ISLAMABAD: A hearing at the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Monday turned tense as lawyers for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi challenged the commission’s jurisdiction in a case linked to alleged intimidation of election staff during the Haripur by-election.
The ECP initiated proceedings after Afridi was accused of issuing threatening remarks at a public rally in Abbottabad, allegedly warning officials of consequences if any misconduct occurred on polling day. The Commission said such comments endangered the “safety of polling staff, police and voters,” and could violate the code of conduct that bars public officeholders from influencing electoral processes.
The session opened with complaints from Afridi’s counsel Ali Bukhari and the KP Advocate General, who said lawyers were mistreated at the ECP entrance. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja apologised and promised action, saying the security checks were introduced for safety reasons. In an informal exchange, the CEC joked with lawyer Naeem Panjhutha that someone from his own household had voted for him—an assertion Panjhutha acknowledged.
ECP’s Special Secretary said Article 218(3) clearly empowers the Commission to act and indicated that proceedings against the KP chief minister would continue in accordance with the law. Courts have previously held that while Article 218(3) grants the ECP broad authority to ensure free and fair elections, its actions must still rest on statutory foundations — a precedent repeatedly cited in recent jurisdictional challenges.
Bukhari told the Commission that lawyers were being “stopped and humiliated” at the entrance and insisted the ECP lacked jurisdiction, saying a District Monitoring Officer (DMO) had already issued notices in the same matter. He questioned whether the case could proceed simultaneously before two forums, noting he had been summoned by the DMO even before being called by the ECP, and had again been asked to appear on the 27th.
Afridi has already moved the Peshawar High Court, arguing that the ECP notice was “malicious” and issued without the mandatory DMO report — a central point in Bukhari’s challenge.
Bukhari further argued that the petition filed by Babar Nawaz, the by-election candidate, should be heard together with their own, warning that pursuing the case over a political rally would “open a new Pandora’s box.” He questioned whether the ECP would also summon the prime minister or the Punjab chief minister for similar actions, pointing to the latter’s announcement of a Rs2.5 billion development package in Hassan Abdal, which he said also violated the code of conduct but attracted no notice.
The case has already triggered political backlash. PML-N leaders accused Afridi of threatening polling staff, with Punjab Information Minister Uzma Bukhari calling him “a habitual liar” and citing his alleged warning that officers “would not see tomorrow’s sun.”
Responding, the CEC said action would be taken “without discrimination,” adding that if the prime minister had made such remarks before an election, he too would have been issued a notice. The Commission noted that ministers and candidates from various constituencies had in fact been summoned over similar violations.
Representing Babar Nawaz, counsel Sajeel Swati argued that the KP chief minister had “clearly threatened” election staff and said the ECP’s authority did not end simply because a monitoring officer had imposed a fine.
Bukhari urged the Commission to first determine whether the case was maintainable. The ECP directed Afridi’s legal team to submit a written reply at the next hearing, exempted the chief minister from personal appearance, and adjourned the proceedings until December 4. Afridi’s lawyer later filed a formal objection challenging the ECP’s jurisdiction, after which the Commission reserved its decision on his application.
Senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja said Afridi had complied with legal requirements by appearing before the ECP and noted that a White Paper on the Haripur by-election would be released soon.
Bukhari reiterated that all parties should be treated equally, insisting that the chief minister had not issued threats, but merely admonished officials. A detailed written reply would be submitted soon, he said. Afridi’s legal team also argued that a similar petition was already pending before the KP chapter of the ECP, and that identical cases could not proceed simultaneously in two different forums.
The dispute stems from complaints filed by Babar Nawaz, who accused Afridi of using his office to pressure election officials. His petition asserts that the ECP must act against any public officeholder attempting to influence an electoral contest — a stance bolstered by the Commission’s earlier directive asking its KP chapter and the provincial police chief to assess Afridi’s remarks.
