• Argues stepping down lacked ‘free will’ and therefore has no legal effect
• Seeks cancellation of all actions related to appointment of Sohail Afridi as KP CM

ISLAMABAD: Estranged PTI leader Sher Afzal Khan Marwat on Thursday approached the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) against the resignation of Ali Amin Gandapur, who stepped down as chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) on directives allegedly issued by jailed PTI founder Imran Khan.

The petition, filed under Article 175(E) of the Constitution, sought a declaration from the FCC that the resignation letters submitted by Ali Amin Gandapur on Oct 8 and 11, 2025, were made under the unconstitutional dictation of a convicted and disqualified individual and therefore lacked legal volition, rendering them legally ineffective.

The petition alleged that the entire process of replacing Gandapur as KP chief minister was initiated pursuant to directives issued by Imran, who, it claimed, stands convicted and constitutionally disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. The petition argued that a person subject to constitutional disqualification is legally incapacitated from exercising control over state functionaries or issuing binding political directives.

The petition requested the FCC to quash and set aside all consequential actions, including the Oct 15, 2025, notification regarding the installation and continuation of Sohail Afridi as chief minister of KP.

It further requested the court to restore Gandapur as chief minister, declaring his resignation as invalid and the de-notification legally ineffective.

The petition also sought to restrain all respondents from acting on any political or constitutional directives issued by any disqualified or de-recognised political entity regarding KP’s governance.

The petitioner argued that, as an elected representative from KP, he was directly concerned with preserving constitutional governance in the province and said any unconstitutional disruption of Ali Amin Gandapur’s government would undermine the public mandate.

The petition raised important questions of public significance concerning the independence of high constitutional offices, the legal limitations on disqualified individuals exercising influence over state machinery, and the enforcement of Articles 2A, 4, 5, 17, 25, and 130 of the Constitution.

“It is an established principle that when the functioning of an entire provincial executive is subverted by external dictation, the rights of the public at large under Articles 9, 17, and 2A are directly infringed, creating an imperative for this Honourable Court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction,” the petition argued.

It further questioned whether an individual who stands convicted and constitutionally disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 can lawfully issue directives that influence, alter, or dismantle elected provincial governance structures.

The petition further asked whether instructions from a disqualified individual or defunct political entity have any constitutional validity, arguing that the governor must reject a chief minister’s resignation if it is not voluntary and lacks constitutional legitimacy.

Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2026