Governor's rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa explained: what Articles 232 and 234 allow, and what the court will weigh

What happened in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?

Islamabad took direct control of the province.

On 11 October, as supporters of jailed former prime minister Imran Khan marched on the capital, President Asif Ali Zardari approved a recommendation from Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s cabinet. He proclaimed an emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and placed it under governor’s rule. Chief Minister Sohail Afridi of Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and his cabinet lost office at once. The provincial assembly was not dissolved, but its power to make laws passed to the federal Parliament.

Governor Faisal Karim Kundi now runs the province under federal direction, with an 11-member advisory council. A separate secretariat handles 12 districts hit hardest by militancy, among them Bannu, Bajaur, Kurram and North Waziristan.

What do the two articles say?

Article 232 deals with emergencies; Article 234 with a province that cannot be governed under the constitution.

Article 232 allows the president to proclaim an emergency if he is satisfied that “a grave emergency exists”, including through “internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control”. For an internal disturbance, a resolution of the provincial assembly is required. If the president acts without one, the proclamation must go to each house of Parliament for approval within ten days. The National Assembly and the Senate gave that approval on 14 October.

Article 234 is the governor’s rule provision. The president can act on a report from the governor, or when each house of Parliament passes a resolution asking him to, if satisfied that “the Government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”. He can take over the provincial government’s functions and declare that the assembly’s powers will be exercised by Parliament. The proclamation said the KP government “could not function in accordance with the Constitution under the prevailing circumstances”, citing terrorist attacks.

How long can it last?

Two months at a time, six months at most.

An Article 234 proclamation must be laid before a joint sitting of Parliament and lapses after two months unless the joint sitting approves it. It can be renewed for two months at a time, but “no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than six months”. The joint sitting approved it on 15 October by 240 votes to 46. Unless renewed, it runs out in mid-December.

Has Pakistan done this before?

Yes, but rarely. Zardari imposed governor’s rule in Punjab in February 2009 after the Supreme Court disqualified Shahbaz Sharif, then the chief minister. In January 2013, after bombings that killed scores of Hazaras in Quetta, the federal government dismissed Balochistan’s government under Article 234. Both episodes were short. Combining the two articles, as in KP, gives the centre emergency powers and direct administration at once.

What do the government and its critics say?

The government calls it a security necessity; its opponents call it a political takeover.

Shehbaz Sharif said on Saturday his government “could not simply remain silent and watch bloodshed unfold”, and pointed to militancy and infiltration from Afghanistan. The PTI chairman, Gohar Ali Khan, has asked why the whole province is under governor’s rule “if the problem of terrorism exists in 12 districts”. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council calls the move “unconstitutional and undemocratic”, and lawyers stayed away from courts across the province on Monday.

What will the Peshawar High Court consider?

The court holds a preliminary hearing on Gohar Ali Khan’s petition on Tuesday, 20 October. A separate petition by the TTAP alliance, led by Mahmood Khan Achakzai, also challenges the proclamation. The petitioners argue that the provincial government and assembly were working normally and that the security situation in some districts did not justify suspending them all. The government will rely on Parliament’s approval. The central question is how far a court can test the president’s “satisfaction” that a province cannot be governed, and whether the reasons given match the remedy chosen.