Bannu jirga opposes Operation Azm-e-Istehkam, demands permanent end to TTP

Further demands include enhancing capacity and resources of local police to take non-discriminatory action


News Desk July 23, 2024
PHOTO: EXPRESS

In a meeting held at the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) Chief Minister's House on Monday, jirga leaders called for a permanent end to both 'good' and 'bad' Taliban in Bannu and opposed Operation Azm-e-Istehkam.

According to details reported by Express News, the Jirga was attended by K-P chief secretary, IG police, commissioner and regional police officer of Bannu, deputy commissioner, and chaired by K-P CM Ali Amin Gandapur. The elders in the jirga presented 11 demands to K-P CM.

They demanded that search operations should not involve inappropriate behavior towards seminaries, homes, and individuals and that Jumma Khan Road should remain open for public convenience.

The jirga leaders stated that unnecessary raids on seminaries and homes should be avoided to prevent public agitation and unrest.

Also Read: Azm-e-Istehkam not military operation but anti-terror campaign: DG ISPR

They highlighted the need for local administration to have full authority to address the patrolling of Taliban in the area. They urged for the Counter-Terrorism Department to be fully operational and authorised to act against terrorists and criminal elements.

Further demands included enhancing the capacity and resources of the local police and granting them complete authority to take non-discriminatory action.

Additionally, the Jirga requested that injured police officers in terrorism incidents receive treatment at CMH and that all injured individuals be transferred immediately.

After hearing the demands, CM Gandapur assured the jirga leaders that a meeting of the provincial apex committee would be convened within two days to discuss the presented demands and pledged that these issues would be raised in the committee.

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