PHC withdraws interim relief from 3 PTI lawmakers

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday withdrew the interim relief granted on petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders Omar Ayub, Shibli Faraz and Abdul Latif against their disqualification.

The court ruled that under the Constitution, a fugitive who does not surrender before the court cannot claim civil rights.

The court observed that the petitioners must first surrender before the relevant trial courts where they were convicted, and then follow the prescribed legal procedure to seek restoration of their petitions. It held that in the present circumstances, no relief could be granted to them since they have not appeared before the appellate courts to challenge their convictions. The 31-page judgment was authored by Justice Syed Arshad Ali and announced by a two-member bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Faheem Wali. The verdict had been reserved earlier. During proceedings, Barrister Gohar Khan represented Omar Ayub and Shibli Faraz, while Moazzam Butt appeared for Abdul Latif.

Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman, KP Additional Attorney General Sanaullah, Special Secretary Law Mohammad Arshad, Deputy Director Law of the Election Commission, and Barrister Sajeel Swati (on behalf of the complainant) also appeared. Counsel for the petitioners argued that their clients had been sentenced to 10 years each by the Faisalabad’s Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in connection with the May 9 incidents, but insisted that they were not absconders since they had been appearing before relevant courts.

They cited higher court precedents, maintaining that the petitioners could not be deprived of their fundamental constitutional rights.

Barrister Gohar argued that since the petitioners had already filed appeals and were present before the high court , they could not be treated as absconders to deny them relief.

Abdul Latif’s counsel contended that after his conviction by an ATC in Islamabad, he was denied a fair opportunity in the reference that led to his disqualification, which amounted to injustice not only to him but also to his constituents. On the other hand, complainant’s counsel Barrister Sajeel Swati maintained that the petitioners were absconders under the law as they had neither surrendered before the trial courts nor pursued their appeals there, instead approaching the high court directly. He cited several precedents to argue that until they surrendered, their petitions were non-maintainable. The federal government’s counsel also argued that as convicted persons, the petitioners could not seek relief unless they first appeared before the relevant courts. Officials of the Election Commission of Pakistan told the court that the de-notification of the petitioners was valid and that, once convicted, a member of the National Assembly stood disqualified without requiring a reference from the Speaker. The court noted that extensive arguments had been heard over three days, during which important constitutional questions were raised. It ruled that although the high court is guardian of fundamental rights under Article 199 of the Constitution, it could not grant relief in cases where the petitioners had failed to surrender. The judgment concluded that unless the petitioners surrendered before the trial courts, their petitions could not proceed.

It suspended proceedings indefinitely, while giving them the option to revive their petitions in accordance with the prescribed procedure once they surrendered. The interim relief earlier granted on August 1, 6 and 12, this year, was withdrawn.