World
Why is Pakistan’s PTI fighting for reserved seats in parliament?
Islamabad, Pakistan — It is the latest setback for former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party.
On Monday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) declared that the PTI-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) could not claim allocated reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies.
PTI, unable to contest recent elections due to a ban on their electoral symbol, instructed its candidates to join the right-wing fringe religious party in order to extend their numerical strength in the National Assembly.
In its 22-page judgment issued on Monday, the five-member electoral body decided 4-1 that the SIC failed to submit a party list for reserved candidates before the ECP’s deadline of February 22, two weeks after the February 8 election.
Pakistan’s National Assembly has a total of 70 reserved seats which are distributed among parties based upon their performance in the general elections. Similarly, the four provincial assemblies have a combined total of 149 reserved seats that are similarly distributed.
A majority of these reserved seats have already been allocated — around 77 remain vacant, for now.
PTI has criticised the ECP judgement, calling it an attack on democracy.
“This is the last assault on the heart of democracy,” Senator Ali Zafar of PTI, and a senior party lawyer said during a speech in the Senate, the upper house of the assembly on Monday after the decision was announced.
The ECP’s decision opens the door for a prolonged legal battle, as PTI has announced it will challenge the decision in higher courts.
However, if the party fails to overturn it, it could further dent its position in the lower house of parliament, potentially allowing the ruling coalition to gain a two-thirds majority in the 336-member National Assembly.
What are reserved seats — and why do they matter?
Pakistan’s general elections for the National Assembly take place on 266 seats. But there are an additional 70 reserved seats (60 for women and 10 for minorities) which give the body a total size of 336 seats.
To achieve a simple majority to form a government, a total of 169 seats is required. However, a two-thirds majority — or 224 votes — is necessary to make any constitutional amendments.
Reserved seats are allocated only to political parties that win seats in the National Assembly, and the distribution is done based on their proportional representation after the general elections. Similarly, reserved seats are allocated in provincial assemblies based on the parties’ proportionate performances.
According to regulations, any political party contesting the polls must submit a list of their nominations for reserved seats prior to elections, as per the schedule given by the ECP. However, after the polls, if a party has over-performed and needs to submit additional names for reserved candidates, it has two weeks to do so.
Independents have three days after their win announcement to declare their affiliation with a party in the assembly.
The party they join gets a boost in the number of reserved seats it gets, commensurate with the number of independents that join it.
In the National Assembly, the ECP has already allocated at least 40 out of 60 seats to different political parties for their reserved quota for women. Similarly, seven out of 10 seats reserved for the minorities quota have already been allocated in the lower house of the parliament. The rest are currently vacant.
What happened in the current elections?
Forced to contest the recent general elections on February 8 without its party symbol – the cricket bat – due to violating election rules, PTI fielded candidates as independents.
Despite facing a nationwide crackdown for nearly two years, with its leader, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, imprisoned since August last year, and its candidates unable to campaign freely, PTI still emerged as the single largest bloc, with its candidates winning 93 seats.
While the party claimed widespread rigging across the country and alleged a “stolen mandate”, its rivals, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), managed to cobble together a ruling alliance, with 75 and 54 seats respectively, in coalition with other smaller parties.
Even though they won the most seats, the PTI leadership, under orders from Imran Khan, decided not to form a government with any of the major parties and instead joined hands with a fringe, right-wing religious party, the SIC, to claim reserved seats.
Complicating matters further was the fact that the SIC, despite being a registered political party, did not contest the general elections. Its leader, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, chose to contest independently, winning his seat from Faisalabad city in Punjab province.
What does the ECP verdict say?
In its verdict, the ECP stated that the SIC was not entitled to claim the quota for reserved seats due to a “violation of a mandatory provision of submitting a party list for reserved seats, which is a legal requirement”.
It also said that the currently vacant seats in the national assembly — 23 — “will not” remain vacant and will be distributed among other parties based on the elected seats they won.
