Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Related Posts

KP C.M. Rejects ‘Governance’ Criticism, Seeks Reforms in Federal Government

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi on Sunday rejected criticisms regarding “lack of governance” in his province, as he called on the federal government to change its policies instead.

“They [center] say KP is not serious about security matters … it is not our fault, you should change your policies,” he told a public gathering in Peshawar, maintaining the provincial government would cooperate on matters related to the national interest.

Emphasizing that KP has “governance,” he said this was evident from the province electing the PTI to lead it for a third consecutive term. Instead, he pointed to a diagnostic report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a “charge sheet” against the federal government. “Rs. 5,300 billion was not brought from anyone’s personal pocket; it is taxpayers’ money,” he said, referring to the recoveries of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) mentioned in the report. “The elite mafia and those who control the country have stolen these funds. We will not let them take it,” he added, despite “recoveries” inherently referring to funds that have already been recovered.

During the rally, MNA Sher Ali Arbab presented a resolution in which the PTI demanded an apology for what it dubbed derogatory language used against PTI founder Imran Khan, and accountability of those responsible to prevent such statements in future. “We, the people of Pakistan, consider Imran Khan a national hero and the elected and genuine prime minister of Pakistan, who was elected by the people on Feb. 8, 2024. We categorically reject that he or his associates are in any way a threat to national security,” stated the resolution.

It said the “derogatory language” used by the military spokesman was contrary to the principles of civilian supremacy espoused by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It also pushed back against threats from some elements of imposing governor’s rules in KP, maintaining the people of the province had given a clear mandate to the PTI.

On Friday, military spokesman Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry conducted a press conference in which he described Khan—without directly naming the former prime minister—“mentally unstable” and a “threat to national security.” A day after the remarks, the PTI had staged a press briefing describing the press conference as “inappropriate and unfortunate.”

During Sunday’s rally, attended by various leaders of the PTI and the opposition alliance Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz Ayeen Pakistan (TTAP), speakers largely urged the Army to “remain within its constitutional limits.” They argued that attempts to malign Khan only served to increase his popularity.

TTAP chief Mehmood Khan Achakzai claimed “undemocratic elements” had reacted in “panic” to the struggle of the PTI and the opposition alliance.

PTI leader Asad Qaiser, meanwhile, highlighted legal and border issues, criticizing the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments. He claimed Afghanistan-related challenges reflected failures in federal border policy and urged the government to give peace a chance.

The rally concluded with the PTI announcing its next rally in Kohat on Dec. 14.

Government response

In a statement on X, Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal appeared to back the military spokesman, describing Khan’s political rhetoric “a deeply irresponsible and dangerous trend that seeks to undermine Pakistan’s state institutions, weaken national cohesion, and erode public trust in the armed forces who defend our borders with courage and sacrifice.”

Noting that political differences exist in all democracies, he warned that “anti-state narrative building, deliberate misinformation, and attacks on the integrity of Pakistan’s armed forces and its leadership” threatened the stability and unity of the country. He said no leader had the right to weaponize divisive rhetoric for personal gain at the cost of national security.

Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan leader Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui, meanwhile, said the PTI had to choose between the state and the narrative of its founder.