Daily Times

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) will announce its reserved verdict on a petition challenging the appointment of Maryam Nawaz as vice president of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), on August 27.

A three-member bench of the ECP headed by Chief Election Commissioner Justice (r) Sardar Raza Khan on Thursday reserved the verdict in the petition after hearing arguments from both the sides.

The petition was submitted by MNAs Farrukh Habib, Maleeka Ali Bokhari, Kanwal Shauzab and Javeria Zafar.

In his arguments, PTI leader Malika Bukhari’s counsel Hassan Maan said the PML-N leader is convicted from the NAB court and hence she cannot hold a party position. He said suspension of the sentence does not mean that conviction is removed. “Maryam can take the party position if the decision on plea comes in her favour, which she had filed in the high court,” he argued.

Maryam’s counsel Barrister Zaffarullah said there is no law through which appointment of her client can be challenged. “Maryam Nawaz has not been elected for the position of party vice president. Her selection to the position does not affect the rights of any of the petitioners,” he argued. “Maryam was given the position on the basis of the party constitution and the PML-N constitution has been approved by the ECP,” he said, wrapping his arguments against the maintainability of the petition.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the ECP reserved its verdict in the petition, which will be announced on August 27.

The petition filed by the PTI leaders covers the legal basis under which Maryam is ineligible to hold public office and includes a detailed mention of past court decisions on the matter. In their petition, the PTI MNAs asked how it was possible that members of the assembly fully abide by Article 62 and Article 63 of the constitution, but the ‘people who control them [the lawmakers] don’t’. It added that the Supreme Court had disqualified Maryam’s father, Nawaz Sharif, from his party position as well and said that the ECP should similarly declare her appointment to be null and void.