The removal of Sardar Abdur Rehman Khetran from the Balochistan cabinet should not be described as accountability. At most, it is an administrative and political decision. The move raises a much larger and more uncomfortable question: How did a politician facing serious criminal allegations not only qualify to contest an election but also make his way into the provincial cabinet?
Khetran, a member of the Balochistan Assembly affiliated with the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), was removed by Chief Minister Mir Sarfraz Bugti from the portfolio of Public Health Engineering under Article 132(3) of the Constitution. But the political story should not end with a cabinet notification.
Khetran’s political career has repeatedly been surrounded by serious allegations, including accusations related to the murder of three people in Barkhan, unlawful detention in a private torture facility, abuse of authority, corruption, and allegations of facilitating or financially supporting militant organisations such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) through public resources. These are grave allegations, and each must be established or rejected through competent legal institutions rather than political declarations.
In 2023, the bodies of three people in Barkhan—a woman and two young men—were recovered from an abandoned well. Their bodies had reportedly been badly disfigured, triggering widespread public outrage across Pakistan. Khetran was arrested in connection with the widely publicised Barkhan murder case and was subsequently granted bail by a judicial magistrate.
Bail, however, is neither a declaration of innocence nor a conviction. It is a legal mechanism through which an accused person may remain free while proceedings continue. That distinction is important because democratic societies cannot replace due process with political judgment. At the same time, political influence must never be allowed to obstruct, delay or weaken the judicial process.
Court proceedings reportedly show that Khetran failed to appear before the court on two occasions in connection with the murder case. That matter deserves particular scrutiny. An elected legislator cannot be permitted to treat attendance before a court as an optional obligation. If an accused person repeatedly fails to appear without lawful justification, courts have legal mechanisms to ensure attendance. Political status cannot become a shield against judicial authority.
The central question, therefore, is not simply whether Khetran should have remained a minister. The deeper question is whether Pakistan’s political system has developed a dangerous habit of treating electoral victory as a certificate of character.
Winning an election does not erase criminal allegations or pending cases. Membership in a provincial assembly does not provide immunity from investigation. Likewise, removal from a cabinet position is not a criminal punishment, nor does losing a ministry automatically restore public confidence.
If credible evidence exists against an individual, the appropriate course is investigation, prosecution where warranted, and judicial proceedings. If the evidence is insufficient, the accused should be acquitted. If guilt is established, the law should take its course and any resulting disqualification should be enforced.
Pakistan’s constitutional framework contains provisions concerning the eligibility and disqualification of legislators. Articles 62 and 63, together with Articles 113 and 127, extend relevant constitutional standards to provincial assemblies. Certain disqualifications can arise from convictions or other legally established circumstances.
Therefore, any demand for Khetran’s disqualification must remain within the boundaries of law. If a competent court establishes that he committed an offense carrying disqualification under constitutional or electoral law, he should lose his assembly seat in accordance with the law. But if a court clears him, that decision must also be respected.
Democracy cannot function on the principle that an accusation is equivalent to guilt. But neither can democracy remain credible when influential politicians use public office to evade legal or judicial scrutiny. This is precisely why the more troubling question is how Khetran reached the cabinet in the first place.
In the 2024 Balochistan Assembly elections, Khetran won from PB-4, Musa Khel-cum-Barkhan, securing 24,172 votes. In April 2024, he was included in the 14-member provincial cabinet formed under Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti, representing the PML-N. That decision raises the question of political parties’ moral responsibility.
Democracy requires more than elected governments. It requires political parties capable of establishing ethical and legal standards before awarding tickets and government positions. If a prospective candidate has a controversial record, faces serious criminal allegations, or has been associated with well-documented public controversies, political parties should conduct thorough due diligence before giving that person an electoral ticket or a ministerial position.
The obvious question is: What standards were applied before Khetran was awarded the party ticket and subsequently inducted into the Balochistan cabinet? What background checks were conducted? What information was available to party leaders at the time?
The provincial government faces an equally important question. Before entrusting a politician with a department connected to development projects and public resources, what level of scrutiny was carried out?
For Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti and the provincial political leadership, this question cannot simply be dismissed as an internal cabinet matter. Government departments administer public money. Ministers exercise political authority. With that authority comes a heightened obligation to maintain public confidence.
The allegations concerning Khetran’s alleged facilitation or financial support for organisations such as the BLA and BLF are particularly serious. Any allegation involving assistance to militant organisations should be investigated by competent law-enforcement agencies and adjudicated through the judicial system. Political silence, political bargaining or cabinet reshuffling cannot substitute for a lawful investigation.
The same principle applies to allegations of corruption and misuse of development funds.
Money allocated for development projects is not a politician’s personal resource. It is public money held in trust for citizens. If evidence establishes that state resources were diverted toward criminal networks, militant organisations or private interests, the matter goes beyond ordinary political corruption. It becomes a question of criminal accountability, state security and public trust.
Balochistan cannot afford a system in which development funds, political influence and tribal power become intertwined. The province already faces poverty, insecurity, weak institutions and a serious crisis of public confidence. Under such circumstances, every allegation involving the misuse of public resources carries consequences far beyond the political fortunes of one individual.
That is why the Khetran case should not be treated merely as the controversy surrounding one politician. It should become a test of Pakistan’s political and legal institutions.
The state cannot preach the rule of law to ordinary citizens while applying a different standard to politically influential individuals.
If Khetran has committed no crime, he deserves the full protection of the law and should be given every legitimate opportunity to clear his name through due process. If the evidence establishes criminal responsibility, he should face the consequences without political interference. And if a conviction results in constitutional disqualification, his assembly membership should be terminated in accordance with the law.
That is the only credible path. Balochistan does not need selective accountability, nor does it need political revenge. It needs a system of law that applies equally to the powerful and the powerless. If Khetran cases end with nothing more than a cabinet reshuffle, it will reinforce the public perception that political office has become a refuge from accountability. But if the allegations are investigated transparently, independently and according to law, the case could instead become an important demonstration that an electoral mandate is not a license to stand above the law.
It is a responsibility. And that is where the real Khetran test begins.