DERA ISMAIL KHAN: Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman on Sunday said that politicians were being persecuted on the pretext of justice.
Addressing Ghalba-e-Islam Conference at the Haq Nawaz Park here on Sunday, the JUI-F chief said that an elected prime minister was sent packing but nobody could question a chief minister who had been accused of corruption by his own party lawmakers.
He said that Imran Khan and his party had been bragging about justice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but deplored that the justice had not been seen anywhere in the province.
"The PTI established Ehtesab Commission but when it sensed that the commission was laying hand on its chief minister the commission's chairman was removed," he claimed.
He said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) claims of change were mere rhetoric to deceive the voters as no visible change could be noticed in the province.
"The mismanagement in the province is at peak and every institute is in disarray," he said, adding that the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) would reform the system after coming into power as a result of the general election.
The real change and real democracy is only possible when masses trust institutions and institutions trust political leaders, he said, adding, Imran Khan had claimed that "few tomatoes were rotten in his basket."
He was unaware of the real situation as his basket was full of rotten tomatoes, the JUI-F chief remarked.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman also urged the religious forces to unite in the face of challenges.
The JUI-F chief said that the ulema had been taunted for not being united but the revival of the MMA had silenced the critics. "The MMA would foil conspiracies against the religious parties," Maulana Fazlur Rehman added.
“Karachi-like situation prevails in Islamabad too,” says IHC CJ
Meeting will be attended by senior judges including Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar
Officers stress importance of this correction to safeguard promotion opportunities for eligible officers
Justice Mansoor of view that there were no significant constitutional or legal questions in this particular case