Daily Times

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved its verdict on Wednesday on petitions challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) notifications of successful candidates from NA-46, 47, and 48 of the National Assembly constituencies.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard petitions filed by PTI-backed candidates Shoaib Shaheen, Ali Bukhari, and Aamir Mughal. The court is expected to announce the verdict today.

During the hearing, CJ Farooq remarked that the ECP was aware of having received appeals challenging the electoral results. It would have been reasonable for the commission to first decide on them. The electoral watchdog’s lawyer argued that “the commission had issued notices on the petitions, and according to Form 47, postal ballots were not included in the results, and the allegations of the petitioners are limited to Form 47”.

The IHC CJ reasserted that the “commission had a pending request therefore, a decision should first have been made on it”. In response, the ECP lawyer expressed the desire to provide “some legal references on the court’s question.”

Seeking a further explanation, CJ Farooq asked what would happen to the notification if the ECP’s decision on the pending request turned out to be different.

The ECP’s counsel informed the court, “The commission had mentioned in its order that if the process of consolidation [of results] had not been completed the notification should be stopped.”

At this, the judge remarked that leaving that aside, “The RO should have done the consolidation first. The ECP was aware that it had a pending request. Shouldn’t the commission have waited for the decision on those requests first?” The judge emphasised that Shaheen filed a request in the IHC on Saturday, but due to the unavailability of a judge, the request could not be heard. When the request was filed in the high court, the commission had not notified the successful candidate. After the notification was issued on Monday, the request was amended and refiled. “Let’s even assume that the ECP issued one notification that did not reach the RO,” CJ Farooq said, adding that the “notification is still your own mistake; we are not even discussing the merits of the case, but an appeal under consideration should be decided upon first”.

“The commission has to decide whether to accept or reject the appeals. This is a legal matter that should be considered according to the law. We agree on the fundamental points that an appeal is under consideration, but now we have to see what the solution is. If the commission accepts their appeals, the notification will be withdrawn,” the judge observed.

The lawyer explained that to declare the notification void, it is necessary to prove before the commission that there was “irregularity”.

CJ Farooq stated that the ECP has pending requests and further questioned, “What will happen if the ECP schedules the hearing for these requests today? If it is determined tomorrow that the points raised in the petitions are correct, then what?” Justice Farooq further questioned that “if the electoral watchdog has issued a stay order, it didn’t reach the RO okay, fine. But how did the commission issue the notification when it had the stay order?”

Furthermore, Chief Justice Farooq also said that the “court will not even comment whether the petitions are admissible before the ECP”. The ECP’s counsel stated that they will still consider what the petitioners have filed, the merit of the argument is not affected by the fact that a final notification has been issued. The ECP’s decision can also be revoked if the petitioner’s argument is proven right. Therefore, the IHC does not have to worry about the matter of the notification’s issuance.

Shaheen argued that if the whole process of recounting has to be repeated then why was the notification issued in the first place? He requested the court to declare the ECP’s notification null and void. The CJ replied that “the court does not have the authority to give directions to the ECP, but he will give his observations.” However, the petitioner then argued that the court could issue directions to the ECP. The chief justice remarked that the ECP is also a constitutional body therefore, it is a general perception that the high court cannot give it directions.

The petitioner reiterated that “the ECP’s notification should be declared void; if the consolidation process has to be repeated, then everything should be cancelled.” Previously, on Feb 11, over a dozen petitions were filed in the high courts, by several PTI-backed candidates challenging the results of the general elections in their respective constituencies, announced by the returning officers (ROs) concerned.

PTI-backed Shaheen and Bukhari filed petitions in the IHC, against the results of the federal capital’s NA-47 and NA-48 constituencies.

The runner-ups contended that the police officials at the whims of the ROs of different constituencies forcefully restrained them from witnessing the process of results’ consolidation. Their eviction from the ROs’ offices was a sheer violation of the fair electoral process.

According to the results announced, independent candidate Raja Khuram Shehzad Nawaz won the election for NA-48 Islamabad-III by securing 69,699 votes. However, Bukhari claimed that he was winning in the initial results, but later he was declared as the runner-up with 59,851 votes. Shaheen had slammed NA-47 results, where PML-N’s Tariq Fazal Chaudhry was declared victorious. He blamed the powers that be for “pressuring the returning officers.” “You are replaying the crime you committed in the past. Now the only hope left is the judiciary,” he said. “They took away our bat [PTI’s electoral symbol]. I had a lead of more than 50,000 votes, my opponents had a total of 40,000 votes polled.”