![tribune tribune](https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/fazl-1536040593/fazl-1536040593.jpg)
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) spokesperson has strongly criticised the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government over a letter concerning a security threat to party chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman.
According to JUI-F spokesperson Aslam Ghauri, the K-P government's letter regarding the security threat to Maulana Fazlur Rehman is alarming.
He urged the government to fulfil its responsibilities instead of spreading fear and panic. He also claimed that after the successful peace jirga in Peshawar, the K-P government has become anxious.
"The government must clarify what measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the JUI-F chief. If it cannot fulfil its responsibility, it should admit its failure. JUI-F workers know how to protect their leadership," said Aslam Ghauri.
The spokesperson further stated that every attempt to distance the party and its leadership from the people would be countered. He accused the government of instilling fear among the public by issuing such statements after political gatherings.
He stressed that the government is responsible for ensuring the security of Maulana Fazlur Rehman and all other citizens. "Our call for peace and stability should not be mistaken for weakness," he said, demanding that the government guarantee the security of the JUI-F leadership.
Earlier, Maulana Fazlur Rehman was issued a security threat warning by the police, citing potential risks to his life.
According to the letter, Fazlur Rehman has been alerted to security concerns in K-P, where terrorists may target him due to his religious and political activities.
Sources indicate that D.I. Khan police have advised Fazlur Rehman and his party to restrict their movements and ensure strict security measures.
Police have urged Fazlur Rehman to take precautionary measures and immediately inform relevant authorities of any unusual activity.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