THE much-anticipated, and somewhat dreaded, emergency in KP was finally proclaimed by the president on Oct 11. The federal cabinet’s recommendation, the summary of the prime minister’s advice to the president, and the proclamation — all three momentous developments — occurred on the same day. The subsequent actions like taking the chief minister — non-functional but still the elected chief minister of the province — into preventive custody by his subordinate police from within the chief minister’s official residence along with many other senior elected officials; transfer and posting of senior and mid-level Civil Service officials; formation of an advisory council to help the governor in his newly acquired functions; the advisory council’s first meeting and the convening of the meeting of the long-neglected provincial apex committee took place within 48 hours of the proclamation, indicating that the federal government had done its homework in anticipation of the proclamation.
Besides debating whether the emergency would be imposed or not, the media had also been speculating about the specific article in Part X ‘Emergency Provisions’ of the Constitution that would be finally invoked. Articles 232 and 234 were the ‘favourites’ on TV talk shows and, in the end, the federal government did not disappoint either group betting on the choice of articles, as the proclamation invoked both Article 232 and 234. It seems that the government was not taking any chances. While Article 232 was apparently favoured because it does not set a limit on the period of emergency, it contains a ‘flaw’ in the federal government’s view, as it does not bar the provincial assembly from functioning during the period of emergency under Article 232. The federal government simultaneously invoked Article 234 apparently to render the provincial assembly non-functional during the emergency and to vest all legislative powers in parliament. Invoking both articles simultaneously appears to be unprecedented, although an emergency has been proclaimed about seven times in Pakistan since the adoption of the 1973 Constitution. This manifests the hard line with which the federal government wants to implement the proclamation of emergency.
In most media reports, Article 232 has been frequently referred to as the instrument to proclaim emergency, in contrast to Article 234 that, according to these reports, has been used to proclaim governor’s rule. A plain reading of the Constitution, however, does not bear out this distinction. Both articles concern the proclamation of an emergency, and both give the federal government the option to either exercise executive powers directly in the province or designate the provincial governor to do so on its behalf. Article 234 is invoked either on a report from the provincial governor to the president, or after the two Houses of parliament separately pass a resolution asking the president to proclaim an emergency under Article 234. The president may or may not act based on the governor’s report. Still, if the two Houses pass a resolution to this effect, the president must invoke Article 234.
Both articles lay down different requirements for parliamentary approval of the proclamation. Article 232 requires that the proclamation be laid before the two Houses for approval by each within 10 days of the proclamation if the latter has been made by the president on his own (which is the case for the emergency proclaimed on Oct 11), and not based on a resolution passed by the provincial assembly. The federal government easily fulfilled this requirement on Oct 14, despite the fiery speeches and the opposition’s subsequent boycott of the proceedings. Article 232 also provides that the proclamation issued under the article be laid before a joint sitting of the two Houses within 30 days. This formality was also fulfilled.
The government might survive constitutional challenges, but can face political risks.
Article 234 simply requires that the proclamation issued under the article be laid before a joint sitting of parliament. The proclamation will cease to be valid at the end of two months unless the joint sitting extends the validity by another two months. The joint sitting is authorised to grant up to two extensions of two months each, meaning the proclamation of emergency under this article can continue for a maximum of six months. Given the clear majority of the ruling coalition and the PPP, continuing the proclamation of emergency under this article for six months doesn’t seem to pose a challenge for the federal government. The provincial assembly will become functional after six months, but, as seen in the past, federal governments manage to engineer such a change within the assembly during this period that it doesn’t pose a major challenge to the centre. This is more likely because the provincial government will remain non-functional indefinitely under Article 232.
While the federal government may be able to surmount constitutional challenges, it might still face serious political difficulties. Although contrary to the warnings of the non-functional chief minister of KP and other PTI leaders, no serious agitation has been witnessed in the country or even in KP so far, it should cause some discomfort to the federal government that none of the political parties other than those in the ruling coalition has supported the proclamation.
Articles 232 and 234 do not restrain the high court’s powers, but a serious judicial challenge appears unlikely. However, the majority of proclamations of emergency challenged in the courts previously could not be sustained.
Last but probably not least, the federal government and the security establishment have put their prestige at stake by taking on total responsibility to combat and defeat terrorism in the province. After the proclamation of emergency, there is no longer a provincial government to blame for the rising arc of terrorism.
The writer is the president of Pakistan-based think tank Pildat.
X: @ABMPildat
Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2026