A District and Sessions Court in Islamabad on Wednesday issued an arrest warrant for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur in the long-pending liquor and arms recovery case, after he failed to appear in court.
The court directed that CM Gandapur be arrested and presented on September 17. A case against him has been registered at Bara Kahu Police Station.
Judge Magistrate Mubashir Hassan Chishti had issued arrest warrants for CM Gandapur after dismissing his application seeking exemption from personal appearance.
Gandapur’s lawyer, Raja Zahoor-ul-Hassan, requested the court to suspend the warrants, citing public embarrassment caused by media coverage.
The court rejected the plea, stating, “You produce the accused and I will cancel the warrants.” The judge added that a junior lawyer could have requested a new hearing date, which would have been scheduled.
Read: Court rejects K-P CM’s request
In previous hearings, the court noted it had given K-P CM Ali Amin Gandapur ample opportunity and warned that a verdict could be issued in his absence if he failed to appear. “No further relief will be granted if the statement is not recorded by July 21,” the magistrate stated in a written order.
Gandapur missed the July hearing, prompting the court to issue arrest warrants and direct him to record his statement in person or via video link at the next hearing.
The case dates back to October 2016, when Islamabad police claimed to have recovered five Kalashnikov assault rifles, a pistol, six magazines, a bulletproof vest, alcohol, and three tear gas shells from a vehicle belonging to the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf leader near Bani Gala.
Gandapur has consistently denied the allegations, stating he was traveling with two licensed Kalashnikov rifles and that a valid arms licence was present in the vehicle. He also claimed the bottle allegedly containing alcohol actually contained honey.
The case has remained pending for nearly nine years, largely due to Gandapur’s repeated absence from court. His lawyers have repeatedly requested that the advocate general record a statement on his behalf, but these requests have been consistently rejected under Section 342.
