ISLAMABAD: Former Opposition Leader in the National Assembly and PTI bigwig Omar Ayub Khan challenged the Peshawar High Court (PHC) order wherein he and other accused convicted in the 9th May related cases were directed to surrender before the competent court.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Omer Ayub on Saturday filed a civil petition before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against an order of the Division Bench of the PHC.
Omar, along with other parliamentarians of the PTI, including Senator Shibli Faraz, was disqualified by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on 05 August 2025 on the basis of his conviction by an Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, in the 9th May incidents. He assailed the ECP order before the Peshawar High Court, which, through an order dated 06 August 2025, restrained the ECP from taking any adverse action against the petitioner.
Even though the petition was pending before the PHC, the Speaker National Assembly, without hearing the petitioner, de-notified him as Leader of the Opposition and member of the National Assembly on 07 August 2025.
Omar also assailed the NA Speaker’s order before PHC, which on 12-08-2025 restrained the respondents from undertaking any further process pursuant to that notification.
The single judges’ orders were challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of the PHC, which, on 1st Oct, 2025, ordered Omar and other petitioners “to first surrender before the competent court (ATC). Upon doing so, they may move an appropriate application for the resurrection/revival of their petitions.” The PHC DB declared, “The petitions raise issues concerning the enforcement of the petitioners’ fundamental rights and therefore the same ought not to be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. It, however, directed that the interim relief granted to the petitioners vide orders dated 01-08-25, 06 August 2025, and 12 August 2025 stands vacated.”
Omar Ayub, who has filed the petition through Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as it has denied remedy to him against the violation of his fundamental rights.
He submitted that the PHC DB misapplied the law and misread material documents that had caused a miscarriage of justice to him. He stated that the issue of fugitive from justice has been unduly emphasized and applied to refuse the relief to the petitioner, while he was present before the Court and had filed an affidavit with the petition, and was appearing before the High Court. In such cases, the petitioner ought not to be considered as ‘fugitive from justice’.
Omar contended that the impugned order is too presumptive to be sustainable. The High Court has observed on presumption that “even if relief is granted, the petitioner may not be able to appear before the ECP” and “even if relief is granted, the petitioner cannot return to perform his constitutional duties.”
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.