KP CM’s lawyer challenges ECP’s jurisdiction to hear case filed by Haripur election candidate
Election Commission of Pakistan building in Islamabad. Photo: Radio Pakistan
ISLAMABAD:
A hearing at the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Monday gave rise to heated exchanges as lawyers representing Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi challenged the commission’s jurisdiction in a case alleging intimidation of poll workers during the Haripur by-election.
The ECP had initiated proceedings after Sohail Afridi was accused of making threatening remarks at a public rally in Abbottabad, where he allegedly warned officials of consequences for misbehavior on election day. The Commission said such statements endangered “the safety of election officials, police and voters” and potentially violated the code of conduct prohibiting public office holders from influencing elections.
The proceedings opened with complaints from lawyer Ali Bukhari and the KP attorney general, who said the lawyers had been mistreated at the ECP. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja apologized, assuring that action would be taken against the responsible officers.
Read: ECP takes note of KP CM’s remarks
He explained that the stops at the gate were due to security requirements. In an informal exchange, the CEC told lawyer Naeem Panjhutha that he had even received a vote from the CEC’s own household, to which Panjhutha replied that he was aware of it.
The ECP special secretary maintained that Article 218(3) clearly defines the powers of the commission and said the action against the KP chief minister would be done in accordance with law.
The Peshawar High Court has already ruled that while Article 218(3) gives the ECP broad power to ensure fair elections, its actions must still be based on statutory powers. This precedent has been cited in recent challenges involving the jurisdiction of the ECP.
“Lawyers were arrested and humiliated at the entrance and added that he himself had also been arrested,” Ali Bukhari said. He reiterated that the ECP did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, saying a notice had already been issued by the District Monitoring Officer (DMO) of the constituency.
He questioned whether the matter could be brought before two forums simultaneously, pointing out that he was summoned by the DMO before being summoned by the ECP and was summoned again to present a response on the 27th.
Learn more: KP CM challenges ECP code of conduct notice in SSPs
Afridi has already approached the Peshawar High Court, calling the ECP notice “malicious” and arguing that it was issued without a mandatory report from the district surveillance officer, a key part of his challenge that mirrors Bukhari’s argument at the hearing.
Bukhari insisted that the petition filed by Babar Nawaz must be heard along with his own and warned that summoning their camp to a political rally in Abbottabad would “open a new can of worms”.
He also questioned whether the ECP would summon the Prime Minister and the Punjab Chief Minister for similar actions, noting that the Punjab Chief Minister had announced development projects worth Rs 2.5 billion to Hassan Abdal. He argued that violations of the code of conduct had occurred elsewhere without any summons having been issued.
The controversy has already sparked a political backlash, with PML-N leaders accusing Afridi of making threats against election officials. Punjab Information Minister Uzma Bukhari publicly criticized him, calling him a “habitual liar” and referring to his alleged warning that officers would “not see the sun tomorrow.”
The chairman of the Electoral Commission responded by saying that action would be taken “without discrimination” and clarified that if the Prime Minister had made such a speech before the elections, he too would have received notice. Ministers and candidates from other constituencies have indeed been summoned for violations of the code of conduct, he added.
Babar Nawaz’s lawyer Sajeel Swati argued that the KP chief minister had clearly threatened the election staff and pointed out that the ECP’s authority had not ceased just because a monitoring officer had imposed a fine.
Bukhari urged the commission to first decide on the maintainability of the matter. The ECP directed the KP chief minister’s counsel to submit a written reply in the next hearing and said an appropriate order on maintainability would be issued. The commission granted Sohail Afridi exemption from appearing at the next hearing and adjourned the proceedings until December 4.
Later, Afridi’s lawyer formally challenged the jurisdiction of the ECP, raising objections to the continuance of the petitions. The commission reserved its decision on Afridi’s request.
Salman Akram Raja said Sohail Afridi appeared before the ECP and complied with the law. A white paper on the Haripur elections will be released soon and will continue to examine the “spirit of the law”, he added.
Also read: PML-N’s Azma refutes KP CM’s claims
“Bukhari had submitted objections to the commission and maintained that all parties should be treated equally.” He added that the KP chief minister did not threaten anyone, saying he had the right to reprimand the officers. He said a detailed response would be submitted to the ECP.
The legal team said a similar petition was already pending before the KP ECP and argued that identical cases could not be heard in two separate places. They claimed that there was no interference in the election process and the chief minister would not need to contest again.
Bukhari said they based their arguments on two points, including that the matter was dealt with under Section 218, and added that they would appear before the returning officer in Haripur as the matter was already heard there. He also said that they had submitted details regarding the Punjab Chief Minister’s husband in support of their stand.
The case followed complaints by Babar Nawaz, the by-election candidate, who accused Afridi of using his position to intimidate the administration. His petition argues that the ECP must act against any public office holder attempting to influence an electoral contest, an argument reinforced by the Commission’s earlier directive to its provincial branch and the KP police chief to look into Afridi’s remarks.
