ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday disposed of a challenge to the appointment of non-functional Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, deeming it infructuous after the imposition of governor’s rule and an emergency in the province.
Governor’s rule and emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were imposed on Sunday. The federal government cited the provincial government’s “deliberate disengagement” from the fight against terrorism as the reason for the measures.
At present, Afridi remains in preventative custody along with some of his cabinet members. The PTI had reported their detention shortly after the Centre imposed emergency and governor’s rule.
“The petition has become infructuous following the imposition of state of emergency and the governor’s rule,” observed FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, who headed a two-judge bench also comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi.
The bench took up a petition moved by estranged PTI leader Sher Afzal Khan Marwat against the resignation of former KP chief minister Ali Amin Gandapur in October 2025, who preceded Afridi.
At the outset of the proceedings on Thursday, the chief justice wondered whether the petition could be heard given recent developments in KP concerning the chief minister and added that proceedings on the petition could not continue in light of these events.
However, petitioner Marwat said he also intended to challenge the imposition of governor’s rule and the emergency and, therefore, needed a short adjournment in the case.
Justice Najafi, however, observed that the case against the now non-functional chief minister was no longer a live issue, adding that governor’s rule and the emergency were separate and independent matters.
The petitioner pointed out that if governor’s rule and the emergency were lifted in the near future, Afridi would be restored to his position.
At this, the chief justice observed that if the chief minister was restored in the future, the petitioner was free to file a miscellaneous application for the restoration of his petition.
“At present, Sohail Afridi does not hold the office of the chief minister,” the chief justice observed.
Later, talking to the media, Marwat said he would challenge the state of emergency and governor’s rule.
“I will have the challenge ready by tomorrow,” the petitioner announced, adding that all evidence would be compiled for legal action against the decision.
He also rubbished allegations that the PTI patronised terrorism, adding that PTI leaders were elected representatives who had themselves been victims and targets of terrorism.
He said the failure of PTI leaders to attend the funerals of the martyrs was not justifiable, as they had avoided attending the funerals out of fear of threats and vitriol on social media against them.
He regretted, however, that if a party allowed itself to be driven by its social media presence, it would inevitably face such situations.
Marwat also offered to steer the party if the PTI leadership was unavailable to lead it, adding that when there was no one else in the party, he was there, but when others came, he stepped back.
The petition
Through his petition, Marwat had sought a declaration that the resignation letters submitted by Gandapur on Oct 8 and 11, 2025, were made under the unconstitutional dictation of a convicted and disqualified individual and therefore lacked legal volition, rendering them legally ineffective.
The petition alleged that the entire process of replacing Gandapur as the KP chief minister was initiated pursuant to directives issued by jailed PTI founder Imran Khan, who, it claimed, stood convicted and constitutionally disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
It argued that a person subject to constitutional disqualification was legally incapacitated from exercising control over state functionaries or issuing binding political directives.
The petition requested the FCC to quash and set aside all consequential actions, including the Oct 15, 2025, notification regarding the installation and continuation of Afridi as chief minister.
It further requested the court to restore Gandapur as chief minister, declaring his resignation invalid and his de-notification legally ineffective.
The petitioner had argued that, as an elected representative from KP, he was directly concerned with preserving constitutional governance in the province and said any unconstitutional disruption of Gandapur’s government would undermine the public mandate.
The petition raised questions concerning the independence of high constitutional offices, the legal limitations on disqualified individuals exercising influence over state machinery and the enforcement of Articles 2A, 4, 5, 17, 25 and 130 of the Constitution.
“It is an established principle that when the functioning of an entire provincial executive is subverted by external dictation, the rights of the public at large under Articles 9, 17, and 2A are directly infringed, creating an imperative for this honourable court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction,” the petition argued.
It further questioned whether an individual who stood convicted and constitutionally disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 could lawfully issue directives that influence, alter or dismantle elected provincial governance structures.
The petition also asked whether instructions from a disqualified individual or defunct political entity had any constitutional validity, arguing that the governor must reject a chief minister’s resignation if it was not voluntary and lacked constitutional legitimacy.