PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Thursday reserved orders on pleas of former chief minister Ali Amin Gandapur and provincial minister Amjid Ali, challenging issuances of notices to them by Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to seek clarification regarding certain properties related to them.
A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Mohammad Faheem Wali heard detailed arguments advanced by lawyers appearing for the two petitioners and ECP.
Mr Gandapur has requested the court to declare the impugned notice issued to him by ECP on Nov 20, 2024, as illegal, unconstitutional and against provisions of Elections Act, 2017.
In the impugned notice issued to Mr Gandapur, ECP had asked him to provide clarification within 15 days about a land measuring 735 kanals and 12 marlas, which he had declared sold in his statements of assets and liabilities submitted by him to the commission for the year ending on June 30, 2024.
Commission has sought clarification regarding certain properties related to both the petitioners
Similarly, the provincial minister for housing, Amjid Ali, hailing from Swat, has challenged notice issued to him by ECP and subsequent actions taken by it in connection with his assets including sending of a reference to the speaker of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly for his disqualification.
Senior lawyer Shumail Ahmad Butt appeared for Mr Amjid and stated that the impugned notice was issued to his client by ECP wherein it was claimed that in the 2018 general elections he had declared ownership of 200 kanals of land before the relevant returning officer, but the same property had not been mentioned in the last year polls.
He stated that one of his rival candidates Azizullah Garan had filed an application with ECP against the petitioner regarding the said disputed property. He said that the said disputed property carried a stamp of the year 2017, but the petitioner was not aware about any such property or as to who had submitted documents regarding the same.
He argued that Swat deputy commissioner and tehsildar of Barikot tehsil had also expressed ignorance about the said property and had also recorded their statements with ECP in that regard.
Mr Butt pointed out that earlier the high court had granted interim relief to the petitioner and directed ECP not to take any adverse action against him, but still the commission had sent a reference to the KP Assembly speaker for initiating proceedings for his disqualification.
Justice Arshad Ali observed that normally reference had to be sent by the speaker to ECP for disqualification of a member, but there things happened the other way round.
Mr Butt argued that so far no evidence had been provided that the property in question belonged to the petitioner. He added that the speaker had also returned the reference to the commission pointing out that case couldn’t be made for the disqualification of the petitioner.
Similarly, Advocate Bashir Khan Wazir appeared for Mr Gandapur, stating that his client had submitted statement of his assets and liabilities with the commission. He said that after many months of submission of the said statement, he was asked by ECP to share the ownership documents and sale deed of the land, which the petitioner had shown as sold out.
He stated before elections, the petitioner furnished all details of his assets, which were microscopically scrutinised by the election watchdog through its nominated returning officer.
He argued that ECP had reopened the issue of the statement of assets and liabilities, which was based on mala fide intent and tainted with political malice, and had no legal backing.
ECP counsel Sikander Bashir Mohmand argued that the notice was issued to Mr Gandapur under section 137 (4) of Elections Act, under which if a statement of assets and liabilities was found to be false then the member could be proceeded against for committing corrupt practices.
He stated that the said offence carried sentence of up to three years imprisonment with fine of Rs100,000. He said while the counsel argued on point of disqualification, the said provision didn’t deal with it.
He argued that the petitioner had approached the court prematurely as ECP had yet to start any proceedings for his disqualification.
He said that there was possibility that ECP would have closed the case after hearing the explanation of the petitioner, but he (petitioner) instead of submitting reply there approached the high court and got interim relief of stopping ECP from proceeding further in the matter.
Published in Dawn, November 14th, 2025