Trending
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) will hear a petition on October 20 challenging emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan filed the petition. He wants the court to declare the federal government’s October 11 decision unconstitutional and set aside the related orders.
The federal government imposed emergency rule after accusing the KP government of deliberately disengaging from counterterrorism efforts. The decision followed weeks of political tensions between the Centre and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The two sides also held negotiations that failed to resolve their differences. Meanwhile, the PTI announced a long march to Islamabad to demand the release of its founder, Imran Khan.
The opposition has condemned the emergency and vowed to challenge it through legal and political forums.
Gohar filed his petition on October 14 under Article 199 of the Constitution. His legal team includes Barrister Sameer Khosa, Salman Akram Raja, Ali Zaman, Sardar Haseeb Ahmad and Zainab Shahid.
The court will announce the bench members later.
Gohar has asked the PHC to declare the emergency proclamation and governor’s rule unconstitutional and without legal effect.
He challenges the October 11 decision, the deployment of army troops and the executive orders issued under the proclamation.
Canada and Kashf Foundation Mark 10-Year Partnership to Empower Women in Pakistan
The petition also contests the formation of the KP Advisory Council. It challenges the removal of Sohail Afridi as chief minister, along with the displacement of his provincial cabinet.
Afridi no longer exercises the chief minister’s executive powers following the imposition of governor’s rule. Gohar has named him as a pro forma respondent in the case.
The petition names the federation of Pakistan and relevant federal ministries as respondents. It also lists the KP government, Governor Faisal Karim Kundi, the provincial assembly speaker and the secretary of the KP Home and Tribal Affairs Department.
Gohar argues that the federal government’s actions undermine the elected provincial government’s constitutional powers and violate provincial autonomy.
The petition disputes Paragraph 2 of the emergency proclamation. This provision transferred the KP Assembly’s legislative powers to Parliament.
Gohar argues that the transfer violates the proviso to Article 232(1). He maintains that the Constitution requires a prior resolution from the provincial assembly.
He has asked the PHC to declare the provision unconstitutional. He also wants the court to stop the federal government from introducing or passing provincial legislation for KP in Parliament.
The petition challenges other measures taken under the proclamation, including the formation of an 11-member KP Advisory Council headed by Governor Kundi.
The federal government established the council to help the governor perform the provincial government’s functions.
Gohar also contests the establishment of the Area Development Secretariat (ADS) in 12 districts. In addition, he challenges the removal of the provincial advocate general and the reported appointment of a replacement.
The ADS aims to support law and order, public security, governance and development in these districts:
Dera Ismail Khan
Tank
Lakki Marwat
Bannu
Bajaur
Mohmand
Khyber
Kurram
Orakzai
North Waziristan
Upper South Waziristan
Lower South Waziristan
The PTI chairman has also challenged the deployment of army troops under Article 245 of the Constitution.
He argues that military deployment cannot replace or bypass the province’s civilian administration. The petition also questions whether authorities could deploy troops without a valid request from Afridi’s provincial government.
Gohar wants the court to order the federal government and the KP governor to produce the complete record supporting the emergency proclamation.
The requested documents include Governor Kundi’s report, the federal cabinet’s summary and the material used to justify the decision.
The petition also seeks the release of Afridi and members of the provincial cabinet and assembly if authorities hold them under unlawful executive or preventive detention.
Furthermore, Gohar wants the court to order Afridi’s production before the bench. He also seeks an order preventing authorities from placing Afridi or cabinet members in preventive detention or transferring them outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Gohar argues that the proclamation violates Pakistan’s federal structure under Article 1. He also cites Article 2A, which recognises democratic principles and provincial autonomy, and Article 142, which addresses legislative powers.
He maintains that Article 232(1) covers emergencies arising from war or external aggression. According to the petition, the proclamation does not establish that such circumstances exist.
Gohar also challenges the government’s reliance on internal disturbances. He argues that the authorities have not provided sufficient objective grounds to justify emergency rule.
The petition cites the security situation in Balochistan. It argues that the absence of a similar emergency there raises questions about the government’s justification for imposing emergency rule in KP.
“Despite an unfortunately high number of incidents of terrorist violence in Balochistan, no state of emergency has been declared or even contemplated,” the petition stated.
“This clearly demonstrates that the terrorism and security pretext in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is nothing but a colourable device, deployed in sheer violation of Article 25.”
The petition further alleges that the federal government targeted KP because the opposition PTI leads its provincial government. It also links the decision to the party’s demands concerning Imran Khan.
Gohar argues that Pakistan did not impose a comparable emergency during the peak of terrorist violence between 2007 and 2015.
He separately challenges the invocation of Article 234. He maintains that the provision lacks a lawful basis in this case.
These arguments reflect the petitioner’s position. The court has yet to rule on them.
The PHC will also hear a separate petition against emergency and governor’s rule on October 20.
National Democratic Movement (NDM) central president Mohsin Dawar and provincial president Bushra Gohar filed the joint petition.
They argue that the proclamation contradicts the electoral mandate of KP’s people. They want the court to declare it unlawful and without legal effect.
The petition asks the PHC to set aside the presidential proclamation issued on October 11, 2026. It also challenges appointments, directions and other actions taken under the proclamation.
The NDM leaders have requested interim relief. They want the court to suspend the proclamation until it reaches a final decision.
The petitioners also cite the president’s constitutional duty under Article 42, read with the Third Schedule, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
They allege that Governor Kundi submitted a report to the president with mala fide intent and without lawful authority. They further argue that the authorities failed to follow the constitutional requirements under Articles 232 and 234.
According to the petition, the provincial government had not reported a security emergency beyond its control that could justify the proclamation.
The petitioners therefore argue that the decision lacks constitutional backing and undermines democracy and provincial autonomy.
The PHC is scheduled to hear both petitions on October 20. The proceedings will address the legal challenges to emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
[…] PHC Fixes October 20 Hearing on PTI Chief Gohar’s Challenge to Emergency in KP […]