The commission criticised the SIC by reminding them that they were given a specific timeframe to submit a list of nominations, which the party did not.
“Every political party, while making any decision regarding crucial steps concerning matters of the political party required under law, should be aware of the potential consequences they may face in the future,” the ECP wrote.
What are the consequences of the ECP decision?
On March 3, Shehbaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) was elected the country’s new prime minister by the National Assembly, securing 201 votes. Omar Ayub Khan, the PTI leader backed by the SIC, managed to secure 92 votes.
The biggest beneficiary of the ECP decision will be Sharif’s PMLN, along with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which won the most number of seats in the general elections, with 75, 54 and 17 respectively.
In case PTI’s legal challenge fails to bring them any relief, it is a certainty that the ruling coalition will cross the magic figure of 224, which is required to achieve a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
However, if PTI manages to get the ECP decision reversed, it can expect to get 23 further seats in the National Assembly, in addition to extra seats in other provincial assemblies where they have done well. That might limit the governing coalition to just below the two-thirds mark.
What does the legal fraternity think, and what’s next?
The ECP decision has been widely criticised by lawyers, with many calling the order a “farce” or even “unconstitutional”.
Constitutional expert Asad Rahim says the ECP verdict aligns with its previous decisions that, he alleged, have disenfranchised the people of Pakistan.
“There are precedents expressly barring the minor technicalities on the basis of which the ECP barred the largest party,” the Lahore-based lawyer told Al Jazeera. “However, an even greater subversion of the democratic mandate is its division of the remaining seats among the smaller parties.”
Another legal expert, Rida Hosain, also questioned the decision to distribute the unallocated seats to other, smaller parties. She argued that no legal or constitutional provision permitted this “absurd” distribution.
“The entire framework of the Constitution and law dictates that a political party should receive reserved seats through a system of proportional representation. It is entirely undemocratic for other political parties to get a share of reserved seats beyond their proportional strength of general seats in the National Assembly,” Hosain told Al Jazeera.
Islamabad-based lawyer Salaar Khan also noted that the ECP decision lacks any “convincing justification” for allocating the unallocated seats to other parties.
“However, the impact may well be granting the coalition government a full two-thirds majority in the National Assembly,” he told Al Jazeera.
On the other hand, lawyer Mian Dawood argued that the SIC was clearly at fault for failing to submit their list within the deadline.
“This is the first instance where a political party like the SIC has not submitted its list for reserved seats as required by law, yet now demands them on grounds of morality and the law of necessity,” Dawood told Al Jazeera.
Abdul Moiz Jaferii, a constitutional expert and lawyer, viewed the ECP verdict as another “technical knockout” suffered by PTI.
“The PTI perhaps themselves opened the door to this by not standing their ground with the ECP regarding their own reserved seat lists and maintaining that they are still a political party, albeit without a symbol,” he told Al Jazeera.
Lawyers also expressed pessimism regarding PTI receiving any favourable verdict from the superior courts.
“The PTI seems to have decided to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of election laws is, of course, what landed the PTI here to begin with,” lawyer Khan said, referring to the Supreme Court verdict in January this year upholding the ECP decision to strip the party of its cricket bat symbol.
World
Takeaways from AP’s report on the ICE detention center holding children and parents
Many Americans were alarmed recently when immigration officers in Minneapolis took custody of a 5-year-old boy and sent him and his father to a Texas detention center. But he was no outlier.
The government has been holding hundreds of children and their parents at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, about 75 miles south of San Antonio. Some have been detained for months.
The Department of Homeland Security has strongly defended the quality of care and conditions there.
Here are key findings from an Associated Press report on how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement is shaping life inside the facility.
Detention of children has been rising
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement booked more than 3,800 children into detention during the first nine months of the new Trump administration, according to an AP analysis of data from the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.
On an average day, more than 220 children were being held, with most of those detained longer than 24 hours sent to Dilley. More than half of Dilley detainees during the early part of the Trump administration were children, the AP analysis found.
