ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Monday issued notice to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi for the second week of October in a plea challenging his appointment.
A three-judge FCC bench, headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, took up the petition moved by estranged PTI leader Sher Afzal Khan Marwat against the resignation of former KP chief minister Ali Amin Gandapur, who preceded Sohail Afridi.
The FCC also summoned Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, under Order 27-A of the Pakistan Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that a court must notify the attorney general if it is hearing a case regarding the interpretation of constitutional law.
Sher Afzal Marwat, who pleaded before the court in person, had filed the petition under Article 175-E of the Constitution— which determines the original jurisdiction of the FCC — seeking a declaration that the resignation letters submitted by Mr 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 Mr 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.
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 Mr Afridi as the chief minister.
It further requested the court to restore Mr 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 Mr 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 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 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.
Published in Dawn, September 15th, 2026
