ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) issued a notice to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister (CM) Sohail Afridi in a petition challenging his appointment.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Baqar Ali Najafi, on Monday heard a petition filed by estranged PTI leader Sher Afzal Khan Marwat, seeking a declaration that the resignation letters submitted by former CM Ali Amin Gandapur on October 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 FCC also summoned Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan under Order XXVII-A of the Pakistan Code of Civil Procedure.
Marwat, in person, argued that the entire process of replacing Gandapur as the KP CM 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.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Farooq asked Marwat what constitutional question arose in the case. He replied that former KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur had not resigned voluntarily, but had submitted his resignation on the instructions of PTI founder Imran Khan.
Marwat maintained that the Constitution envisages that a public office-holder can resign only voluntarily. According to Marwat, Gandapur had mentioned in his resignation letter that he was stepping down on the instructions of the PTI founder. He further argued that the governor had not accepted Gandapur’s resignation and that the governor’s acceptance was necessary for the chief minister to be formally de-notified.
Justice Najafi observed that another resignation had been submitted two days later. Marwat responded that the second resignation may also not have been accepted.
However, Marwat, while referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Nawaz Sharif party presidency case, argued that the apex court had held that a disqualified person could not run the state through a proxy.
He contended that Imran Khan was disqualified when he instructed Gandapur to resign, adding that running the state through a proxy amounted to undermining the Constitution.
After hearing the arguments, the bench described the case as involving the fundamental interpretation of constitutional provisions, therefore issued notices to the KP CM and the Attorney General and adjourned the case until the second week of October, 2026.
The petition 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 the chief minister. It further requested the court to restore Gandapur as the CM, declaring his resignation invalid and his de-notification legally ineffective.
The petition also sought to restrain all respondents from acting on any political or constitutional directives issued by any disqualified or de-recognised political entity regarding KP’s governance.
The petitioner 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 important 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 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 further asked whether instructions from a disqualified individual or defunct political entity have any constitutional validity, arguing that the governor must reject a chief minister’s resignation if it is not voluntary and lacks constitutional legitimacy.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments