The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday dismissed as infructuous a petition filed by MNA Sher Afzal Marwat against the election of Sohail Afridi as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister.
A bench led by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan disposed of the case after governor’s rule and an emergency were imposed in the province.
At the start of the hearing, the chief justice questioned whether the case could proceed in view of the latest developments in the province. Petitioner informed the court that he also intended to challenge the imposition of governor’s rule and the state of emergency in KP, requesting a brief adjournment to prepare his case.
Justice Najafi, however, remarked that the matter concerning the former CM was no longer an active issue, while governor’s rule and the emergency constituted separate legal questions.
Marwat argued that Gandapur could be restored to office if the governor’s rule and emergency were withdrawn. The CJ responded that the petitioner could seek the revival of his petition through a miscellaneous application if such circumstances arose.
Background of the petition
In his petition, Marwat had challenged the resignation letters submitted by Gandapur on October 8 and 11, 2025, arguing that they were issued under unconstitutional pressure from jailed PTI founder Imran Khan, whom the petition described as convicted and disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
The petitioner maintained that the process leading to Gandapur’s replacement had been initiated on Khan’s instructions, arguing that a constitutionally disqualified individual could not exercise authority over state officials or issue binding political directives.
He asked the FCC to overturn all subsequent actions, including the October 15, 2025, notification concerning Afridi’s appointment and continuation as chief minister. The petition also sought Gandapur’s reinstatement, contending that his resignation was invalid and the notification removing him from office had no legal effect.
Marwat argued that, as an elected representative from KP, he had a direct interest in protecting constitutional governance and the province’s public mandate. He further argued that interference in the functioning of an elected provincial government could infringe citizens’ constitutional rights, including those protected under Articles 2A, 9 and 17.
The petitioner also questioned whether directives issued by a convicted and disqualified individual could lawfully alter or dismantle an elected provincial government. He maintained that a governor was constitutionally bound to reject a chief minister’s resignation if it was involuntary or lacked legal validity.
