Farogh Naseem resigns from Grievance Redressal Committee

KARACHI: Farogh Naseem has resigned from the government-formed Grievance Redressal Committee, confirmed a leader of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Amin-ul-Haq.
Farogh Naseem resigned from the GRC following a meeting with MQM chief in London on Friday evening.
Amin-ul-Haq said that Farogh Naseem tendered his resignation because some political opponents had been making his being on the committee controversial.
MQM, he said, did not want the working of the GRC to be made controversial so it was decided that he should quit.The Grievance Redressal Committee was formed after Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and MQM leader Dr Farooq Sattar had signed an MoU on October 9 agreeing to its formation.
On October 16, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a notification to this effect.The federal government formed the five-member committee to resolve some concerns raised by the MQM, and Naseem was one of its members.
The committee was supposed to hold its first meeting within 15 days of its formation, but exactly 15 days later one of its members resigned due to the objections raised by the opponents.The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) had rejected the formation of the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), calling it an attempt to derail Karachi operation.
A PTI spokesperson Naeemul Haq had said that by including Senator Farogh Nasim, an active member of the MQM, in the five-member committee, the government had made it a partial body, and that it would make other political parties look at the committee with a certain degree of skepticism.
Senator Nasim’s presence on the GRC, Naeemul Haq had claimed, would allow “the MQM to use the forum for political blackmail”.Besides Barrister Nasim and the interior secretary, the committee consists of Justice (Retd.) Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice (Retd.) Khalilur Rehman Khan and Justice (Retd.) Ajmal Mian.
In his resignation letter to the prime minister, Barrister Nasim cited three factors for the resignation. Firstly, he said that his professional occupation as a practicing lawyer could not permit him to take the task of a member of the GRC.
Secondly, his consent had not been obtained to act as a member of the GRC, and lastly that if the GRC were to function with absolute neutrality, each member of the committee should not only be impartial but they should also be seen to be impartial by the people at large.