ISLAMABAD: On Wednesday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) postponed making a decision on petitions contesting the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) announcement of the National Assembly seats’ winning candidates, NA-46, 47, and 48.
The petitions of PTI-backed candidates Shoaib Shaheen, Ali Bukhari, and Aamir Mughal were considered by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
The verdict is anticipated to be announced by the court tomorrow.
CJ Farooq said during today’s session that the ECP was aware of pleas contesting the election results. It made sense that the commission would have made that decision first.
“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 attorney for the electoral watchdog contended.
The IHC CJ reiterated that a judgement ought to have been taken on the commission’s pending request first. The ECP attorney responded by saying that he would want to offer “some legal references on the court’s question.”
CJ Farooq requested more information and inquired as to what would happen to the notification in the event that the ECP made a different decision regarding the pending request.
“The commission had mentioned in its order that if the process of consolidation [of results] had not been completed the notification should be stopped,” the ECP’s attorney told the court.
Putting that aside, the judge said at this point that “The RO should have done the consolidation first.” The ECP knew that a request was still pending. Isn’t it appropriate that the commission have held off until after those requests were decided?
The judge stressed that Shaheen had submitted a request to the IHC on Saturday, but that the motion could not be considered since a judge was not available. The successful candidate was not informed by the commission when the request was made to the high court. The request was revised and refiled on Monday following the notification.
CJ Farooq stated, “Let’s even assume that the ECP issued one notification that did not reach the RO,” 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 appeals must be decided upon by the commission, either to be accepted or denied. As a matter of law, this should be handled in accordance with the law. We both agree that an appeal is being considered in general, but we now need to find a solution. The notice will be withdrawn if the commission grants their appeals, the judge noted.
The attorney clarified that in order for the commission to declare the notification null and void, “irregularity” must be proven.
The ECP has pending requests, according to CJ Farooq, who also asked, “What will happen if the ECP schedules the hearing for these petitions today? What will happen if it is found tomorrow that the petitioners’ arguments are valid?
“If the electoral watchdog has issued a stay order, it didn’t reach the RO okay, fine,” Justice Farooq further questioned. However, how did the commission notify people when it had a stay order in place?
The “court will not even comment whether the petitions are admissible before the ECP,” Chief Justice Farooq added.
The petitioners’ filings will still be taken into consideration, according to the ECP’s legal representative, and the issuance of a final notification has no bearing on the argument’s merits. In the event that the petitioner’s position is validated, the ECP’s ruling may also be overturned. As such, the issue surrounding the notification’s issuance is off the IHC’s radar.
Shaheen contended that why was the notification sent out in the first instance if the recounting procedure had to be repeated? He asked the court to deem the notification from the ECP void.
In response, the CJ stated, “The ECP will provide his observations, but the court lacks the authority to give directions to him.” The petitioner then contended that the ECP might receive orders from the court.
It is widely believed that the ECP cannot be directed by the high court because it is also a constitutional body, as stated by the top justice.
“The ECP’s notification should be declared void; if the consolidation process has to be repeated, then everything should be cancelled,” the petitioner stated once more.
PTI contenders contest electoral defeats
Prior to this, on February 11, more than a dozen high court applications were submitted by a number of PTI-backed candidates contesting the results of the general elections in their individual constituencies, which had been declared by the relevant returning officers (ROs).
Shaheen and Bukhari, who were supported by the PTI, filed appeals at the IHC contesting the NA-47 and NA-48 constituency results in the federal capital.
The runners-up argued that they were forcibly prevented from seeing the consolidation of results by police officials acting at the whim of various constituency ROs. The fair electoral process was flagrantly violated when they were forced out of the ROs’ offices.
With 69,699 votes, independent candidate Raja Khuram Shehzad Nawaz was victorious in the NA-48 Islamabad-III election, as per the declared results. Bukhari, however, insisted he was winning in the first results, but 59,851 votes later, he was proclaimed the runner-up.
Shaheen has denounced the NA-47 results, which showed Tariq Fazal Chaudhry of the PML-N as the winner.He said that “pressuring the returning officers” was the fault of the ruling class.
“You are committing the same crime you did in the past again. The judiciary is now the only source of hope,” he declared. The PTI’s electoral emblem, the bat, was taken away by them. My opponents only received 40,000 votes overall, while I had a lead of over 50,000.
