After Eid, the LHC will hear Imran’s petition against the ECP. The ECP’s counsel has objected to the fact that the speaker of the national house has not been made a respondent in the case.
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) postponed hearing Imran Khan’s appeal against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to remove him as party chairman after finding him ineligible in the Toshakhana reference.
Once Eidul Fitr is over, the request will not be heard. The order was given by the bigger LHC bench, which is presided over by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
The PTI chief’s attorney, barrister Ali Zafar, informed the court that he is prepared to begin presenting his arguments as the hearings got underway today. The attorney for the ECP asserted that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had already set April 19 for hearing a related pending appeal.
The ECP attorney also objected to the speaker of the national assembly not being included as a respondent in the case.
Justice Shahik Karim, a member of the bench, responded that it is not essential to make the speaker a respondent. The bench also mentioned that one of the judges on the current bench might not be on it after the Eid holidays when the roster would be altered.
previous hearings before a single bench
In accordance with the ruling rendered in the Toshakhana case, the LHC’s single bench, presided over by Justice Jawad Hassan, in January prohibited the ECP from dismissing Imran as the chairman of the PTI. After accepting the former prime minister’s petition against the ECP notice that prevented him from serving as party chairman, the court issued the instructions. The Pakistani attorney general and the ECP were then sent notifications by the LHC.
In light of its ruling in the Toshakhana case, the ECP on December 5, 2022, began the procedure to have Imran removed as the PTI chairman. According to Article 63(1p) of the Constitution, he was disqualified for making false and inaccurate declarations.
On December 13, 2022, the ECP also let the IHC know that it had started the process of removing Imran from his position as PTI chairman. After removing the former prime minister from his National Assembly seat in Mianwali due to his involvement in the Toshakhana scandal in October, the ECP initiated legal action against him.
Following that, on January 4, the petitioner filed a complaint with the LHC about the ECP’s proceedings, arguing that the ECP’s recognition of the case and exercise of jurisdiction based on an alleged incorrect disclosure of assets and subsequent disqualification were illegal and unconstitutional.
Before the single bench of the LHC, Imran’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar had maintained that the electoral watchdog did not have the right to dismiss someone from the position of party chairman.
In that case, Additional Attorney General Nasar Ahmad had contended that the petitioner had omitted information about the status of his petition on the identical matter before the IHC, where notices had been given and he had also been given interim relief.
Barrister Zafar took offence to the comment and drew attention to the fact that the petition submitted to the LHC had already made notice of the proceedings before the IHC.
Justice Hassan noted that it was appropriate to bring the matter to the LHC chief justice for the formation of a larger bench because crucial Articles of the Constitution and provisions of the Election Act 2017 required interpretation.
Imran’s appeal
While Imran received the contested notice from the ECP on December 7, 2022, the petitioner contended that Imran’s qualification and disqualification processes as a whole had been “misconstrued” and that the Supreme Court’s (SC) precedent in disqualifying former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had been “misapplied” against him.
The petitioner claimed that no court has declared petitioner Imran Khan ineligible for office pursuant to Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
The petitioner claimed in the petition that the impugned ECP conclusions were actually detrimental to the entire parliamentary democracy system, were not supported by the law, and were subject to being overturned by the court.
He further pleaded with the ECP not to issue the contested notice to the petitioner because no declaration was ever made against him in accordance with Article 62(1)(f).
Imran further asked the LHC to invalidate the contested notice and rule that the ECP’s accusations against the petitioner lacked legal foundation.
