PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on multiple petitions, challenging the disqualification of leaders of opposition in National Assembly and Senate and another lawmaker by Election Commission of Pakistan after their conviction by anti-terrorism courts.

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

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

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

PTI leaders were de-seated by ECP after conviction by anti-terrorism courts

Similarly, Mr Lateef has challenged the notification of his disqualification by ECP on 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 Mohammad Muazzam Butt represented Mr Lateef.

Additional attorneys general Aamir Rehman and Sanaullah appeared for federal government, whereas ECP special secretary law Mohammad Arshid appeared along with several other officials. Advocate Sajeel Sheharyar Swati, representing a complainant against Mr Lateef, also appeared.

Barrister Gohar informed the bench that his clients were opposition leaders in National Assembly and Senate, respectively, who were sentenced by an ATC in Faisalabad.

He said that they were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment each on July 31 and without any reference sent by speaker of NA or chairman of Senate, ECP disqualified them based on that very sentence.

He said that ECP had no suo moto powers to disqualify a parliamentarian. He also pointed out that it must be determined whether the sentences of the petitioners amounted to moral turpitude or not, which could be a ground for disqualification.

The bench inquired whether the petitioners would go to assembly if the court accepted their petitions. Barrister Gohar replied that they would go to the speaker and he would examine their case.

The additional attorneys general argued when an accused was convicted, he must surrender before filing an appeal. The petitioners, they said, obtained protective bails from that court but still did not appear before the relevant court.

Justice Ali inquired whether ECP had independent power to disqualify a member of parliament. The bench observed that the Constitution provided that if the speaker sent a reference, ECP would examine it and if the speaker didn’t send a reference within 30 days, the reference automatically goes to the commission, which would then examine it.

ECP special secretary stated when a member of parliament was sentenced by a court, ECP didn’t need to issue a separate decision.

The bench observed that the notification was issued by a deputy director, who couldn’t be equated with the commission. It inquired on whose direction the impugned notification was issued.

The official said that he issued the notification on the recommendation of ECP members. He added that the deputy director couldn’t act on his own.

Muazzam Butt argued that neither the speaker of National Assembly nor ECP provided the petitioner an opportunity to his client Abdul Lateef to be heard but disqualified him.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2025