A district court and Islamabad sessions published a arrest warrant against Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur in the long-standing alcohol and weapon resumption of arms, after he was not appeared before the court on Wednesday.
The court ordered that the CM Gandapur be arrested and presented on September 17. A case against him was recorded at the Bara Kahu police station.
Judge Magistrate Mubashhir Hassan Chishti had issued arrest warrants against CM Gandapur after rejecting his request requesting a personal appearance.
Gandapur lawyer Raja Zahor-Ul-Hassan, asked the court to suspend the mandates, citing the embarrassment of the public caused by media coverage.
The court rejected the plea, declaring: “You produce the accused and I will cancel the mandates.” The judge added that a junior lawyer could have asked for a new hearing date, which would have been planned.
Read: The court rejects the request of KP CM
During previous hearings, the court noted that it had given KP CM Ali Amin Gandapur ample and warned that a verdict could be issued in its absence if it had not appeared. “No other distribution will be granted if the declaration is not recorded by July 21,” said the magistrate in a written order.
Gandapur missed the July hearing, which prompted the court to issue arrest warrants and ask him to record his declaration in person or by video link at the next hearing.
The case dates back to October 2016, when Islamabad police said they had recovered five Kalashnikov assault rifles, a pistol, six magazines, a bulletproof vest, alcohol and three tear gas buses from a vehicle belonging to Pakistan Tehreek-I-Isf Leader near Bani Gala.
Gandapur has always denied allegations, declaring that he was traveling with two approved Kalashnikov rifles and that a valid weapon license was present in the vehicle. He also said that the bottle containing alcohol actually contained honey.
The case has remained pending for almost nine years, largely due to the repeated absence of Gandapur to the court. His lawyers have repeatedly asked that the defender General recorded a declaration on his behalf, but these requests have been systematically rejected under article 342.
