The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday issued bailable arrest warrants for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders Imran Khan, Asad Umar, and Chaudhry Fawad Hussain in a contempt case that has been pending since August.
During proceedings, a four-member bench of the ECP led by Nisar Durrani rejected the PTI leaders’ plea to seek an exemption from appearing before it. It then issued arrest warrants for them against surety bonds of Rs. 50,000 each, before adjourning the hearing until Jan. 17.
In the previous hearing, the ECP had granted the PTI leaders one last chance to appear before it to explain their position, warning that a continued absence would result in the issuance of arrest warrants.
The ECP issued contempt notices to several PTI leaders in August and September 2022, including Khan; Umar; Fawad; Mian Shabbir Ismail; and Danial Khalid Khokhar for allegedly using “intemperate” language against Chief Election Commissioner Sikander Sultan Raja and the electoral body. These came after several public rallies and addresses in which the PTI members abused the ECP and the CEC, accusing them of bias against their party.
PTI to challenge ruling
Shortly after the arrest warrants were issued, Fawad announced on Twitter that he would challenge the decision in high court and file a contempt plea against the ECP. “[The] ECP’s decision to issue arrest warrants is contempt of high court’s decision,” he claimed, adding that the case was scheduled for Jan. 17 and announcing of any verdict prior to that was in violation of the rules.
Similarly, Umar accused the ECP of “contempt of court” for delaying local government elections in Islamabad.
Last year, in response to the ECP’s notices for a personal appearance, the PTI leaders had challenged the electoral watchdog’s authority to initiate contempt proceedings in various high courts, claiming that it was against the Constitution. The ECP had subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court requesting all six PTI petitions to be placed before one high court. In its ruling, the top court had allowed the ECP to continue contempt proceedings and accepted the ECP’s plea that it would be satisfied if the high courts were directed to decide the pending petitions at the earliest.