Information Minister Shibli Faraz. SCREENGRAB/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shibli Faraz’s plea to suspend the schedule for the Senate election on his vacant seat, stating that it would not interfere in the electoral process.
Earlier, a special anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Faisalabad had sentenced Faraz and PTI’s Omar Ayub to 10 years in prison each for their alleged role in the May 9, 2023, riots.
Following their conviction, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified Faraz as Senate opposition leader and Ayub as National Assembly opposition leader.
Later, both of them challenged their disqualifications before the Peshawar High Court (PHC), but their appeals were dismissed as “non- maintainable” since they had not surrendered before the court. They then approached the apex court to contest the ECP’s decision.
On Wednesday, a five-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the petition.
During the proceedings, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan argued that the election on Faraz’s seat was scheduled for Thursday (today), requesting the court to suspend the polls schedule until the matter of his disqualification was decided.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi questioned Gohar why was he seeking a stay order when he had already nominated a candidate for the Senate election.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that nominating a candidate was a compulsion, while Justice Rizvi further observed that Barrister Gohar himself was the party chairman and therefore should not be seeking such an order after fielding a candidate. “How many seats are up for election tomorrow?” the judge asked. Gohar replied, “only one”.
The PTI counsel further said that they were “disgraced and removed from two constitutional offices,” and requested the court to issue a stay order on the election schedule and stop the poll.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman informed the court that the speaker of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, who was a party in the PHC case, had not been made a respondent in the Supreme Court proceedings. He added that under the law, surrendering before authorities was a prerequisite for seeking relief.
Justice MuhammadAli Mazhar questioned whether the PHC had ruled on the maintainability of the case, to which Barrister Gohar responded that the court had not yet dismissed it.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the court could not take any action in this case at this stage.
