Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has announced that his party has formally rejected the 27th Constitutional Amendment, saying it was pushed through parliament without consensus and in violation of earlier commitments made to the opposition.

Speaking at a press conference in Islamabad on Tuesday, Fazl stated that JUI-F members of parliament had opposed the amendment from the outset. He said the government secured the required numbers only by taking support from lawmakers belonging to other political parties.

The JUI-F chief recalled that the party had held extensive consultations with the government during the drafting of the 26th Amendment. According to him, several assurances were given at that time, but none of those commitments made it into the newly passed 27th Amendment. He described the situation as “a negation of parliament and democratic values.”

Fazlur Rehman added that provisions which the government had previously agreed to exclude from the 26th Amendment resurfaced in the 27th Amendment “by hook or crook.” He asserted that although the JUI-F supported the formation of a constitutional court, such a major change should have been introduced through consensus rather than force.

He cited the example of the 1973 Constitution, noting that despite having a two-thirds majority at the time, the Pakistan Peoples Party consulted the opposition before finalizing the document. He criticised the PPP for voting in favour of the 27th Amendment despite previously agreeing not to support certain clauses.

Fazl further remarked that the passage of the amendment had raised serious questions about the judicial hierarchy, with confusion emerging over who currently holds the position of Chief Justice of Pakistan. He hinted that the lack of clarity could destabilize key constitutional functions.

The JUI-F leader concluded that democratic norms demand inclusive dialogue, and stressed that unilateral decision-making weakens the parliamentary system. His comments come as political parties continue to debate the scope and implications of the new constitutional amendment.