JUI-F rejects progress on constitutional reforms with the Centre.

The JUI-F spokesperson, Aslam Ghauri, stated that it is the responsibility of the incumbent administration to enact the constitutional modifications before October 25, not that of JUI-F.

The spokesman announced that 90% of the document for the suggested revisions is complete and would be disseminated to PTI and PPP. He underlined that they do not desire a constitutional court that supersedes the Supreme Court. He underscored that their primary position is that constitutional revisions must be universally approved.

He suggested that in the absence of consensus over a constitutional court, a distinct bench should be constituted inside the Supreme Court, consisting of 4-5 judges, presided over by the Chief Justice. He emphasized that constitutional modifications are intended for the 250 million citizens of Pakistan, rather than for a single individual or administration.

The JUI-F leader indicated that the text submitted by the People’s Party was dissimilar, raising concerns for Bilawal.

Additionally, refer to: ‘Pakistan will possess two chief justices following the establishment of a constitutional court.’

A story had emerged indicating that the administration reached a breakthrough in negotiations with JUI’s Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding the planned 26th constitutional amendment.

Sources indicated that the government achieved an agreement with the JUI leader over the establishment of a constitutional court.

“Sources indicated that the constitutional amendment will be presented in parliament following the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) session set for October 15 and 16 in Islamabad.”

The proposed constitutional amendment was extensively deliberated during a meeting at the Presidency, attended by President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Nawaz Sharif, and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, according to reports.

Sources indicated that the administration ultimately concurred with Fazlur Rehman’s recommendations regarding the proposed constitutional revision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button