Jamil Bugti declares ‘Chief of Bugti’ title for Sarfraz Bugti invalid and without tribal or legal standing

Nawabzada Jamil Akbar Bugti, son of the late Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, has firmly rejected the legitimacy of the title “Chief of Bugti.” He emphasized that no such position exists within the current or historically accepted tribal structure of the Bugti tribe. Jamil Akbar Bugti clarified that the titles and roles associated with this position are not recognized under the tribe’s traditional governance systems.

In his statement, Jamil Akbar Bugti explained that during his father’s lifetime, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti had abolished all sub-chief positions within the tribe. Instead, he retained the wadera system as the primary form of tribal authority. The former titles such as Chief of Kalpar and Chief of Masuri were linked to wartime conditions, created as temporary leadership arrangements to ensure continuity if a Nawab or Sardar was killed or incapacitated.

He further elaborated that these wartime titles and roles were never meant to be permanent. Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti formally abolished these positions between 2003 and 2004, emphasizing that they no longer held any tribal or traditional legitimacy. The tribe’s historical structure consisted of six major sub-branches, including Masuri, Kalpar, Shambani, Perozani, and Chandrazai, each of which once had its own chief.

Jamil Akbar Bugti stressed that all such titles were canceled by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti as part of his reforms. The current recognized and only legitimate tribal governance system is the wadera system. He made it clear that there is no constitutional, traditional, or tribal basis for the continued existence or revival of the “Chief of Bugti” title, which he described as a distortion of the tribe’s history.

His statement was prompted by a recent turban-tying ceremony held in Dera Bugti, where Mir Sarfraz Bugti was declared “Chief of Bugti” by the organizers. The event received wide media coverage and was presented as a formal recognition of tribal leadership. This development sparked debate within the Bugti family and among tribe members about the legitimacy of such titles and the direction of tribal affairs.

Responding to this, Jamil Akbar Bugti expressed concern that the ceremony created the false impression that a historically valid tribal office was being revived. He argued that such portrayals mislead the public and overlook the formal decisions taken by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti to dismantle the sub-chief system over two decades ago. He emphasized that the move was against the tribe’s established reforms and history.

Finally, Jamil Akbar Bugti claimed that the position assumed through the ceremony actually belonged to the wadera role of the Masuri sub-branch, which he said rightfully belonged to one of his cousins. He condemned the move as contrary to Bugti traditions, tribal values, and long-standing customs. He described the development as regrettable, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the tribe’s internal order and legacy.