The election of Sohail Afridi as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s new Chief Minister has once again exposed the uneasy intersection of law and politics in Pakistan’s provincial governance. The episode — marked by resignations, legal wrangling, and opposition walkouts — is a reminder that in our political culture, even the clearest constitutional provisions can become contested terrain.

The Constitution of Pakistan lays out the process for such transitions with remarkable precision. Yet, as recent events in Peshawar show, ambiguity often seeps in not from the text, but from the actors interpreting it.

Article 130 of the Constitution defines the process of electing a Chief Minister. After a provincial election, the Assembly must elect its leader “to the exclusion of any other business.” The winning candidate must secure a majority of the total membership of the Assembly; failing that, a second round between the top two candidates determines the victor by a simple majority of those present and voting.

Gaza’s Health Ministry receives remains of 45 Palestinians from Israel via Red Cross

Under Article 130(8), a Chief Minister may resign “by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor.” Notably, the provision makes no mention of the Governor’s “acceptance” as a precondition. In constitutional terms, the resignation takes effect once submitted.

Meanwhile, Article 133 allows the Governor to request the outgoing Chief Minister to continue until a successor assumes office.........

© The Nation