The two-member bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Kamran Hayat Mianakhel heard Ayub’s case. His counsel argued that the ECP had initiated an inquiry into his client’s assets even though complete records had already been submitted. He maintained that the inquiry related to matters before the general elections, and therefore, the commission lacked jurisdiction to pursue the matter after polls. Calling the proceedings “unconstitutional and illegal,” the lawyer argued that the ECP could not continue hearings beyond its constitutional timeframe.
The Additional Director General (Law) of the ECP informed the bench that Ayub had earlier filed a petition before the Abbottabad Bench, which he later withdrew. He clarified that no disciplinary action was being taken against the petitioner and that the case had already been heard by a five-member bench of the commission. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he stated that there was no limitation period in criminal proceedings.
Ayub’s counsel countered that the ECP lost authority to pursue such matters after 128 days. After hearing the arguments, the bench adjourned the case and directed that it be clubbed with other similar pending petitions.
Talking to reporters outside the court, Omar Ayub criticized the ECP’s actions as “illegal and politically motivated.” He said the commission had “suddenly remembered” his assets after 120 days, adding: “I speak the bitter truth, and for that reason they are trying to disqualify me in fabricated cases. This is nothing but political victimization.”
He alleged that the government was unfairly targeting him, saying that transfers of money to his wife and daughter’s accounts were being misrepresented. Referring to the May 9 cases, he claimed he was sentenced on political grounds: “The Sargodha Anti-Terrorism Court acquitted us, yet on the same testimony, a Faisalabad court handed me a 10-year sentence, even though we were not nominated in the case.”