The lawyer questioned why similar actions by other officials had not led to notices
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi. SCREEN GRAB
ISLAMABAD:
An Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) hearing on Tuesday saw heated exchanges as lawyers representing Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Chief Minister Sohail Afridi challenged the commission’s jurisdiction in a case accusing him of intimidating poll workers during the Haripur by-election.
A five-member bench headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja heard petitions alleging that Afridi had violated electoral conduct, and his lawyer insisted that the commission must first decide whether it had the authority to proceed.
Afridi’s lawyer, Ali Bukhari, argued that the ECP could not hear the case because the District Monitoring Officer (DMO) had already issued a notice in the constituency, creating what he said was an overlap of jurisdiction.
Sajeel Swati, counsel for petitioner Babar Nawaz, however, countered that Afridi had “clearly threatened the polling staff” and said the allegations required investigation at the commission level. He urged the bench to continue hearing the matter and described Afridi’s conduct as a direct attempt to interfere in the election process.
The proceedings stem from allegations that Afridi made threatening remarks during a public meeting in Abbottabad, where he allegedly warned officials of the consequences if wrongdoing occurred on election day.
The ECP has previously maintained that such statements risked the safety of polling staff, police and voters and potentially breached the code of conduct that prevents public officials from influencing elections.
The ECP’s Special Secretary emphasized that Article 218, para. 3, clearly outlines the constitutional powers of the commission, adding that any action against the KP Chief Minister would be taken strictly in accordance with the law.
Bukhari questioned why similar actions by other officials had not led to announcements, pointing out that the Punjab Chief Minister had recently announced major development projects in Hasan Abdal in the pre-poll period.
The CEC responded that the commission would act “without discrimination” and said that even the Prime Minister would have received a notice if he had made a similar address before the vote. The bench directed Bukhari to file a written reply at the next hearing, said an order for maintenance would follow, exempted Afridi from personal appearance and adjourned the matter to December 4. At the beginning of the hearing, Bukhari and the KP Advocate General complained that lawyers were being mistreated in the ECP, prompting the responsible office to take action.
The case stems from complaints filed by by-election candidate Babar Nawaz, who accuses Afridi of using his position to pressure the administration. His petition claims that the ECP is required to act against any public official who tries to influence an election campaign.
