Senior lawyer, senator, and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Barrister Ali Zafar has shared details regarding the parliamentary committee briefing, revealing that there were two differing opinions within the party.

One view was that PTI should participate in the briefing and present its stance, while the other opinion was that Imran Khan’s participation was essential.

“We wanted to demand in the committee that the PTI founder be invited. When we learned that some allied parties were not attending, we decided to consult the founder,” Ali Zafar explained.

According to him, Imran Khan insisted on attending the meeting, stating, “It is crucial that I be included. I will present a comprehensive solution.”

Also, read this

COAS: Pakistan must become ‘hard state’, cannot continue as ‘soft state’ sacrificing countless lives

Key meeting on national security concludes after nearly six hours, statement issued

NSC meeting: Sacrifices of martyrs cannot be forgotten, says PM; expresses gratitude to army chief

Speaking on Aaj News’ programme “Spotlight”, Barrister Ali Zafar reaffirmed PTI’s strong condemnation of terrorism and emphasised the need for a comprehensive solution.

“The party unanimously agreed that we must play an active role in finding a solution against terrorism,” he said.

Imran Khan’s stance on Balochistan

Barrister Ali Zafar further disclosed Imran Khan’s perspective on counterterrorism in Balochistan, quoting him as saying, “If an operation is necessary in Balochistan, it should be conducted. However, if the people are not given a representative government — where real leaders of the province are part of the administration — then their demands will not be voiced in the political arena, and they will be pushed toward terrorism.”

Ali Zafar said PTI feared that the government might make crucial decisions in the meeting without Imran Khan, similar to how they passed the 26th Amendment, later claiming that PTI had been given full participation.

“That is why we decided not to attend until they first invited Imran Khan,” he explained.

When asked about PTI sending a delegation to Afghanistan, Ali Zafar confirmed, “Instructions have been given. The delegation will go and attempt to hold talks.”

JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza

Speaking during the programme, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) senator Kamran Murtaza expressed his support for Imran Khan being temporarily released on parole to attend the National Security Committee meeting.

However, he disagreed with PTI’s decision to boycott the meeting. “PTI has now lost whatever little space it was gaining,” Kamran Murtaza remarked.

He added that Ali Zafar should have presented PTI’s concerns within the meeting, arguing that Imran Khan could have taken a softer stance if he had participated. “PTI has, once again, provided its opponents with an advantage,” he added.

Why didn’t Nawaz Sharif attend?

During the discussion, PML-N leader Rana Ehsan Afzal acknowledged that it would have been beneficial if Nawaz Sharif had attended the meeting, given his political experience and ability to provide valuable input. However, he justified his absence, stating, “Representation matters more in such meetings.”

Commenting on Imran Khan not being invited, Afzal stated that the country is in a state of war, and there should be no room for political bargaining in such critical matters.