PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Thursday put off hearing to Sept 24 in multiple petitions challenging the disqualification of leaders of opposition in National Assembly and Senate and another lawmaker by Election Commission of Pakistan after their convictions by anti-terrorism courts.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Mohammad Faheem Wali heard arguments of all the parties over maintainability of the petitions filed by de-notified opposition leaders in National Assembly and Senate, Omar Ayub Khan and Shibli Faraz, respectively, and MNA from Chitral, Abdul Lateef.

The bench observed that on next date it would hear merits of those cases.

Through separate petitions, Mr Ayub and Mr Faraz, had first challenged their disqualification and de-notification as MNA and a senator, respectively, by the commission on Aug 5, following their convictions by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Faisalabad on July 31.

PHC bench to hear merits of cases on 24th

However, on Aug 7 and Aug 8 notifications were issued by NA and Senate secretariats, declaring their respective offices of leader of the opposition vacant. Both of them had then filed fresh petitions also challenging the said two notifications of Aug 7 and 8, respectively.

Similarly, Mr Lateef has challenged the notification of his disqualification by ECP of July 29 based on his conviction by an ATC in Islamabad on May 30.

Barrister Gohar Ali appeared for Mr Ayub and Mr Faraz, whereas Muazzam Butt represented Mr Lateef. The additional attorney general, Sanaullah, appeared for the federal government. Several officials of ECP also turned up in the case.

Barrister Gohar stated that May 9, 2023, had fallen like a cloudburst on Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf. He said that it was a sorrowful day and it should not have happened.

He said that on pretext of May 9 happenings, a crackdown was launched on PTI, which continued till date. He argued that Mr Ayub and Mr Faraz were leaders of opposition in their respective houses and their convictions were based on malafide. He added that 108 other persons were also convicted by ATCs in those cases.

He argued that without any reference from the speaker of NA or chairman of Senate, ECP disqualified them despite the fact that they were holding constitutional posts.

Barrister Gohar contended that disqualification was not mandatory upon every conviction.

When the bench inquired whether it could hear plea against the speaker as his office was in Islamabad, Barrister Gohar contended that the court could hear cases against National Assembly. “The opposition leader is for the entire country, not just Islamabad. Therefore, these writ petitions should be declared maintainable,” he argued.

AAG Sanaullah informed the court that ATC convicted and sentenced those petitioners following which they were disqualified, therefore, those petitions were not maintainable. He argued that the petitioners must first surrender before the relevant court, as PHC was not that court because the sentences were passed in Faisalabad.

Justice Faheem Wali wondered whether ECP could take direct action under Article 63 as under the Constitution NA speaker or chairman of Senate would look into it and then send a reference.

Justice Arshad also observed that the petitioners were not saying that they should be sent to the assembly; they were saying that it should be sent to the Election Commission and they should be provided opportunity to be heard.

Mr Muazzam Butt also stated that his client Abdul Lateef had been sentenced in absentia by ATC and on that basis he was disqualified. He added that an appeal was filed by him against his conviction in the Islamabad High Court.

He also dispelled the impression that Mr Lateef was an absconder, stating that he was a public representative so he couldn’t abscond.

Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2025