• Judge advises KP CM’s counsel to let the commission hear him first • Chief minister accused of violating code of conduct in Haripur by-polls last year • Petitioner’s lawyers say the process initiated by ECP may result in his disqualification PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi challenging proceedings initiated against him by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for allegedly violating the election code of conduct during by-elections in Haripur in November 2025. A bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Muhammad Faheem Wali pronounced a short order dismissing the petition without touching the question of the ECP’s jurisdiction in light of an earlier court order. The detailed judgement will be issued later. With the dismissal of the petition, a stay order earlier granted in favour of Mr Afridi also stands vacated. Following the preliminary hearing of the petition earlier this year, the court had ordered, “In the meanwhile, the respondent-ECP may proceed with the matter; however, it shall not pass any final order adverse to the petitioner (Sohail Afridi) till further orders.” The development assumes significance amid growing tensions between KP and federal governments over the ongoing protest march. A panel of lawyers appeared for the petitioner, including Adnan Ali, Bashir Khan Wazir, Barrister Sarwar Muzaffar Shah and Inam Yousafzai. The ECP was represented by Additional Director General (Law) Khurram Shehzad and Additional Director (Law) Samran Jehangir, while Barrister Sajeel Sheharyar Swati appeared for the complainant against Mr Afridi before the ECP. In November last year, the chief minister and by-election candidate Shehrnaz Omar Ayub, backed by PTI, had challenged notices issued to them by the ECP for allegedly violating the election code of conduct. Mr Afridi had challenged a notice issued to him by the ECP on Nov 20, accusing him of delivering a provocative speech against government functionaries in connection with the by-election in NA-18 Haripur. The ECP contended that the CM’s speech was contrary to the code of conduct issued by the commission for the by-election. Mr Afridi had asked the high court to set aside the impugned notice. However, on Nov 26, the court dismissed both petitions, observing that no adverse order had so far been passed against the petitioners. The bench had observed that it expected the ECP, in the first instance, to determine its jurisdiction in the matter before proceeding further with the inquiry. Mr Afridi again approached the court earlier this year, contending that the ECP had been proceeding against him without first deciding the question of its jurisdiction, contrary to the Elections Act, 2017. ECP counsel Khurram Shehzad argued that the petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as no order had so far been passed against the petitioner. He submitted that the proceedings pending before the commission were independent in nature and separate from those pending before the district monitoring officer (DMO). He argued that the ECP had two types of jurisdiction — one concerning civil wrongs and the other concerning cases of a criminal nature. Under Section 15 of the Elections Act, 2017, he said, the ECP could take cognisance of matters relating to implementation of the code of conduct on its own motion as well as on a complaint filed by an aggrieved person. He contended that an almost identical petition had been dismissed by the court in November last year. Mr Afridi’s counsel, Adnan Ali, stated that the ECP had issued the controversial notice to the chief minister on Nov 20, 2025. “The allegation pertained to remarks made against election staff and influencing the election,” he said. “The speech delivered by the chief minister was outside the jurisdiction of NA-18 Haripur, where the by-election was held on Nov 23, 2025,” the counsel argued. He said that once the DMO had issued a notice to Mr Afridi under Section 234 of the Elections Act, the ECP lacked jurisdiction to issue another notice to him under Section 15 of the Act. He argued that the ECP had clubbed a private complaint filed by a rival candidate with its suo motu proceedings. He contended that the ECP was exercising the powers of the DMO. “Here, both the ECP and the DMO issued notices, and the DMO also submitted a report to the former,” he argued. “Let the Election Commission hear you; present whatever your response is before them,” Justice Arshad Ali remarked. The bench observed, “This is merely an inquiry by the Election Commission, not a formal action. There is no legal bar preventing the Election Commission from conducting an inquiry.” However, Mr Afridi’s lawyers maintained that the ECP had initiated a process under which the petitioner could face disqualification. Published in Dawn, October 8th, 2026