A blunt warning about constitutional overreach came from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's chief minister over the weekend, as Mohammad Sohail Afridi accused state institutions of stepping beyond their mandates. Speaking at a traders' gathering in Peshawar, he tied the province's persistent instability to decades of policy experiments that he claims were shaped by outside forces. His remarks arrive amid a deteriorating security landscape that now stretches beyond KP's borders. Main Developments Afridi's central argument was that governance suffers when institutions involve themselves in matters outside their constitutional remit. He framed KP's history as one of discriminatory treatment stretching back 78 years, with the province repeatedly serving as a testing ground for policies driven by external powers. The people of KP, he insisted, cannot be treated as expendable. On the war on terror, the chief minister claimed the decision to join the US-led campaign was not rooted in national interest but in military leadership's choices, with consequences borne disproportionately by his province. He cited nearly 80,000 lives lost in the counterterrorism fight, while paying tribute to both the province's residents and the country's security forces for their sacrifices. Read also: Roadside bomb wounds two KP cops near Peshawar motorway A sharp critique followed regarding the post-2022 political shift. Afridi alleged that after the PTI government's removal, a new policy framework triggered a resurgence of terrorism, and that his party's warnings about militant regrouping were dismissed as propaganda. He said those warnings had predicted renewed violence, business damage, and economic harm. Security challenges, he noted, have intensified not only in KP but also in Balochistan, with ripple effects extending beyond both provinces. He also voiced concern over violence in Jammu and Kashmir, reiterating Pakistan's longstanding position on the disputed territory, which he called the country's jugular vein. Background The convention, organised by the PTI Traders Wing at Nishtar Hall, provided the backdrop for Afridi's remarks. His comments reflect a recurring PTI narrative about institutional overreach and the legacy of the post-2018 political landscape. The chief minister questioned why individuals who had damaged the governance system were later brought back to power, pointing to recent public statements by a federal minister about the system's collapse. Afridi's reference to 78 years of failed governance directly challenges the country's foundational structures. He argued that if military force alone could resolve such challenges, KP would have achieved complete peace after more than two decades of counterterrorism operations. The persistence of instability, he suggested, proves that approach insufficient. Why It Matters The chief minister's remarks carry weight because they come from a sitting provincial leader during a period of heightened insecurity. His claim that KP has been a testing ground for externally shaped policies speaks to deep-seated grievances that resonate beyond his party's base. The assertion that terrorism resurged after the PTI government's removal directly contradicts official narratives about security progress. His linkage of KP's troubles to Balochistan's suggests a broader regional crisis that the federal government may struggle to contain. The economic dimension is equally significant, as Afridi warned that renewed terrorism inflicts severe damage on businesses and economic activities, threatening livelihoods across the province. What's Next Afridi's call for leadership that enjoys public confidence and can steer the country out of its present crisis sets up a direct challenge to the federal government. His statement that force against peaceful protesters cannot provide sustainable solutions hints at potential political flashpoints ahead. The question of whether his warnings about militant regrouping will prove more prescient this time remains open, as does the federal response to a provincial leader publicly questioning institutional boundaries.