JUI-F, PPP reach consensus on constitutional amendment draft: Fazl

  • JUI-F chief says he will share the proposed draft with PML-N as well
Updated 15 Oct, 2024

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman said on Tuesday that his party and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) reached an agreement on the draft of the proposed constitutional amendment.

He made these remarks while addressing a joint press conference alongside PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in Karachi.

The much-anticipated consti­tutional package is legislation proposing a set of constitutional amendments, including the extension of the top judge’s term.

JI rejects ‘constitutional amendments’

Fazl said he will share the draft with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) when he meets Nawaz Sharif tomorrow (Wednesday).

“Efforts will be made to reach an agreement with the PML-N and PTI as well,” he added.

“It will be our effort to create such a consensus in this bill that it is unanimously considered a constitutional amendment.”

He clarified that the draft that was rejected earlier is not accepted even today. “If there is to be any constitutional amendment, it will be on the draft we proposed.”

Speaking to the media in Hyderabad on Monday, Fazl said there was harmony in the drafts prepared by the PML-N, the PPP and the JUI-F.

“Proposals rejected by the JUI-F had been removed from the draft by the government,” the JUI-F chief said.

He said the amendments would be rejected if a consensus could not be reached.

Govt shares amendment draft with political parties

On Saturday, the government shared a draft of the proposed 26th constitutional amendment with all political parties.

According to the draft which outlines the significant changes to the judicial appointment process, the chief justice will be appointed by an eight-member parliamentary committee from among three senior judges.

The proposed amendments include the establishment of a seven-member constitutional commission for the appointment of judges in federal and provincial constitutional courts.

Read Comments