, “The above conclusion [that the document used was bogus] by this court was reached after evaluating the entire evidence; hence, it is apparent that the respondent has maliciously fabricated and tendered false evidence/information with the intention to mislead the due process of law and trial and hamper the administration of justice.”