Pakistan’s joint parliamentary sitting backs federal measures in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as PTI lawmakers object to the suspension of the provincial administration and dispute the government’s counterterrorism allegations.
ISLAMABAD – WEB DESK: A joint sitting of Pakistan’s Parliament on Thursday, October 15, endorsed the federal government’s imposition of emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), drawing objections from opposition lawmakers over the suspension of the PTI-led provincial administration.
The federal government defended the measures as necessary to address the province’s deteriorating security situation and disagreements over counterterrorism efforts. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) representatives challenged the government’s position and rejected allegations that their party was unwilling to combat terrorism.
The decision followed separate resolutions passed by the National Assembly and Senate on October 14 endorsing the emergency proclamation.
Parliament approves resolutions amid opposition protests
The joint session was convened to consider separate resolutions concerning the emergency declared under Article 232 of the Constitution and governor’s rule imposed under Article 234.
According to Dawn’s report, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Tariq Fazal Chaudhry moved the resolutions before the joint sitting.
Lawmakers subsequently approved a procedural motion to suspend certain sub-rules of the Parliament (Joint Sitting) Rules, 1973, by 214 votes to 56.
Opposition members protested during the proceedings, carrying placards bearing slogans opposing the emergency.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar defended the constitutional basis for the measures, maintaining that the federal government had acted under the relevant constitutional provisions.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attended part of the session and was seen greeting opposition leaders, including representatives from the National Assembly and Senate opposition benches.
Mohsin Naqvi defends the federal government’s decision
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi told lawmakers that the federal government had attempted to reach an understanding with the KP administration before resorting to emergency measures.
Naqvi said the government had made efforts during negotiations to prevent the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule.
He also disputed claims that the government’s delegation had abandoned the talks, saying the discussions had continued and that officials had tried to find a way forward.
According to Naqvi, the federal side had proposed declaring an emergency in 12 districts of the province. He claimed that PTI leader Asad Qaiser had been willing to sign an agreement but was advised to consult the provincial government first.
The interior minister acknowledged that participants in the discussions had expressed a common position on combating terrorism. He urged opposition lawmakers to distinguish between disagreements over political decisions and their shared stated opposition to militancy.
The government maintains that its decision was driven by security concerns and what it described as the provincial administration’s disengagement from counterterrorism efforts.
These assertions remain the federal government’s stated justification for the intervention and are disputed by PTI representatives.
Barrister Gohar rejects allegations against PTI
PTI interim chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan criticised allegations linking his party or the KP government to support for terrorists.
Speaking during the joint sitting, Gohar said the country was facing a fragile situation and expressed disappointment over accusations directed at the provincial administration and the people of KP.
He called on the prime minister to apologise for allegations that the province’s government supported terrorists.
PTI has maintained that the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule undermines the public mandate and provincial autonomy.
The party has also argued that the federal government’s action is politically motivated, a claim the government disputes.
The debate has intensified tensions between Islamabad and the PTI, which governed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa before the federal intervention.
Constitutional provisions govern emergency and governor’s rule
The emergency proclamation and governor’s rule were issued on October 11, following a federal cabinet meeting that reviewed the province’s security situation.
The government invoked Article 232 of the Constitution for the emergency and Article 234 for governor’s rule.
Under Article 232, the emergency proclamation must be submitted to Parliament for approval in accordance with the constitutional procedure.
Article 234 provides for the federal government to assume or arrange the exercise of provincial governmental functions when the constitutional conditions specified in that provision are met. A proclamation under this article must be placed before a joint sitting of Parliament.
Governor’s rule initially remains in force for two months unless the joint sitting approves an extension. Further extensions are subject to constitutional limits, and the measure cannot remain in force for more than six months.
The constitutional process has become a central point of debate, with the federal government defending its actions as lawful and PTI challenging the intervention.
Political tensions remain unresolved
The parliamentary endorsement comes amid a wider dispute between the federal government and PTI over security policy, political negotiations and the demands of the party’s jailed founder, former prime minister Imran Khan.
The disagreement has included discussions about counterterrorism cooperation and PTI’s planned political mobilisation in Islamabad.
Government representatives have argued that cooperation between federal and provincial authorities is essential to tackling militancy. PTI leaders, meanwhile, have rejected the allegations against their administration and opposed the suspension of its governing authority in KP.
The latest parliamentary decision gives the federal government legislative backing for the measures, but it does not by itself resolve the underlying political dispute.
