Simultaneously, discussions about creating more provinces have also resurfaced. Advocates argue that Pakistan’s governance crisis cannot be resolved without increasing the number of federating units

Ansar Mahmood Bhatti

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan may once again be heading toward a major constitutional restructuring as discussions surrounding a possible 28th Constitutional Amendment gain momentum in political and policy circles. Though nothing official has yet been announced, informed sources suggest that powerful quarters are seriously considering a rollback of certain provisions of the landmark 18th Amendment, arguing that the federation has become too weak while provinces have accumulated excessive administrative and financial authority.

The 18th Amendment, passed in 2010 through broad political consensus, was widely hailed as a historic step toward provincial autonomy. It transferred several ministries and subjects  including health, education, culture, labor, and social welfare  from the federal government to the provinces. The amendment also strengthened parliamentary democracy and reduced the powers of the presidency. At the time, it was celebrated as a victory for smaller provinces, particularly by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which considered it one of its greatest constitutional achievements.

However, over the years, concerns have emerged within federal institutions that the center has gradually lost both administrative effectiveness and financial strength. Many federal officials privately argue that after the 18th Amendment and the NFC Award, Islamabad was left with limited resources while provinces became financially dominant. The federal government, they say, now struggles to manage debt servicing, defense spending, and national development projects.

Sources indicate that the proposed 28th Amendment may seek to bring certain ministries back under federal control, especially health and education, on the grounds that national standards and coordinated policymaking have weakened under provincial management. The COVID-19 pandemic also exposed gaps in coordination between the federation and provinces, strengthening the argument of those who support a stronger center.

Another important aspect reportedly under discussion is the review of the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award. Critics within federal circles believe the current distribution formula disproportionately favors provinces while leaving the center financially overstretched. Any attempt to revisit the NFC formula, however, is expected to trigger intense political resistance.

The biggest obstacle to any such constitutional move remains the PPP, which has consistently declared the 18th Amendment untouchable. Yet political observers believe that compromises are possible behind closed doors. Some sources claim the PPP may eventually show flexibility if broader political arrangements are reached. One frequently discussed possibility is the party’s desire to see Bilawal Bhutto Zardari elevated to the office of prime minister as part of a future power-sharing formula. However, according to insiders, influential quarters remain reluctant to accept such an arrangement at this stage.

Simultaneously, discussions about creating more provinces have also resurfaced. Advocates argue that Pakistan’s governance crisis cannot be resolved without increasing the number of federating units. Punjab, with its overwhelming population and political weight, continues to dominate national politics. The common perception remains that whoever wins Punjab effectively wins Islamabad and secures the prime minister’s office. Supporters of administrative restructuring believe smaller provinces would create a more balanced federation and improve governance delivery.

Political parties, especially the PPP, have traditionally opposed the division of provinces, fearing ethnic and political complications. Yet governance experts argue that a country of Pakistan’s size and population can no longer function effectively with its current administrative structure.

Whether the proposed 28th Amendment materializes or not, one thing is certain: the debate over the balance of power between the federation and provinces is far from over. Pakistan once again appears to be entering a sensitive constitutional and political phase where competing visions of federalism, governance, and power sharing will shape the country’s future direction.

LAKKI MARWAT: At least seven people were killed and more than 18 others injured in an explosion near Naurang police station in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Lakki Marwat district on Tuesday, police and hospital authorities said.

According to police, the blast occurred near a rickshaw in Naurang Bazaar in the Sarai Naurang area.

Hospital administration said the bodies of seven victims killed in the explosion were shifted to Naurang Hospital.

Officials added that two traffic police personnel were also among those martyred in the blast.

According to hospital authorities, the injured brought to the hospital included women and children.

Following the incident, an emergency was imposed at Sarai Naurang Hospital, the hospital administration confirmed.

Meanwhile, District Police Officer Nazir Khan said a vehicle was used in the blast and more than one maund of explosive material had been planted in it.

He said terrorists had started targeting innocent people, adding that investigations were underway to determine whether the explosion was a suicide attack or remotely controlled.

Separately, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi sought a report on the incident from the Inspector General of Police.

The chief minister termed the incident deeply tragic and said the provincial government would provide every possible support.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has expressed grief and sorrow over the martyrdom of seven people including two traffic police personnel in an explosion in Lakki Marwat.

In a statement, he said the terrorists will not be allowed to obstruct the peace and development of the country. He said all relevant departments and the government are working with unwavering determination to eradicate the menace of terrorism.

The premier highlighted that all law enforcement agencies and the public have made invaluable sacrifices in the fight against terrorism.

PM Shehbaz directed that a swift inquiry be conducted to identify those responsible and bring the culprits to justice.

Pakistan has seen a sharp increase in cross-border terrorist incidents, particularly in the bordering provinces of KP and Balochistan, since the Afghan Taliban grabbed power in Afghanistan in 2021.

Islamabad has repeatedly urged Kabul to prevent its soil from being used by terrorist organisations to carry out attacks inside its territory.

However, the Afghan Taliban regime refused to act against terror groups involved in countless attacks on Pakistani security forces and civilians.

Pakistan launched Operation Ghazab lil-Haq in February this year, months after the two countries agreed to a ceasefire in October 2025, following clashes triggered by unprovoked gunfire by the Afghan Taliban regime at multiple border points.

Despite many rounds of talks, both countries have so far failed to reach an agreement due to the Afghan Taliban regime’s reluctance to take action against terrorist outfits operating from its soil.

Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, ordered

Court Reporter

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide within two weeks the pleas of human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, seeking the suspension of their sentence in the controversial social media posts case.

Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, ordered.

During the hearing, the couple’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqi H, argued that the legal requirements were not met in the trial against his clients. He asserted that they did not get the opportunity to be cross-examined and statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also not recorded.

He presented his arguments as the SC took up the couple’s plea seeking to set aside an IHC order denying interim relief to them in the case.

The lawyer said that the IHC had kept his clients’ pleas for the suspension of their sentences pending despite the passage of two months.

“Which court should the accused go to if the high court denies relief or if the SC chooses not to go into the merits of the case,” the counsel argued.

At this, Justice Siddiqui wondered how the SC could interfere in a matter which fell under the jurisdiction of the high court.

The lawyer contended that the SC could hear applications seeking the suspension of a sentence without the high court’s final decision. He said that if the court asked him to, he could explain the circumstances his clients were facing.

Justice Waheed, however, observed that the SC was aware of the circumstances the appellants were facing, since they had mentioned the details in their applications.

“Now there are two options: one is to direct the high court to decide the matter and the second is to give instructions to the high court and keep this application pending in the SC,” Justice Waheed suggested.

The lawyer suggested keeping the matter pending before the SC while issuing instructions to the IHC. In this way, the shadow of the SC will remain upon the high court, the counsel argued.

“Not only the shadow of the Supreme Court, but also of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC),” Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed. The judge also reminded that the IHC did not dismiss the request for the suspension of the sentences.

Justice Afghan explained that if a high court rejected the request for suspension of sentence, then the SC could go into the merits of the case.

“To me, the SC is the only superior court in the country,” the couple’s lawyer responded.

“Don’t say this. The FCC has been established under the Constitution and all lawyers appear before it regularly,” Justice Afghan responded, adding that bringing amendments to the Constitution was Parliament’s prerogative.

The counsel, however, contended that the SC was the highest court to decide appeals in criminal matters. He contended that Imaan was like a sister to him and, above all, a daughter of this country.