The Peshawar High Court has issued a verdict regarding the delayed oath-taking of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s newly elected Chief Minister, Sohail Afridi.
Chief Justice of PHC, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, stated that the Governor of K-P will administer the oath at 4:00pm on Wednesday, October 15.
He added that if the Governor is unable to do so, the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, Babar Saleem Swati, will administer the oath instead.
Junaid Akbar, a member of the National Assembly, welcomed the court’s ruling, saying: “The court acted impartially and granted the rights in accordance with the law.”
During the day, PHC has ordered verification of the K-P Governor Faisal Karim Kundi’s availability regarding the oath-taking of the newly elected Chief Minister of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P).
The court issued a written order on a petition concerning the delay in the oath-taking, directing the Additional Advocate General to ascertain the Governor’s availability 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 administer the oath, the responsibility should be assigned to the Speaker or another suitable person.
The petitioners argued that the delay in the Chief Minister’s oath was hindering the constitutional process and should be resolved immediately. The court instructed the parties to submit a complete report on the Governor’s availability and constitutional requirements.
Meanwhile, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) has challenged the election of K-P’s new Chief Minister, Sohail Afridi. The petition, filed in the Peshawar High Court by Lutfur Rehman, parliamentary leader of JUI in the Provincial Assembly, through Barrister Yaseen Raza, contends that the resignation of the previous Chief Minister, Ali Amin Gandapur, had not yet been approved, raising questions over the legality of Afridi’s election.
The petition also stated that the Governor of K-P had summoned Gandapur on October 15 for verification of his resignation.
Speaking to the media, Lutfur Rehman said the election of the new Chief Minister was illegal, as the previous Chief Minister’s resignation had not been formally approved. He added that the previous Chief Minister could continue functioning until a successor took office. Lutfur Rehman said that although they submitted their documents at the Speaker’s request, they boycotted the session, and only realised 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 escalated into a test case for constitutional procedure, focusing on Article 130(8), which governs a Chief Minister’s resignation, 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 election as unconstitutional.
Read: K-P caught in legal, political storm
Opposition members argued that Gandapur’s resignation had not been formally approved. K-P Governor Faisal Karim Kundi expressed similar concerns, saying that until Gandapur’s resignation was verified and accepted, the election of a successor had no legal standing.
Kundi told the media he was not satisfied with Gandapur’s resignation, stating: “Ali Amin should come to see me on Wednesday – I’ll 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 for 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, compelling him to withhold approval and summon Gandapur for in-person verification.
Legal challenges
The opposition has announced plans to mount a legal challenge. Dr Ibadullah, Leader of the Opposition in the K-P Assembly, said his party would approach the court to contest Afridi’s election. “Until yesterday, we believed the resignation had been accepted – that’s why candidates filed nomination papers. Today, we discovered the resignation issue hasn’t been resolved at all,” he said.
Addressing the assembly, Dr Ibadullah declared the election unconstitutional, saying Gandapur technically remained in office: “I still believe 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 sharply 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.
Conversely, the Insaf Lawyers Forum (ILF), aligned with PTI, dismissed the objections as baseless. ILF President Qazi Anwar Advocate said the Governor had no authority to summon Gandapur, asserting, “The resignation became effective the moment it was submitted. The Governor’s interference has no constitutional basis.” He added that he held a signed power of attorney from both Sohail Afridi and the Speaker, confirming the election’s legality.
Read more: Afridi elected K-P CM amid boycott
Constitutional debate
Legal experts across Pakistan are divided on Article 130(8). The article states that a Chief Minister may resign in writing to the Governor and continues to perform duties until a successor is elected.
Ashtar Ausaf, former Attorney General for Pakistan, told the BBC that no approval from the Governor is required: “A resignation becomes effective 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 election. Those claiming confusion haven’t 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 lawyer Dr Khalid Ranjha argued that the Governor may verify a resignation personally if there are doubts about its authenticity. “If signatures do not match, the Governor can summon the Chief Minister, just as a bank verifies a client’s signature. Until verification, the resignation cannot be treated as valid. A new Chief Minister’s election before such verification violates constitutional procedure,” he said.
