PTI removes party official for representing PM Shehbaz's son-in-law

LONDON: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has removed senior UK official, Barrister Waheed Ur Rehman Mian, for representing Imran Ali Yousaf, son-in-law of Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif, ARY News reported on Saturday.

According to details, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) removed Barrister Waheed Ur Rehman Mian – who was deputy secretary of PTI’s Office of International Chapters (OIC) – for representing PM Shehbaz’s son-in-law.

Sources within the party told ARY News that Waheed Ur Rehman Mian was removed from the post to represent Imran Ali in defamation case and defend him on Television. However, sources added, the barrister would continue to be a member of PTI.

Sources further claimed that the barrister was asked several times not to represent PM Shehbaz’s son-in-law. He also served as PTI’s London president.

In a statement, Mian Waheed respected the party’s decision to remove him from the office, reiterating that his sympathies will always remain with former prime minister and party Chairman Imran Khan.

Earlier on December 8, British publication Daily Mail apologised to Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif for publishing an article that accused him of embezzling British foreign aid money meant for earthquake victims, ARY News reported on Thursday.

According to details, the said article, written by investigative journalist David Rose, has now been removed from all platforms of Mail publishers.

However, it is pertinent to mention here that Daily Mail did not apologize for the allegations of money laundering and TT scandal against PM Shehbaz Sharif.

In a clarification posted on its website, the Daily Mail mentioned that their article concerning PM Shehbaz titled “Did the family of Pakistani politician who has become the poster boy for British overseas aid STEAL funds meant for earthquake victims” was published on July 14, 2019.

The report was based on an investigation by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) into PM Shehbaz and suggested that the money under “investigation included a not insubstantial sum of British public money that had been paid to the Punjab province in DFID grant aid”, the statement said.