ISLAMABAD – As expected, the proceeding of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA)’s session was postponed until next order on directions from a ‘hidden’ hand to facilitate Geo/Jang group.
According to the PEMRA’s member Israr Abbasi some hidden hand but evidently one minister was behind the cancellation of 16 May’s session.
Getting furious over the mysterious incident, Abbasi said that those who want to help Geo must come at front now. He said “If four members of PEMRA would present tomorrow then we would hold the session and announce the verdict as well.”
However Abbasi said “I do not know who cancelled the session.”
According to PakistanTribe sources, the PEMRA’s session of May 16 was cancelled to facilitate Geo and Jang group as they trying to consult Supreme Court to halt the proceedings. Sources confirmed that after Islamabad High Court (IHC) rejected the plea of Geo group in a very ‘insulting manner’ the group executives wanted to take some time to prepare another petition to be filed in Supreme Court of Pakistan. Not to forget that Akram Sheikh – the prosecutor in high treason trial of Pervez Musharraf – represented the Geo in IHC.
“Government wants to use its influence. They want us to send the case to ministry of law. It never happened before. Whole nation is looking towards the PEMRA for this really important case. We urge government to let us go ahead with the hearing,” Shams said.
He also maintained that government had no authority to cancel the PEMRA’s hearing. “Only high court can cancel the hearing,” he added.
Shams told that if matter sent to Council of Complaints then it would automatically get delayed. “The members would protest very strongly against any effort of government to influence the case against Geo News. We have numbers of complaints against Geo News. Application of one senior media person was pending since April 22. Let us do everything according to the rules,” he said further.
Previously, PakistanTribe reported that PEMRA sought Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led ministry of law to advise on the matter when its 12 member committee itself failed to even discuss the issue.