Some PTI leaders believe deal with PML-Q is blunder

Provincial leaders upset for not getting access to premier


Hasnaat Malik February 15, 2020
PHOTO: NNI/FILE

ISLAMABAD: The PTI led provincial government’s written agreement for sharing power with its key alley, the PML-Q, in Punjab is a blunder, some senior PTI leaders believe.

“There was no need in this regard.  The PML-Q won most seats in July 2018 election with the PTI’s support. Now the ruling party has no option but to implement the written agreement signed between Chief Minister Usman Buzdar and PML-Q leadership, said the leader while requesting anonymity.

The PTI and the PML-Q on Feb 11 finally resolved their differences after a five-member government committee held successful talks with coalition partners to resolve pending issues involving development funds and administrative powers.

Another PTI leader said one section within the PTI is giving undue favour to the PML-Q.

“The group wields influence over Punjab CM. They advise the CM and hold key portfolios in Punjab. They won the 2018 election on the PTI tickets but were close to the PML-Q leadership in past,” he added.

It is learnt that issues between Punjab government and the PML-Q have settled.

The party has been able to appoint new secretaries in ministries whose portfolios are held by the PML-Q ministers in Punjab. Prime Minister Imran Khan will also visit Lahore on Saturday (today).

During interactions with PTI leaders, it transpired that a number of ruling party lawmakers are unhappy for not getting access to Prime Minister Imran Khan.

They blame PM’s Principal Secretary Azam Khan for scheduling lengthy and unnecessary meetings. They believe that political leaders are not getting enough chance to advice the premier on critical issues.

A PTI lawmaker, who belongs to Sindh lamented that they have no say in the federal departments like Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda).

 

 

 

 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