Since being reopened last spring, the number of people detained at Dilley has risen sharply and reached more than 1,300 in late January, according to researchers. Nearly two-thirds of children detained by ICE in the early months of the Trump administration were eventually deported.
ICE holds many children longer than 20-day limit
The government is holding many children at Dilley well beyond the 20-day limit set by a longstanding court order.
“We’ve started to use 100 days as a benchmark because so many children are exceeding 20 days,” said Leecia Welch, the chief legal director at Children’s Rights, who visits Dilley regularly to ensure compliance. In a visit this month, Welch said she counted more than 30 children who had been held for over 100 days.
Many settled families among those currently detained
When the Obama administration opened Dilley in 2014, nearly all the families detained there had recently crossed the border from Mexico.
But many of those now sent to the facility have lived in the U.S. several years, according to lawyers and other observers, meaning children are being uprooted from the familiarity of schools, neighborhoods and many of the people who care for them.
Parents Allege Deficient Care
Parents and children recounted stressful conditions inside Dilley, including experiences that raise questions about the quality of care being provided.
A 13-year-old girl cut herself with a plastic knife after staff withheld prescribed antidepressants and denied her request to join her mother down the hall, the mother told the AP.
Another mother said when her 1-year-old daughter developed a high fever and vomited, medical staff repeatedly offered only acetaminophen and ibuprofen before she was eventually admitted to hospitals with bronchitis, pneumonia and stomach viruses. ICE disputed her account, saying the baby “immediately received proper care.”
Other families described more routine problems, like the difficulty of getting children to sleep in quarters where lights are kept on all night and of stomach aches caused by foul drinking water.
Both adults and children described the often overwhelming stress of being detained that has caused many to despair.
ICE, DHS defend Dilley
DHS did not respond to detailed questions about Dilley submitted by the AP. But both DHS and ICE sharply refuted allegations of poor care and conditions in statements issued this week.
“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units in a safe, structured and appropriate environment,” ICE Director Todd M. Lyons said in a statement.
Dilley provides medical screenings and infant care packages as well as classrooms and recreational spaces, ICE said.
Once in full operation, Dilley is expected to generate about $180 million in annual revenue for CoreCivic, the for-profit prison company that operates it under contract with ICE, according to the company’s recent filing with securities regulators.
In response to questions from the AP, a CoreCivic spokesman said no child at Dilley “has been denied medical treatment or experienced a delayed medical assessment.” The company said detainees receive comprehensive care from medical and mental health professionals.
Questions about oversight
The increased detention of families comes as the Trump administration has gutted an office responsible for oversight of conditions inside Dilley and other facilities.
In years past, investigators found problems at Dilley, including consistently inadequate staffing and disregard for the trauma caused by the detention.
A special committee recommended that family detention be discontinued except in rare cases, and the Biden administration began phasing it out in 2021. Dilley was closed in 2024. But in reopening it, the Trump administration has completely reversed course.
World
World leaders split over military action as US-Israel strike Iran in coordinated operation
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
World leaders reacted swiftly Saturday after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, exposing a deep divide between governments backing the attack on Iran and those warning the attacks risk a wider regional war.
In a joint statement, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Anand voiced firm support saying, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” The statement described Iran as “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and stressed it “must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.”
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also endorsed the action, writing on X, “Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.” He confirmed Australia supports “the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” while activating emergency consular measures and urging Australians to leave Iran if safe.
The United Kingdom said Iran “must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office said he was speaking with the leaders of France and Germany “as part of a series of calls with allies.”
A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) )
French President Emmanuel Macron warned, “The outbreak of war between the United States, Israel and Iran carries grave consequences for international peace and security.” He added, “The ongoing escalation is dangerous for all. It must stop,” and called for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom also said they had “consistently urged the Iranian regime to end Iran’s nuclear program, curb its ballistic missile program, refrain from its destabilizing activity in the region and our homelands, and to cease the appalling violence and repression against its own people.”
