ISLAMABAD: A controversy over an eagerly-awaited announcement of the Toshakhana case verdict against ex-premier Imran Khan by a five-member bench of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) ended with official release of the detailed judgment here Monday.
Speculations were rife, as before obtaining signatures of one of its members, from Punjab, a 36-page unsigned document somehow made its way to the media. However, the ECP disowned it and later issued the verdict, with signatures of all bench members and ECP stamps, thus putting an end to the guessing games. However, interestingly, the order by mistake mentions Imran Khan’s constituency as NA-5 instead of NA-95.
In the detailed verdict, the Election Commission has contended to be the competent authority to entertain the reference from the NA Speaker under Article 63(2) of the Constitution and adjudicate upon it under Article 63(3) and explained that the question of disqualification as and when raised is not dependent upon time.
The order held that the Election Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of disqualification of a Member of Parliament or assembly received from the Speaker or Senate chairman in terms of Article 63(2) and to decide the referred question under Article 63(3) of the Constitution.
Likewise, it contests Imran Khan’s claim that the proceeds of the foreign gifts with the assessed value of around Rs108 million he had retained after depositing an amount of over Rs21million and then sold out for around Rs58million had been deposited in his account with Bank Alfalah, and the same amount was declared in tax returns for year 2019.
The order refers to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of “Mian Najeeb-ud-Din versus Amir Yar Waran for declaring a person to be disqualified, no period of limitation would be relevant because such disqualification, was suffered at the time when he filed the nomination papers by making a declaration while having a fake degree in his hand, therefore, in such case no time period can be prescribed.”
The Commission under Article 63(1)(p) read with Article 63(2), the order says, has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter in shape of reference forwarded by the Speaker National Assembly with respect to disqualification of Members of the Assembly. It refers to Article 63(1) (p) of the Constitution which reads “a person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament, if he is for the time being disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force”.
The ECP explains in the instant case the Elections Act, 2017 is the relevant law and the violation or non-compliance or mis-declaration made by any Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) comes under the ambit of disqualification and the Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of disqualification on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 63(1). The Commission is also competent to direct filling of a criminal complaint under Section 190 for violation of Section 137,167 and Section 173 of the Elections Act, 2017 which is a criminal liability while mis-declaration, false declaration and concealment of assets also bears civil liabilities.
The verdict points out that the Supreme Court in the ‘Worker Party through Akhter Hussain, Advocate versus the Federation of Pakistan’ held that Sections 78, 79, 80, 80-A, 81 and 83 of ROPA (the Representation of the People Act) comprehensively define the terms ‘corrupt practices’ and ‘illegal practices. ROPA in Sections 82, 99 and 100 further elaborates the consequences of such practices and enunciate that the same form a sufficient basis for the Election Commission to, inter alia, imprison, fine and disqualify those who violate them. These provisions, therefore, subsume all those impugned activities as cognizable by the Election Commission.
The ECP order says the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nida Khuhro versus Moazzam Ali Khan held that “in terms of Section 137(4) of the Act, submission of a statement of assets and liabilities, which is found to be false in material particulars constitutes corrupt practice. More importantly, the declarations given by Respondent No.1 under solemn affirmation as part of his nomination papers, and the affidavit submitted by him pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the case of Speaker, National Assembly ibid also exposes him to disqualification not only under the provisions of the Elections Act but also under the provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. By reason of making a false statement under oath, Respondent No.1 ceases to be qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) because he cannot be termed as righteous and honest. The false statement having been made in the nomination papers, in the statement of assets and in the affidavit exposes Respondent No.1 to serious legal consequences under the law as well as the Constitution”.
Meanwhile, the ECP stayed the issuance of victory notification of PTI chief Imran Khan on six National Assembly (NA) seats, local media reported. The ECP issued the notification of successful candidates who won by-elections on three provincial and two NA seats except Imran Khan who was declared victorious on six NA seats.
The victory notifications of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) candidates in NA-237 Malir and NA-157 Multan, Abdul Hakim Baloch and Ali Musa Gilani respectively, were also issued. Moreover, the notifications were issued for three Punjab Assembly constituencies including Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz’s (PMLN) successful candidate Iftikhar Bangu from PP-139 Sheikhupura, PTI’s Muhammad Faisal Khan Niazi from PP-209 Khanewal and Malik Muzaffar Khan Awan from PP-241 Bahawalnagar.
However, the victory notification of the PTI chief was not issued as he did not submit the details of election expenditure so far, according to the ECP.
