Hearing in assets case of CM Gandapur adjourned

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday adjourned hearing in a petition filed against the Election Commission Pakistan (ECP)’s notice in the assets case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and asked the petitioner’s lawyer to prepare for the case by December 17.

A two-member bench of the PHC comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Syed Arshad Ali heard the petition.The petitioner’s lawyer Malik Akhtar Hussain informed the court that he had just obtained the power of attorney and wanted time to prepare for the case.

The ECP’s lawyer Sikandar Bashir Mohmand told the court that the PHC had issued a stay order on a notice of ECP since April 30, even though the notice was only regarding information. He explained that they had only asked CM Gandapur to join them for a cup of tea and answer a few questions about his assets, yet he approached the PHC against this.

He said the case has been going on for the past eight months. He also pleaded that he wished to present certain facts, specifically, the land in question was in the Gomal Zam Dam area, where land purchase was not allowed under the law.

He said 735 kanals of land was declared in 2017, but later it was claimed that the land was sold without any record. He also alleged that CM Gandapur purchased land through a person named Asif, which was illegal under the Gomal Zam Dam Ordinance. He argued such facts needed to be presented to the court and that the ECP notice was issued due to misinformation. As the petitioner wants to submit a response in this case, the court granted time and adjourned the hearing until December 17.

Case disposed of: Similarly, the PHC disposed of another petition filed by Maulana Naseem Hassan Shah, elected from NA-39 Bannu. Petitioner’s lawyer Bashir Wazir argued that complaints were filed in the Election Commission by Asghar Ali, Malik Ehsan and others.

He pleaded that they had alleged that Shah was a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology and received benefits from there, which violated Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.The lawyer argued that Section 231 of the Election Act clarified that such benefits did not fall under government employment and did not lead to disqualification.The court dismissed the petition as election tribunals had been formed and the case was going on there.