The three governments said they “did not participate in these strikes,” but remain “in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region.”
They reiterated their “commitment to regional stability and to the protection of civilian life,” condemned “Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms,” and called for a “resumption of negotiations,” urging Iran’s leadership to seek a negotiated solution. “Ultimately, the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future,” the statement said.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described developments as “perilous,” saying Iran’s “ballistic missile and nuclear programmes… pose a serious threat to global security,” while emphasizing that “Protection of civilians and international humanitarian law is a priority.”
Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.”
Meanwhile, Gulf states responded to reported Iranian missile activity.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemns and denounces in strongest terms the blatant Iranian aggression and the flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.” It affirmed “its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries” and warned of “grave consequences resulting from the continued violation of states’ sovereignty and the principles of international law.”
The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Defense said the country “was subjected to a blatant attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles,” adding that air defense systems “successfully intercepted a number of missiles.” Authorities said falling debris in a residential area caused “one civilian death of an asian nationality” and material damage.
The ministry called the attack “a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act that threatens the safety of civilians and undermines stability,” and stated the UAE “reserves its full right to respond.”
UN’S ATOMIC AGENCY’S IRAN POLICY GETS MIXED REVIEWS FROM EXPERTS AFTER US-ISRAEL ‘OBLITERATE’ NUCLEAR SITES
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar “strongly condemned the unwarranted attacks against Iran” and called for “urgent resumption of diplomacy.”
China also weighed in. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, wrote on X that Beijing is “highly concerned over the military strikes against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.” He added that “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected” and called for “an immediate stop of the military actions” and “no further escalation.”
Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan held calls with counterparts across the region, a Turkish Foreign Ministry source told Reuters. The discussions focused on “possible steps to be taken to help bring an end to the attacks.”
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy directly linked the developments to Russia’s war against his country.
“Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with ‘shahed’ drones,” Zelenskyy wrote, adding that Russia has used “more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people.”
“It is important that the United States is acting decisively,” he said. “Whenever there is American resolve, global criminals weaken.”
Russia sharply criticized the operation. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said, “All negotiations with Iran are a cover operation.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
An interception is visible in the sky over Haifa during the latest barrage. (Anthony Hershko/TPS-IL)
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam warned, “We will not accept anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity.”
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the strike “is not in line with international law.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
World
Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 50 people
State media says Israeli attack on girls’ school in the city of Minab in the south of the country kills dozens.
Published On 28 Feb 2026
An Israeli strike has hit an elementary girls’ school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, killing at least 53 people, according to state media, as the immediate civilian cost from Israel and the United States’ huge bombardment of Iran comes into sharper focus.
Workers are continuing to clear wreckage from the site, where 63 others have been injured on Saturday, said Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. The strike is part of a wave of joint US-Israeli military attacks across Iran that has triggered an outbreak of regional violence.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which he said destroyed the girls’ school and killed “innocent children”.
“These crimes against the Iranian People will not go unanswered,” Araghchi wrote in a post on X.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei also slammed the “blatant crime” and urged action from the United Nations Security Council.
Separately, Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that at least two students were killed by another Israeli attack that hit a school east of the capital, Tehran.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Vall said the attacks call into question US and Israeli claims that “they are targeting only military targets and they are trying to punish the regime, not the people of Iran.”
“President Trump has promised the Iranian people that aid or help is coming their way, but now we are seeing civilian casualties; that’s something that the Iranian government will stress as a case of violation of international law and an aggression against the Iranian people, ” said Vall.
There was no immediate reaction from the US or Israel on Iran’s claims about the school strikes.
The last time the US and Iran waged attacks on Iran in June 2025, sparking the 12-day war, the civilian toll in Iran was also heavy.
According to Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education, thousands of civilians were killed or injured, and public infrastructure was damaged, during that conflict.
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT