The election of Sohail Afridi as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's new Chief Minister has once again exposed the uneasy intersection of law and poli...
The election of Sohail Afridi as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's new Chief Minister has once again exposed the uneasy intersection of law and politics in Pakistan's provincial governance. The episode - marked by resignations, legal wrangling, and opposition walkouts - is a reminder that in our political culture, even the clearest constitutional provisions can become contested terrain.
The Constitution of Pakistan lays out the process for such transitions with remarkable precision. Yet, as recent events in Peshawar show, ambiguity often seeps in not from the text, but from the actors interpreting it.
Article 130 of the Constitution defines the process of electing a Chief Minister. After a provincial election, the Assembly must elect its leader 'to the exclusion of any other business.' The winning candidate must secure a majority of the total membership of the Assembly; failing that, a second round between the top two candidates determines the victor by a simple majority of those present and voting.
Under Article 130(8), a Chief Minister may resign 'by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor.' Notably, the provision makes no mention of the Governor's 'acceptance' as a precondition. In constitutional terms, the resignation takes effect once submitted.
Meanwhile, Article 133 allows the Governor to request the outgoing Chief Minister to continue until a successor assumes office. This clause, intended to ensure continuity, often becomes a source of confusion - particularly when resignation letters are disputed or delayed for political reasons.
The latest episode began when outgoing Chief Minister Ali Amin Khan Gandapur tendered his resignation amid reports of internal discord within the PTI ranks. The Governor's office initially hesitated, questioning whether the resignation was properly received and verified.
Speaker Babar Saleem Swati, however, ruled that the resignation took effect upon submission, declaring the Chief Minister's office vacant. Acting swiftly, he convened the Assembly to elect a new leader.
On the floor of the House, Sohail Afridi won 90 votes - a clear majority - while opposition parties boycotted the proceedings, calling the election 'premature' and 'procedurally flawed.' The Assembly Secretariat forwarded the summary for oath-taking to the Governor, as PTI leaders moved to the courts seeking timely administration of the oath.
Legally, the steps appear to conform to Article 130. Politically, however, the optics remain troubled.
Three issues dominate the legal debate.
First, the matter of acceptance: whether the Governor's acknowledgment is necessary for a resignation to take effect. Most constitutional experts agree it is not - a resignation is a unilateral act. Yet, as seen before, delays in 'acceptance' are often weaponised for political leverage.
Second, denotification of the cabinet. The Constitution implies that the cabinet dissolves automatically with the Chief Minister's departure. Still, administrative lag in issuing denotification creates a temporary vacuum, allowing both sides to claim authority.
Third, legitimacy versus legality. While Afridi's election followed constitutional procedure, the opposition's absence and the haste of proceedings cast a shadow on the process. In a democracy, procedure must not only be correct - it must also be seen to be fair.
The KP transition reveals a deeper malaise: Pakistan's institutions have yet to internalise constitutional discipline as a political culture. The law provides clarity, but politics thrives on ambiguity.
Had all actors acted in good faith - the Governor in promptly acknowledging the resignation, the Assembly in ensuring inclusive debate, and the opposition in upholding parliamentary norms - the province could have avoided another unnecessary crisis.
A Chief Minister's resignation should be a routine constitutional event, not a constitutional riddle. The Governor's office should serve as a facilitator, not a gatekeeper. And the Assembly should project stability, not suspicion.
To avoid future impasses, Pakistan's constitutional machinery needs recalibration - not in spirit, but in procedure. Clarify the resignation process through an amendment or interpretative ruling, confirming that no 'acceptance' is required. Standardise provincial rules of procedure so that transitions follow a uniform and transparent template. Introduce fast-track judicial review for disputes involving resignations and oath-taking. Mandate transparency by publicly releasing resignation letters, notifications, and Assembly proceedings.
Such steps would not just ease political friction - they would strengthen democratic trust, the most fragile currency in our system.
The election of KP's new Chief Minister will soon fade from headlines. But its lessons will linger. The episode underscores that Pakistan's political class must learn to distinguish between winning power and exercising it lawfully.
In the end, constitutions are not self-executing documents. They rely on restraint, respect, and routine. When those values are ignored, even the most detailed laws cannot prevent confusion.
For Khyber Pakhtunkhwa - and Pakistan - the message is clear: democracy is not tested by elections alone, but by how smoothly power changes hands.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
COMMENTS