‘Kalabagh court order favours a political party’s election campaign’

JUI-F chief says decision will only widen differences between provinces.


Hassan Ali December 11, 2012

PESHAWAR:


Speaking vehemently against the Lahore High Court (LHC) order on constructing the Kalabagh Dam, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman strongly opposed the project.


Hinting at the Pakistan Muslim League –Nawaz, Fazl said that the order on the controversial project is doing little more than ‘helping a political party in its election campaign.’

“The decision will widen differences between the provinces,” he said, at a press conference at the party’s provincial secretariat on Monday. “The impractical decision of the LHC has resurfaced at a sensitive time when the parliament is completing its tenure,” he said.

Balochistan government

In reference to a Supreme Court (SC) order stating that the Balochistan government had failed to provide security in the province, Fazl said: “People make and break governments, no one else should have the authority to send any elected government home.”

Courts must be careful about taking such decisions because they can undermine democracy in the country, he added.

Last week, the SC chief justice said that Balochistan’s chief minister should take responsibility for the killings and disappearances in the province instead of blaming the police.

Voters list

Fazl said that there are still hundreds of thousands of people who will not be able to cast votes in Karachi because their votes are registered from their permanent addresses in other areas of the country. These people have been living in Karachi for years, their votes should be registered from their current addresses, he said.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 11th, 2012.

COMMENTS (1)

thinker | 11 years ago | Reply

Nawaz might have some trouble in the next election. I think CJ wants to run for PM on a PML-N ticket

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