Work on Gwadar fence stopped: Balochistan minister

• The fencing sparked protests in the port city.
• A parliamentary delegation would present its recommendation to CM Balochistan.
• Raza Rabbani has urged the government to scrap the plan

QUETTA: The Balochistan government has stopped work on Gwadar fence on the instructions of Chief Minister Jam Kamal, Home Minister Mir Zia Lango said on Tuesday.

The fencing move had come under strong criticism from the citizens of the port city.

Lango announced the decision in a news conference after attending an Open Kutcheri, adding that a parliamentary delegation would give its recommendation to the chief minister in this regard. He said that the government would address the reservations of the locals and move forward in consultation with the people of Gwadar.

Read more: PM Imran Khan commends naval forces for defense of country, providing security to CPEC

The minister said that the concerns of the locals are more important for them. The provincial government, under the leadership of CM Kamal, is working for the progress and prosperity of the people, he added.

Rabbani condemns fencing

Former Senate chairman Mian Raza Rabbani had earlier condemned the government’s decision of fencing Gwadar city in the name of security and urged the authorities to scrap the plan.

“The decision of the federal government to fence the port city amounts to divide it into two parts,” he said in a statement earlier this month.

Read more: Afghanistan exhibits keen interest in Gwadar port

"In an era when the Berlin Wall fell, and here, under the garb of security concerns, the city is being divided. It has raised serious concern amongst people of the area,” he added.

"In fact, it is not a matter of security but the government is enforcing the Pakistan Islands Development Authority Ordinance, 2020, in the name of development and management of the islands in the internal and territorial waters of Pakistan as the property belonging to provinces is being taken over by the federal government," the senior parliamentarian said.

He said the ordinance was in violation of clause (2) of Article 172 of the Constitution.