Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has taken issue with the federal government's decision to enforce emergency rule and Governor's Rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, disputing the justifications offered for both measures while also calling into question the military establishment's record in addressing militancy.

Rehman put forward the position that a succession of military leaderships had not brought armed militancy under control, even after prolonged counterterrorism campaigns. He contended that military campaigns spanning the era of former general Pervez Musharraf through to the present had not produced enduring stability.

Pointing to what he described as a long-term decline in public security, Rehman argued that those tasked with countering terrorism bore responsibility for deteriorating conditions, stating that the trajectory from the Musharraf era to the present day reflected an inadequacy in the approach those authorities had pursued. Pointing to operations that had been running for more than ten years, he raised the question of what the counterterrorism campaigns launched in 2010 had actually delivered.

Rehman raised the question of why KP had been placed under emergency provisions while Balochistan, a neighbouring province confronting its own security pressures, appeared to receive no comparable treatment from the federal authorities. He characterised the divide between the two provinces as politically motivated rather than grounded in security considerations, contending that Balochistan's provincial administration had shown a greater readiness to align itself with directives from the federal level, and went on to describe that relationship as one in which the provincial government consistently deferred to whatever position the centre put forward.

Raising doubts about whether KP's provincial record genuinely drove the decision to intervene, he contended that any such measure ought to be held to a uniform standard across all regions.

The JUI-F leader went on to allege that pledges made by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's administration during talks aimed at defusing the standoff with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) over its march on Islamabad had not been honoured.

Speaking to the events that led up to the emergency declaration, Rehman noted that his arrival in Islamabad fell on October 7, a date on which PTI leaders sought him out to discuss the prevailing political situation. Having listened to their account, he formed the view that the government had provided little space for talks to move forward productively.

PTI's advance toward Islamabad was put on hold, with Rehman stating that the party had agreed to the delay at his urging, even as its march through KP continued in phased stages. A meeting with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was subsequently arranged for him.

Rehman noted that months had passed without any direct contact between him and the prime minister, yet those around him urged that accepting the invitation would serve the nation's broader interests. Sharif put forward the position, at that meeting, that the PTI's long march would need to be suspended before any further progress could be made.

PTI pressed at the time for access to its detained founder, Imran Khan, along with his relocation to a medical facility. Rehman conveyed to the prime minister that any agreement would first require consultation with the PTI leadership, a condition tied in part to KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi's role at the head of the march.

Reaching out to Afridi and fellow PTI leaders, Rehman sought to open talks toward a possible resolution. According to Rehman, Afridi had conveyed that PTI was open to ending its long march on the condition that the government met its demands. Rehman later recounted that Sharif told him the matters would be taken up by the federal cabinet for consideration.

He contended that the government moved to enact emergency measures rather than allowing the proposed dialogue to take shape. Rehman indicated that notification of the government's decision reached him through a call placed during the cabinet meeting, with terrorism put forward as the stated basis for the intervention.

The JUI-F leader raised a pointed question about why he had been drawn into a mediating role between the government and the opposition, only for the federal cabinet to move ahead with an emergency declaration on its own terms. He contended that the administration had walked away from a previously agreed path forward, even as headway had been made toward easing the standoff, and questioned through a public statement why officials had chosen to reverse course after those demands had already been met. He asked what grounds existed for the commitment remaining unmet.

Rehman declared that his party would take the matter of emergency rule and Governor's Rule to constitutional bodies, parliamentary forums, and public arenas, framing the federal government's move as one his party intended to contest through all available channels. The party's stated plan involves filing legal challenges, bringing the matter before parliament, and organising public resistance to the contested measures.

Speaking at the event, the JUI-F leader said his party remained committed to the country's Constitution and would press ahead with efforts to restore what he described as the rights of people in KP. He argued that the federal government's action undermined the democratic principles its architects professed to defend.