LAHORE: The Monopoly Breakers panel’s four members have resigned as convenors of various committees of the Lahore Gymkhana Club, alleging an “ambush vote” was held to overturn a minute of agreement to share the chairmanship between Salman Siddique and Ahmad Nawaz Sukhera.

They said overturning the elected six-month term of Chairman-Designate Ahmad Nawaz Sukhera just a day before the handover sets a “dangerous precedent” for the club.

The Monopoly Breakers panels’ four elected members – Ahmad Nawaz Sukhera, Kamran Lashari, Tasneem Noorani and Mohammad Ziaur Rehman – have written a letter to the secretary of the Lahore Gymkhana Club, titled “Resignation from Convenorship of Committees”.

The ruling Salman-Misbah panel staged what the opposition called a “political coup” on the final day of its tenure on Aug 19 that helped Gymkhana Club Chairman Salman Siddique retain office for another six months. The group managed to secure the support of two members of the rival ‘Monopoly Breakers’ panel, who defected and voted for the ruling group, depriving Mr Sukhera of the chairmanship for the second half of the one-year tenure. The move had shattered a post-election agreement that had called for a six-month rotational chairmanship, after Feb 14 elections had ended in a 6-6 tie.In the resignation letter, the Monopoly Breakers’ four members have stated that it was decided in the maiden meeting of the CoM (Committee of Management) for the year 2026, held on March 2, 2026 that out of 11 members, nine voted in favour of Ahmad Nawaz Sukhera and he was elected as chairman for a six-month term by a majority.

“Notwithstanding this majority decision, another vote was held by CoM on Aug 19, a day before the charge was to change as per agreement, to let Mr Siddique continue as chairman for the full year,” they stated.

This decision, apart from being unethical and ungentlemanly, in so far as it involved going back on an undisputed agreement to share the chairmanship between Mr Siddique and Mr Sukhera, is unprecedented and will set a dangerous precedent,” they observed.

Further, they questioned that for a matter as important as allowing a chairman to continue contrary to the agreement, the item should have been on the agenda of the meeting, which it was not.

In this case, they stated, the meeting was ostensibly called to discuss a salary increase for staff, and a hurried vote was managed as an `ambush’ to catch the other side unprepared.

“In view of this sneaky, unethical and ungentlemanly act, we find ourselves unable to continue as convenors of various committees,” they stated, adding that they would, however, continue to function as members of the CoM.

Published in Dawn, August 26th, 2026