PESHAWAR: The PHC notices KP governor’s rule case moved forward on Tuesday as the Peshawar High Court issued notices to the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments in petitions challenging the October 11 emergency and governor’s rule.
A two-member bench of Justices Ijaz Anwar and Muhammad Faheem Wali took up the petitions and adjourned the hearing till November 10 after hearing preliminary arguments. The court said an order would follow, and notices would also go to Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan and the KP advocate general.
The petitions were filed by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and others, who want the court to declare the October 11 measures unconstitutional. The bench began hearing the petitions earlier on Tuesday, setting the stage for the notices and the adjournment.
PHC notices KP governor’s rule: the legal argument
Barrister Sameer Khosa, appearing for Gohar along with PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, told the court that a resolution of the provincial assembly was mandatory before imposing governor’s rule and emergency.
“No approval was obtained from the provincial assembly,” he said. He argued that the proviso to Article 232(1) of the Constitution uses the word “shall”, making the condition mandatory rather than optional. He maintained that since the assembly’s approval was never sought, the measures were illegal from the start.
The counsel also contended that the situation in KP was not beyond the provincial government’s control. Advocate Muazzam Butt, appearing for petitioner Shandana Gulzar, added that an apex committee formed under the National Action Plan was responsible for assessing the security situation, and that blame for terrorism could not be placed on the provincial government while that committee existed.
Raja argued separately that governor’s rule and the state of emergency had been imposed without “fulfilling legal requirements”, and asked the court to revoke the measures and restore the provincial assembly.
Claims of missing leaders and detained lawmakers
Sameer told the court that Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and the speaker of the provincial assembly were currently “missing”. Afridi has not been seen since the measures were imposed; a day later, federal ministers said he and some cabinet members were in preventative custody.
The bench asked whether the petition sought the leaders’ recovery or production before the court. “Yes, we have made that request in this application,” the counsel replied.
He cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case of former chief minister Pir Sabir Shah, in which the court held that the chief minister and cabinet would continue to function even if an emergency were imposed. “Our plea is that the assembly be restored and the chief minister and speaker be released,” he said.
Gohar himself addressed the bench, saying the PTI-led government in KP had always supported the Centre in the fight against terrorism. He claimed that 12 MNAs and 14 MPAs affiliated with the PTI had been “picked up”. “Raids are being conducted on the homes of our members; they are being harassed,” he said.
Who else is before the court
The petitions before the bench include Gohar’s plea, Shandana Gulzar’s case, the KP Bar Council’s petition, and pleas by Tehreek-i-Tahafuz-i-Ayin-i-Pakistan leaders. Advocate Babar Khan Yousafzai, for the KP Bar Council, adopted Gohar’s arguments. One petitioner, Advocate Qaiser Shah, supported the state of emergency but opposed the proclamation only insofar as it imposed governor’s rule.
The National Democratic Movement’s central and provincial presidents, Mohsin Dawar and Bushra Gohar, have also filed a petition, which was fixed for hearing on October 20.
In his petition, Gohar asked the court to declare the October 11 decision, the troop deployment order and all resulting executive orders “unconstitutional, ultra vires, coram non judice, tainted with malice in law and fact, devoid of objective material, and of no legal effect”. Filed under Article 199, it named the federation, the KP province, Governor Faisal Karim Kundi and others as respondents, and challenged the 11-member technocratic KP Advisory Council formed after the emergency.
This is the third stage of the case to reach the court this month. The PHC had fixed October 20 for the petitions’ preliminary hearing, and an earlier plea was listed for the same date. With notices now issued and the hearing adjourned to November 10, the next round will show whether the federal government can defend the October 11 proclamation on its merits.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Peshawar High Court decide on October 20?
The court issued notices to the federal and KP governments, the attorney general and the KP advocate general, and adjourned the petitions to November 10.
What is the petitioners’ main legal argument?
They argue that the proviso to Article 232(1) makes the provincial assembly’s approval mandatory before an emergency can be imposed, and that no such approval was obtained.
