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 saw 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 comments during a public rally in Abbottabad, where he allegedly warned officials of consequences if misconduct occurred on election day. The Commission said such statements risked the “safety of election staff, police and voters” and potentially violated the code of conduct that prohibits public officials from influencing elections.
The proceedings began with complaints from lawyer Ali Bukhari and Advocate General KP, who said that lawyers had been mistreated in the ECP. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja apologized and assured that action will be taken against the responsible officials.
Read: ECP takes note of KP CM’s statements
He said the stoppages at the door were due to security requirements. In an informal exchange, the CEC told lawyer Naeem Panjhutha that it had even received a vote from the CEC’s own house, to which Panjhutha replied that he was aware.
The ECP Special Secretary maintained that Article 218(3) clearly outlines the powers of the commission and said the action against the KP chief minister would proceed in accordance with the law.
The Peshawar High Court has previously held that while Article 218(3) gives the ECP broad authority to ensure fair elections, its actions must still be based on statutory powers. This precedent has been cited in recent challenges relating to the jurisdiction of the ECP.
“The lawyers were detained and humiliated at the entrance and added that he had also been detained,” Ali Bukhari said. He reiterated that the ECP lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and said that the District Monitoring Officer (DMO) in the constituency had already issued a notice.
He questioned whether the case could be filed before two forums simultaneously, pointing out that he had been summoned by the DMO before being summoned by the ECP and had been called again to file a reply on the 27th.
Read more: KP CM challenges ECP code of conduct notice in APS
Afridi has already filed a suit in the Peshawar High Court, calling the ECP notification “malicious” and arguing that it was issued without a mandatory report from the District Monitoring Officer, a central part of his challenge that mirrors Bukhari’s argument in the hearing.
Bukhari insisted that Babar Nawaz’s petition should be heard along with his own and warned that calling his side to a political rally in Abbottabad would “open a new Pandora’s box”.
He also questioned whether the ECP would summon the chief minister and Punjab chief minister for similar actions, pointing out that the Punjab chief minister had announced development projects worth Rs 2,500 crore in Hassan Abdal. He argued that violations of the code of conduct had occurred elsewhere without any citations being issued.
The controversy has already sparked a political backlash, with PML-N leaders accusing Afridi of threatening 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 given such a speech before the election, he too would have been sent a notification. In fact, ministers and candidates from other constituencies were cited for violations of the code of conduct, he added.
Babar Nawaz’s lawyer Sajeel Swati argued that the KP chief minister had clearly threatened election staff and emphasized that the ECP’s authority did not cease simply because a monitoring officer had imposed a fine.
Bukhari pressured the commission to first decide on the maintainability of the case. The ECP directed the KP chief minister’s lawyer to submit a written reply at 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 questioned the ECP’s jurisdiction, raising objections to the maintainability of the petitions. The commission reserved its decision on Afridi’s request.
Salman Akram Raja said that Sohail Afridi appeared before the ECP and complied with the law. A White Paper on the Haripur elections will be published soon and they will continue to examine the “spirit of the law”, he added.
Also Read: PML-N’s Azma rejects KP CM’s claims
“Bukhari raised objections before the commission and maintained that all parties should be treated equally.” He added that the KP chief minister had not threatened anyone and said it was his right to reprimand officials. He said a detailed response would be submitted to the ECP.
The legal team said a similar petition was already pending before the ECP in KP and argued that identical cases could not proceed in two separate places. They maintained that there was no interference in the electoral process and that the prime minister would not need to appear again.
Bukhari said they had based their arguments on two points, including that the matter had been dealt with under Article 218, adding that they would appear before the returning officer in Haripur as the case was already being heard there. He also said that they had submitted details about the Punjab chief minister’s husband in support of their position.
The case arises from complaints filed by Babar Nawaz, the by-election candidate, who accused Afridi of using his position to intimidate the administration. Their petition argues that the ECP must act against any public official who attempts to influence an electoral contest, an argument reinforced by the Commission’s earlier directive to its provincial chapter and the KP police chief to review Afridi’s comments.
