- Reuters
- October 14, 2026
PTI challenges governor’s rule, emergency in PHC, seeks restoration of KP govt
-
- WEB DESK
- October 14, 2026
PESHAWAR: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan has challenged the imposition of governor’s rule and emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the Peshawar High Court, seeking the restoration of the province’s elected government.
Gohar filed the petition through Advocate Ali Zaman, requesting an early hearing in view of the importance of the matter.
PTI Central Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram confirmed the development in a post on X, saying the petition had been filed against the Federation of Pakistan and others to challenge the constitutional measures and seek the restoration of the people’s representative government in the province.
The legal challenge comes three days after President Asif Ali Zardari approved the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule in the province on October 11, bringing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led provincial administration under federal control.
The move followed escalating tensions between the federal government and the PTI over security policy, counterterrorism operations and stalled negotiations between the two sides.
PTI rejects federal intervention
The PTI has described the imposition of governor’s rule as an attack on the province’s democratic mandate and argued that security concerns cannot be used to justify the removal of an elected government without meeting the constitutional requirements.
The party has maintained that it does not oppose efforts to combat terrorism but rejects what it considers an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional powers to alter the political order.
Speaking in the Senate on Tuesday, PTI Senator Barrister Ali Zafar termed the move a “political crisis disguised as a security solution”, arguing that the federal government must demonstrate that the constitutional conditions for the intervention had genuinely been met.
He said Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution provided extraordinary powers for exceptional circumstances but did not allow the government to exercise them without limits.
Zafar questioned why the federal government had extended its response to the entire province if the security situation cited as justification was concentrated in particular districts.
He also called on Parliament to scrutinise the evidence, necessity and proportionality of the measures instead of endorsing them without examination.
PTI’s Senate parliamentary leader further argued that the intervention raised questions about provincial autonomy, federalism, fundamental rights and the constitutional balance between the federation and its constituent units.
The party has called for the restoration of the elected government and the withdrawal of the emergency measures.
Why did the federal government impose governor’s rule?
The federal government announced the decision on October 11, citing a deteriorating security situation and what it described as the provincial government’s failure to cooperate adequately with federal authorities in the fight against terrorism.
President Zardari issued the proclamations under Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution, respectively.
Addressing a joint news conference in Islamabad, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the provincial government led by Chief Minister Sohail Afridi had ceased to function under the constitutional arrangement following the imposition of governor’s rule.
The powers previously exercised by the chief minister, provincial cabinet and advisers were transferred to Governor Faisal Karim Kundi.
The federal government also constituted an 11-member advisory council to assist the governor in running the province’s affairs.
The government cited a reported 196 per cent increase in incidents of terrorism and extremism over the preceding two and a half years. It also pointed to attacks on law enforcement personnel and damage to public installations and property.
Information Minister Attaullah Tarar accused the PTI-led provincial government of allowing militant groups to operate and alleged that its policies had weakened the fight against terrorism. These allegations have been disputed by the PTI.
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi said the federal government had attempted to secure the provincial government’s cooperation through negotiations but had failed to reach an agreement.
He maintained that the decision was not taken lightly and that the government had examined the constitutional provisions before proceeding.
The government has also argued that counterterrorism efforts require a coordinated national policy rather than separate approaches by the federation and the provinces.
Negotiations failed before the decision
The imposition of governor’s rule followed weeks of tensions between the federal government and the PTI, including disagreements over security policy and the party’s political activities.
According to Naqvi, the federal government had been engaging PTI leaders in an effort to reach an agreement on counterterrorism cooperation.
He said a draft agreement had been shared with the provincial leadership and that the federal government had made six amendments to it. The interior minister alleged that the process subsequently broke down.
The PTI, however, maintained that political and security matters should not be conflated and that differences could have been resolved through continued dialogue.
In the Senate, opposition leader Raja Nasir Abbas criticised the federal government’s decision, describing October 11 as a “black day” for democracy and arguing that more time should have been allowed for negotiations.
The political dispute has since widened, with the PTI challenging the constitutional measures in court and raising concerns over the whereabouts of provincial leaders, including Afridi and Assembly Speaker Babar Saleem Swati.
What do Articles 232 and 234 provide?
Article 232 of the Constitution provides for the proclamation of an emergency in circumstances specified by the Constitution, including situations involving war, external aggression or circumstances in which the security of Pakistan or a part of it is threatened.
Article 234 deals with a failure of constitutional machinery in a province. It provides a mechanism for the president to assume certain provincial functions when the constitutional conditions specified in the article are met.
The two provisions serve distinct purposes, and their use is subject to constitutional procedures and parliamentary oversight.
Under Article 234, a proclamation must be placed before a joint sitting of Parliament and ceases to remain in force after two months unless approved by a resolution of the joint sitting. It may be extended through further resolutions for periods not exceeding two months at a time.
The federal government has said the proclamations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were issued in accordance with the Constitution and that Parliament would be asked to endorse the measures.
The PTI, meanwhile, argues that the existence of emergency powers does not automatically establish that the constitutional conditions for their use have been met.
The party’s legal challenge will bring the dispute before the judiciary, where the legality of the measures can be examined in light of the Constitution and the arguments presented by the parties.
A wider political and constitutional dispute
The confrontation has placed the relationship between the federal government and the PTI-led provincial government at the centre of a wider debate over security, provincial autonomy and democratic representation.
The federal government maintains that the extraordinary measures were necessary because of the worsening security situation and the lack of cooperation it alleges from the provincial administration.
The PTI contends that the intervention undermines the electoral mandate given to the party in the province and risks turning counterterrorism into a means of political control.
The high court petition seeks to challenge the legal basis of the measures and restore the elected government. Its outcome will depend on the constitutional arguments and evidence presented before the court.
