PESHAWAR: A lawyer has petitioned the Peshawar High Court against the recently enacted law related to the privileges and salaries of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly’s speaker and deputy speaker.

In the petition, Nasir Khan requested the court to declare the KP Province Speaker and Deputy Speaker (Immunities, Privileges, Salaries and Allowances) Act, 2026, “unconstitutional and in conflict with several provisions of the Constitution”.

He also sought the court’s orders for the KP chief secretary, law secretary and other respondents, to examine government funds utilised by the speaker, deputy speaker and officials of the KP Assembly’s Secretariat, and make necessary arrangements for their recovery in case of misuse.

The petition, filed through advocate Ali Azim Afridi, included the federal and KP governments as respondents through their respective law secretaries, KP Assembly speaker, the interior secretary and KP chief secretary.

Lawyer claims legislation violates Constitution

The petitioner said that the law, formally published in the Gazette of Pakistan on May 7, 2026, had not only given a free hand to the assembly speaker and deputy speaker and their family members in terms of expansion of perks and privileges but also indemnified both public office-holders.

He claimed that the public exchequer had been apportioned in a manner, which not only served the speaker and the deputy speaker but their personal staff officers and private servants, too, were accommodated in a “manner as desired”.

Mr Nasir said that the law also empowered the speaker to act for his own and for the deputy speaker the determination of salaries, allowances and other facilities, subjecting it to the recommendations of a sub-committee of the finance committee, whose meetings are otherwise chaired by the speaker.

He claimed that the perks and privileges were designed in a manner, where it only served the interest of the public office-holders, their family, personal staff members, and private servants.

The petitioner added that the law guaranteed no arrest of the speaker and deputy speaker by any of the law-enforcement agencies; as well as no raid, search or entry into their official residences.

He claimed that introduction of the said law had not only dominated the purpose of good governance rather had tied the executive and independent working of institutions at provincial level as-well-as the federation.

The petitioner contended that the finance committee was constitutionally confined to controlling expenditures within already approved and authorized budgetary allocations and didn’t possess the legislative and budgetary competence to separately create, determine or enhance financial liabilities.

Published in Dawn, May 21st, 2026