• JUI-F chief terms ministers’ allegations ‘character assassination’, calls for in-camera parliamentary session on security
• Khawaja Asif, Tallal Chaudhry rebuke Maulana, defend governor’s rule in KP
LAHORE: JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman on Saturday clarified that his party’s remarks about the country’s security situation were directed at policies, not institutions, and termed the allegations levelled against him by federal ministers as “character assassination”.
A day earlier, Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, without naming anyone, had claimed that the “head of a party” was “extremely upset” over not being appointed governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The remarks came after the JUI-F chief accused the federal government of depriving provinces of their rights and questioned its justification for imposing governor’s rule in KP on the grounds of inadequate cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.
Minister of State for Interior Tallal Chaudhry also criticised the JUI-F chief for reportedly seeking his “share” in KP’s governance following the imposition of governor’s rule. Other ministers have also taken exception to the JUI-F chief’s remarks.
Addressing a press conference in Lahore, the Maulana stressed that his party’s criticism was directed at policies, not institutions, and was intended to bring about corrective action rather than undermine the sacrifices made in the fight against terrorism.
The senior politician called for an in-camera session of parliament to review the country’s security situation and formulate a consensus-based policy to combat terrorism.
“Our only question is why the country has failed to eliminate terrorism. Let us sit together and find out why. Parliament is the most appropriate forum to discuss the issue and make decisions. Instead of ridiculing politicians, the government should take them on board in this fight so that we can move forward together,” he said.
“If parliament is supreme, why are decisions taken in Rawalpindi while parliament is simply told to follow them?” he asked.
“The issue is that this government is powerless. Decisions are taken somewhere else, and it implements them obediently.”
The JUI-F chief maintained that parliament should review the security situation and the nation should be taken into confidence. He argued that if the public was expected to support the fight against terrorism, the government should explain its decisions rather than impose “unilateral measures”.
He reiterated his opposition to the imposition of emergency rule in KP or any other part of the country.
Recalling his family’s opposition to emergency rule in Balochistan in the 1970s, he said his father had resigned when the government of ex-PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto imposed it in the province.
He described the recurrence of such measures as unfortunate, pointing out that the PPP had repeatedly been associated with their imposition.
Questioning the rationale behind the imposition of emergency, governor’s rule and the deployment of troops in KP, the JUI-F chief asked why the province should face such measures when Balochistan was experiencing a similar level of terrorist violence, if not more.
He urged the government to develop a shared national narrative and a consensus-based counterterrorism strategy instead of questioning his party’s position.
He also asked why the government had negotiated with the PTI, if the party was accused of supporting terrorists.
“On top of it, both [the PTI and the government] say that they had reached a consensus on all points.” The JUI-F chief said around 250 of his party workers had been killed in terrorist violence.
“How can a party whose members have laid their lives be accused of supporting terrorists?” he asked.
He also questioned why he was being singled out for criticism when political leaders, including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, had at various times disagreed with the military leadership.
Ministers assail Fazl
Earlier on Saturday, speaking to the media in Jaranwala, State Minister Tallal Chaudhry expressed disappointment with the JUI-F chief, saying the federal government had not expected him to view the situation as “spoils of war” or seek his “share” in the province in the absence of a PTI government.
He said the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule in KP was an administrative measure aimed at combating terrorism, not a political move to benefit the PML-N or seize natural resources.
Mr Chaudhry questioned the Maulana’s complaints about electoral defeats, noting that the JUI-F had lost to the PTI in KP and the Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party in Balochistan. He also criticised the JUI-F chief for referring to the 1971 separation of East Pakistan after losing the 2024 elections.“You bring up 1971 after losing the 2024 elections,” Mr Chaudhry said.
He also alleged an arrangement of mutual interest between the TTP and the PTI.
He pointed out that no PTI leaders or gatherings had been targeted by terrorists since 2015, unlike other political parties and security forces.
He said that during the 2013 peace talks, the TTP had nominated PTI founder Imran Khan to its committee. He also referred to a TTP statement condemning the dismissal of the PTI-led KP government.
He further alleged that the PTI founder had allowed the TTP to open offices in Peshawar.
Mr Chaudhry renewed an offer to work with all stakeholders to implement the National Action Plan.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif criticised the JUI-F chief for targeting security forces and accusing the government of seeking control of KP’s mineral resources. He said he had shared a complete list of existing mining contract holders. Mr Asif said the opposition had been engaged in talks before the imposition of emergency, but the negotiations had been “fruitless”.
He added that parliament would roll back the emergency only when security in the province was ensured, and promised free and fair polls when the time came.
Published in Dawn, October 18th, 2026
