ISLAMABAD(The COW News Digital) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader and National Assembly member Sher Afzal Marwat has argued before the Supreme Court that former prime minister Imran Khan, whom he described as disqualified, could not legally have directed the selection of a chief minister.
The remarks came during the hearing of a case challenging the eligibility of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi. A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the proceedings.
Appearing before the court, Marwat questioned the constitutional basis of the case and argued that Afridi’s appointment as chief minister was unconstitutional.
He maintained that the removal of former KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur did not follow the procedure prescribed under Article 130 of the Constitution. According to Marwat, Gandapur did not voluntarily resign and the circumstances surrounding his departure required closer judicial scrutiny.
Marwat argued that the governor had initially not accepted Gandapur’s resignation and that a second handwritten resignation was subsequently submitted. He contended that a chief minister cannot be forced to resign and referred to previous Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning the resignation of public office-holders.
According to Marwat’s arguments, Gandapur resigned following directions attributed to Imran Khan. He further claimed that Gandapur had not been formally de-notified at the relevant stage and argued that any subsequent appointment made without following the constitutional procedure would be legally questionable.
Marwat also made remarks regarding Imran Khan’s constitutional eligibility. He told the court that the PTI founder had been convicted and disqualified and therefore, in his view, could not exercise authority to select or direct the election of a chief minister.
He further argued that Khan did not meet the requirements of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, which deal with qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament.
The arguments were presented in the context of the legal challenge concerning Sohail Afridi’s position as chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The claims made by Marwat represent his position in the proceedings and are subject to judicial determination.
Following the hearing, the Supreme Court issued notices to the parties involved as well as Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan.
The court subsequently adjourned further proceedings until the second week of October.
The case could have significant implications for the constitutional procedure surrounding the appointment and removal of a provincial chief minister, particularly where questions arise over resignation, political directions and the role of party leadership in the selection process.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will determine the legal questions raised regarding the appointment of Sohail Afridi and the constitutional procedure followed during the change in KP’s leadership.
