KP CM Sohail Afridi's non-bailable arrest warrant issued in cybercrime case

Karachi (Web Desk): An Islamabad district and sessions court on Wednesday issued a non-bailable arrest warrant for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Chief Minister Sohail Afridi after he repeatedly failed to appear in a case over allegedly misleading statements targeting state institutions.

Senior Civil Judge Abbas Shah issued the warrant after the KP CM skipped the hearing despite being formally summoned, directing authorities to arrest him and bring him before the court.

The proceedings in the matter have been postponed until February 10.

The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) had registered a case against Afridi under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), claiming that his remarks had damaged the reputation of state institutions.

In addition to the cybercrime case, the chief minister is facing proceedings in an anti-terrorism court over his alleged role in the November 26 protest in Islamabad.

He is also under scrutiny by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for allegedly violating the code of conduct during a recent National Assembly by-election in KP.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) had barred the ECP from taking any action or issuing a final order against Afridi regarding a notice related to alleged threats made to government officials during the Haripur by-election.

A two-member bench, comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Faheem Wali, heard a writ petition filed by the chief minister

Afridi’s lawyer, Bashir Khan Wazir, argued that the notice issued by the ECP was based on a speech delivered by Afridi during a public gathering, accusing him of threatening officials.

The counsel explained that the speech had been made outside the constituency where the by-election was held and that Afridi was traveling across the province to announce development projects.

Despite this, the ECP initiated proceedings against him. During the hearing, Justice Arshad Ali asked whether the ECP’s decision had been received, to which the lawyer replied that it had just been received and was included in a supplementary application.

The court summoned the record of the ECP’s ruling and briefly adjourned the hearing.