The Peshawar High Court has ordered verification of the availability of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Faisal Karim Kundi in connection with the oath-taking of the newly elected Chief Minister of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
The court issued a written order on a petition regarding delay in taking oath, directing the Additional Advocate General to check the availability of the Governor and inform the court before 1 pm today, so that the reasons for the delay could be clarified.
The written decision noted that the petition had been filed by the Speaker and members of the Provincial Assembly under Article 255 of the Constitution, requesting that if the Governor is unable to take the oath, the responsibility should be assigned to the Speaker or another appropriate person.
The petitioners argued that the delay in swearing-in of the Chief Minister was hampering the constitutional process and should be resolved immediately. The court directed the parties to submit a full report on the Governor’s availability and constitutional requirements.
Meanwhile, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) has contested the election of new KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi. The petition, filed in the Peshawar High Court by Lutfur Rehman, parliamentary leader of the JUI in the Provincial Assembly, through lawyer Yaseen Raza, maintains that the resignation of previous Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur had not yet been approved, raising questions over the legality of Afridi’s election.
The petition also claimed that the KP governor had summoned Gandapur on October 15 to verify his resignation.
Speaking to the media, Lutfur Rehman said that the election of the new Chief Minister was illegal as the resignation of the previous Chief Minister had not been formally approved. He added that the previous Chief Minister could continue to function until a successor took office. Lutfur Rehman said that although they submitted their papers at the request of the president, they boycotted the session and only realized that the resignation had not been approved when the governor’s letter arrived.
The two chief ministers
What began as a routine change in provincial leadership has become a test case for constitutional procedure, focusing on Article 130(8), which governs the resignation of a Chief Minister, and the limits of gubernatorial authority.
On Monday, Afridi, a Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) loyalist and close political ally of party founder Imran Khan, was elected Chief Minister amid uproar in the provincial assembly. The opposition immediately denounced the elections as unconstitutional.
Read: KP caught in legal and political storm
Opposition members argued that Gandapur’s resignation had not been formally approved. KP Governor Faisal Karim Kundi expressed similar concerns and said that until Gandapur’s resignation was verified and accepted, the election of a successor had no legal value.
Kundi told the media that he was dissatisfied with Gandapur’s resignation, stating, “Ali Amin should come to me on Wednesday; I will serve him tea and also approve the resignation. But until it is formally accepted, the election of a new Chief Minister will be considered unconstitutional.” He also questioned who would issue the notification to the newly elected Chief Minister while the matter remained unresolved.
The Governor added that his office had received two copies of Gandapur’s resignation, with different signatures, forcing him to withhold approval and summon Gandapur for in-person verification.
Legal challenges
The opposition has announced plans to file a legal challenge. Dr Ibadullah, opposition leader in the KP Assembly, said his party would go to court to challenge Afridi’s election. “Until yesterday we believed that the resignation had been accepted, which is why the candidates submitted the nomination papers. Today we discovered that the resignation issue has not been resolved at all,” he said.
Addressing the assembly, Dr Ibadullah declared the elections unconstitutional and stated that technically Gandapur was still in office: “I continue to believe that Ali Amin is the Chief Minister of this province. The Constitution clearly states that his resignation must first be approved.”
As the political drama unfolded in the assembly, the legal community became deeply divided. The People’s Lawyers Forum (PLF) announced plans to challenge Afridi’s election in the Peshawar High Court, arguing that “there cannot be two Chief Ministers at the same time” and that constitutional procedures had not been followed.
On the contrary, the PTI-aligned Insaf Lawyers Forum (ILF) dismissed the objections as baseless. ILF president Qazi Anwar Advocate said the Governor had no authority to summon Gandapur and stated, “The resignation came into effect the moment it was submitted. The Governor’s interference has no constitutional basis.” He added that he had a power of attorney signed by both Sohail Afridi and the president, confirming the legality of the elections.
Read more: Afridi elected KP CM amid boycott
Constitutional debate
Legal experts across Pakistan are divided over Article 130(8). The article states that a Chief Minister may resign in writing to the Governor and continue to perform his duties until a successor is elected.
Ashtar Ausaf, former Attorney General of Pakistan, told the BBC that the Governor’s approval is not required: “A resignation comes into effect the moment it is signed and submitted. There is no ambiguity here: Ali Amin Gandapur attended the assembly, declared his resignation and voted in the new elections. Those who claim there is confusion have not read the Constitution.”
Legal analyst Maha Raja Tareen echoed this view, citing Supreme Court precedents confirming that once a written resignation is received and acknowledged, it takes effect immediately.
However, senior advocate Dr Khalid Ranjha argued that the Governor can personally verify a resignation if there are doubts about its authenticity. “If the signatures do not match, the Governor can summon the Chief Minister, just as a bank verifies a customer’s signature. Until verification, the resignation cannot be considered valid. Election of a new Chief Minister before such verification violates the constitutional procedure,” he said.
