IHC forms larger bench to hear PTI prohibited funding case

The Islamabad High Court has constituted a larger bench to hear a petition filed by the PTI challenging the ruling of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on the prohibited funding case.

As per the details, a three-member bench of the IHC headed by acting Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Justice Babar Sattar will take up the case tomorrow (Thursday).

A day earlier, IHC acting Chief Justice Aamer Farooq ordered the prohibited funding case against PTI fixed before a larger bench.

Justice Farooq, who was hearing the case, said that a larger bench will be formed and the case will be heard on August 18 (Thursday).

The PTI was found by the ECP to have received prohibited funding which it did not disclose. A notice was issued to the party asking it to explain why the funds should not be confiscated.

PTI has challenged the ECP's fact-finding report, with the party's lawyer contending that "it was not necessary to disclose accounts for various reasons".

"The money went from here (Centre) to provincial accounts, which was not necessary to disclose," the counsel said.

‘PTI received prohibited funding’, says ECP

In a unanimous ruling on August 2, a three-member bench of the election commission said it has found that the PTI received prohibited funding.

The case was earlier referred to as the "foreign funding" case, but later the election commission accepted the PTI's plea to refer to it as the "prohibited funding" case.

As per the 68-page order, the commission stated that the Imran Khan-led PTI did indeed receive funding from foreign companies and individuals, which it hid.

The ECP verdict states that the PTI received funds from 34 individuals and 351 businesses, including companies.

Thirteen unknown accounts have also come to light, said the commission in the verdict, adding that hiding accounts is a "violation" of Article 17 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the ECP found that the PTI chairperson submitted a false Nomination Form I and that the affidavit provided regarding party accounts was false.