PTI Leaders Challenge KP Emergency, Demand Constitutional Rights

ISLAMABAD, October 13, 2026: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders, including Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, have strongly opposed the imposition of emergency measures and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, demanding the immediate reversal of the federal government’s decision and restoration of the province’s elected administration.

Speaking to the media, the PTI leadership described the measures as an infringement of provincial autonomy and constitutional principles, arguing that the decision could further deepen political uncertainty and weaken the country’s democratic institutions.

Barrister Gohar questioned the sudden imposition of emergency measures and criticised extensive administrative reshuffling across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

He claimed that deputy commissioners had been replaced across the province and alleged that party workers were being subjected to increased monitoring and administrative pressure.

According to the PTI leadership, several party parliamentarians were unable to attend a scheduled meeting because of the prevailing circumstances.

Gohar maintained that his party had consistently supported effective action against terrorism wherever it occurred, but insisted that security concerns should not become a justification for undermining elected provincial institutions.

He warned that measures perceived as unconstitutional could weaken democratic governance and create further political divisions.

The PTI chairman also questioned the treatment of the party following previous elections, alleging that electoral recounts had deprived PTI candidates of seats and that the authority of its elected government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had subsequently been curtailed.

These electoral and constitutional allegations remain contested.

Emphasising the party’s commitment to the country, Gohar rejected suggestions that PTI’s opposition to federal decisions should be interpreted as opposition to Pakistan’s interests.

He maintained that the party’s position was based on constitutional governance, provincial autonomy and national unity.

Gohar Demands Meeting With Imran Khan

Barrister Gohar also renewed his demand for permission to meet incarcerated PTI founder and former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

He claimed that a full year had passed since his last meeting with Khan and questioned why the party leadership continued to face restrictions on access to its founder.

According to Gohar, the party was seeking an opportunity to consult its leader through lawful channels.

He also announced plans to approach the Peshawar High Court to challenge the emergency proclamation and governor’s rule.

The PTI chairman argued that the federation could only remain strong if its provinces were constitutionally empowered and their elected representatives allowed to exercise their responsibilities.

Salman Akram Raja Defends Sohail Afridi’s Position

PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja also rejected the federal government’s decision and maintained that Sohail Afridi remained the party’s recognised chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Raja asserted that Afridi would retain the party’s confidence as long as he continued to enjoy the support of PTI founder Imran Khan.

His position reflects PTI’s rejection of the governor’s rule proclamation. The federal government, however, maintains that the provincial chief minister and cabinet ceased to exercise their constitutional functions following the proclamation.

Raja insisted that political authority should rest with the people and their elected representatives rather than administrative arrangements imposed by the federal government.

He also criticised what he described as political restrictions and excessive administrative control, arguing that citizens should not be expected to accept decisions without questioning their constitutional implications.

Referring to earlier electoral controversies in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, Raja alleged that democratic mandates had repeatedly been undermined.

He said the party would continue its political and constitutional efforts against measures it considered unjustified.

Federal Government Defends Emergency Decision

The latest PTI statements follow the federal government’s October 11 decision to impose governor’s rule across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and emergency arrangements affecting 12 districts.

President Asif Ali Zardari approved the measures on the advice of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif under Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution.

The federal government maintains that the decision was necessary because of deteriorating security conditions and what it describes as insufficient cooperation by the former provincial administration in counterterrorism efforts.

Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar has defended the constitutional basis of the measures, stating that the Constitution provides mechanisms for emergency intervention under specified circumstances.

Under the new arrangement, Governor Faisal Karim Kundi has assumed provincial executive responsibilities with the assistance of an 11-member advisory council.

The changes have also been accompanied by extensive transfers involving provincial secretaries, commissioners and deputy commissioners.

PTI disputes the government’s justification and argues that security challenges should be addressed through coordinated action involving elected representatives, federal authorities and relevant institutions.

Constitutional Dispute Expected to Continue

The disagreement has developed into a broader constitutional and political confrontation over provincial authority, emergency powers and the future of elected governance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

PTI leaders have pledged to pursue legal remedies while continuing to demand the restoration of provincial political authority and access to their imprisoned party founder.

The federal government, meanwhile, continues to defend the emergency arrangements as constitutionally authorised and necessary to address the security situation.

The dispute now places renewed attention on the courts, Parliament and the federal-provincial relationship as both sides maintain sharply different interpretations of the emergency measures.