Had the agreement been reached that day, the emergency would not have been imposed; none of us wanted an emergency to be imposed: Mohsin Naqvi.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi stated that had an agreement been reached back then, an emergency would not have been imposed today; none of us wanted an emergency to be declared.

Speaking in the Senate, Naqvi remarked that the situation could not continue where soldiers and police personnel were laying down their lives—recalling instances where the Chief Minister would deliver speeches against those who had been martyred—adding that they had never conflated political discourse with terrorism.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi stated that discussions took place in the House, and the dialogue began specifically with the issue of terrorism; seven or eight points regarding terrorism were deliberated. Asad Qaiser affirmed that they would stand with Pakistan on all these points. Naqvi pointed out to Qaiser that his stance differed from that of the KP government, noting that no political matters had been discussed initially.

Naqvi added that during the negotiations, six amendments were proposed—for the fourth time—and we accepted them all. Once everything was finalized, the text was handed over to the Chief Minister, who forwarded it to Murad Saeed; subsequently, two days of hard work went to waste.

A journalist asked, “You stated that Murad Saeed used to operate Sohail Afridi; where is Murad Saeed?” In response, Mohsin Naqvi said, “I have all the information regarding Murad Saeed and will share it with you.”

The option of an emergency and Governor’s Rule was available on November 26 as well: Mohsin Naqvi

Mohsin Naqvi stated that the options of declaring an emergency or imposing Governor’s Rule were available even on November 26; when the marchers were storming the city on November 25, the PTI was offered a designated venue, but they insisted that they would only postpone the sit-in if allowed to speak to their founder by phone. When the call took place, half the party refused to accept the outcome, insisting that they would only agree if a video message was recorded.

Mohsin Naqvi said he told Barrister Gohar to go and record the video message; we waited for two hours, but he insisted on recording the statement from behind bars. We informed the Prime Minister and the President and took the recording equipment behind bars, but he said he would not record it that day and would do so the next. We pointed out that the sit-in participants were waiting for his recording, upon which he said he would do it only after his lawyers were summoned.

Mohsin Naqvi noted that Raja Nasir Abbas had alleged a violation of the Constitution and challenged him to specify exactly which article had been breached. The PML-N and the PPP examined the provisions one by one and found no constitutional violation. One might debate the merits of the Act, but in our view, the move is correct.