PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday issued notices to the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments in petitions challenging the imposition of governor’s rule and an emergency in the province, adjourning further proceedings until November 10.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Muhammad Faheem Wali heard preliminary arguments in several petitions, including one filed by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali. Other petitions were submitted by PTI leader Shandana Gulzar, the KP Bar Council and leaders of the Tehreek-i-Tahafuz-Ayin-i-Pakistan (TTAP).
The court said a detailed order would be issued later and directed that notices also be served on the attorney general for Pakistan and the KP advocate general.
Representing Barrister Gohar, lawyers Sameer Khosa and Salman Akram Raja argued that the imposition of governor’s rule and the declaration of an emergency were unconstitutional because the provincial assembly’s approval had not been obtained.
Khosa maintained that Article 232(1) of the Constitution required approval from the provincial assembly, arguing that the use of the word “shall” made the condition mandatory. He added that the National Assembly and Senate had approved the measures subsequently, a development also challenged through a miscellaneous application.
The counsel further argued that the circumstances did not justify bypassing the provincial government and claimed that Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and the provincial assembly speaker had become unavailable.
In response to a question from the bench, Khosa confirmed that the petition also sought their recovery or production before the court.
Referring to a Supreme Court ruling in the former KP chief minister Pir Sabir Shah case, he argued that an emergency declaration should not prevent the chief minister and cabinet from performing their constitutional duties. He alleged that the current measures had rendered the chief minister, cabinet and advocate general inactive.
The petitioners sought the restoration of the provincial assembly and the return of the chief minister and speaker to their respective positions.
Raja also contended that governor’s rule and the emergency had been imposed without meeting the necessary legal requirements and urged the court to set aside the measures.
Addressing the bench, Barrister Gohar said the PTI-led provincial government had consistently supported the federal government in efforts to combat terrorism. He alleged that 12 PTI-affiliated members of the National Assembly and 14 members of the Provincial Assembly had been taken into custody.
Gohar also claimed that party members were facing harassment and raids at their homes. He further alleged that deputy commissioners, district police officers and officials working in the advocate general’s office had been replaced on October 11.
Meanwhile, counsel Muazzam Butt, representing Shandana Gulzar, argued that the provincial assembly’s approval was required before governor’s rule and an emergency could be imposed.
He also referred to the National Action Plan and the provincial Apex Committee, arguing that the committee was responsible for assessing the province’s security situation and that responsibility for terrorism could not simply be attributed to the provincial government.
Advocate Babar Khan Yousafzai, appearing for the KP Bar Council, endorsed the arguments presented on behalf of Barrister Gohar.
Another petitioner, Advocate Qaiser Shah, supported the declaration of an emergency but challenged the imposition of governor’s rule.
The PHC adjourned the proceedings until November 10 for further hearing.
