ISLAMABAD: Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman said that the proposed constitutional amendments were intended to “protect” the government”.

During a press conference in Multan on Friday, Fazl pledged to work against any incorrect decisions or legislation in parliament. He emphasized that the JUI-F would not support any amendments that compromise human rights or weaken the judicial system.

“Protecting fundamental rights is essential, and parliament must play a role in this,” he stated. He further mentioned that his party does not agree with the government’s proposed draft of constitutional amendments.

Fazlur Rehman also voiced concerns about the establishment of a constitutional court, suspecting “mala fide intentions” behind it. While agreeing with the concept of a constitutional court, he feared that the judicial framework could be manipulated to target political opponents.

He criticized the current government, saying that it had weakened the country under a “selected” regime. He accused the government of neglecting the common people’s issues and argued that the Parliament fails to reflect the people’s aspirations.

“The current assemblies are not truly representative of the people. It’s unfortunate that lawmakers are not elected by the people of Pakistan but by other forces,” he added.

Reiterating his party’s demand for fresh elections, Fazlur Rehman reaffirmed their commitment to this stance.

Earlier, on September 18, he firmly rejected the draft of the constitutional amendments, calling it “unacceptable and unviable.” Speaking to journalists after meeting Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Asad Qaiser, he said his party had thoroughly reviewed the amendments and found them lacking.

During a luncheon hosted by Asad Qaiser, where PTI Chairman Barrister Gahar Ali Khan was also present, Fazlur Rehman stated that endorsing these amendments would betray the nation’s trust. He criticized the government for sharing the draft with only a few individuals and dismissed the document as something other than a legitimate draft, concluding, “What was shared is unacceptable to us.”