ISLAMABAD: The federal government is considering several constitutional options to address the worsening political and security situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), with a senior source suggesting that it may adopt a “cocktail of measures” instead of relying solely on emergency or governor’s rule.
Asked whether the government was moving towards imposing emergency or governor’s rule in KP, the source said both options could meet the required constitutional conditions.
“In my view, essential conditions of both are there. There may be a cocktail of measures provided in the Constitution.”
The remarks come amid growing tensions between the PTI-led KP government and the federal government and establishment.
The dispute has intensified over the security situation in the province and PTI’s plan to hold a march towards Islamabad on October 4.
Emergency and Governor’s Rule Under Consideration
The federal government has already indicated that emergency under Article 232 and governor’s rule under Article 234 are among the options being examined.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Tariq Fazal Chaudhry recently said the government was “seriously considering” emergency in KP. He cited what he described as the provincial government’s failure to control terrorism.
Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar also said governor’s rule or emergency could be imposed if circumstances required such action under the Constitution.
However, the government later decided not to immediately invoke either measure. Instead, it opted to give PTI another opportunity to reconsider its planned march and adopt a less confrontational political approach.
What Could the “Cocktail of Measures” Mean?
The source’s reference to a “cocktail of measures” suggests that the government may be considering a combination of constitutional steps rather than choosing between emergency and governor’s rule.
The exact combination of measures under consideration remains unclear.
Under Article 232, an emergency can be proclaimed when a grave situation threatens Pakistan’s security, or that of any part of the country, because of war, external aggression or internal disturbance beyond the provincial government’s capacity to control.
Article 234, meanwhile, applies when the constitutional machinery of a province is considered to have failed.
The two provisions have different constitutional consequences and procedures.
Under Article 234, the powers and functions of a provincial assembly can also be suspended. Article 232, however, does not by itself suspend the provincial assembly.
The government’s next move will therefore depend on the political and security situation in KP, as well as the constitutional course it ultimately chooses.
