Wahab eligible to contest poll from any UC, decides tribunal

Appellate tribunals in the West and Malir districts on Thursday dismissed a set of appeals against the acceptance of Karachi Mayor Murtaza Wahab’s nomination papers for two union committee seats in Mauripur and Ibrahim Hyderi towns.

Wahab had filed nomination papers for the UC chairman post in Saddar Town’s UC-13, Mauripur Town’s UC-3 and Ibrahim Hyderi Town’s UC-8 to contest the local government by-elections scheduled for November 5.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Jamaat-e-Islami candidates had filed appeals with the Malir and West district & sessions courts / appellate tribunals, assailing the respective returning officers’ decision to accept Wahab’s nomination papers for the UC chairman post in Mauripur Town’s UC-3 and Ibrahim Hyderi Town’s UC-8.

PTI candidates Zahid Jadoon and Sajid Niazi, and Mohammad Hussain of the JI filed the appeals with the West district tribunal, while the PTI’s Abdul Razzaq Shujra, ticket-holder Jameela Bano Baloch and the party’s Ibrahim Hyderi Town president Taus Khan Jadoon, and two JI candidates challenged the acceptance of Wahab’s papers in the Malir tribunal.

In his order, District & Sessions Judge Obaid Ahmed Khan of the appellate tribunal (West) said that Section 35(c) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, clearly stipulates that a candidate must be registered as a voter in the council or ward where he seeks to contest an election.

In other words, anyone aspiring to participate in an election for a local council or ward must be included in the electoral rolls of that specific council or ward, he added.

The judge explained that a council is defined as a corporation, municipal committee, town committee, district council or union council under Section 3(1), clause (xvii) of the Act, adding that in clause (xiv), a metropolitan corporation is defined as a metropolitan corporation established under this Act.

He said that Section 15(iv) defines a council as a metropolitan corporation in a metropolitan city, and within the context of the definition provided in the Act, a council is deemed to be the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC), which comprises 25 towns and over 240 union councils.

“Consequently, as a registered voter in the council of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, he [Wahab] is eligible to contest elections from any union council within the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation,” he ruled.

As for the contention of the appellants that Wahab is not eligible due to holding an office of profit in accordance with Section 36(d) and (e) of the Act, the judge said the office of the mayor is not an office of profit.

“It should be noted that after the insertion of Section 18(b), the mayor, if not elected within six months after taking the oath, must contest the election from the respective council, which in the instant case is the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation,” he remarked.

The appellants’ lawyers Hasnain Ali Chohan and Usman Farooq contended that Wahab claimed to be a resident of Gizri, District South, as per the voter certificate issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan. However, he intended to contest the election for the post of chairman of UC-3.

“The law, as stipulated in Section 35(c), unequivocally requires that a person must be enrolled as a voter in the electoral rolls of a council or ward to be eligible for an election,” they said, adding that the ROs erroneously accepted his nomination form in flagrant violation of the aforementioned legal provisions.

Barrister Jaffer Raza, who represented Wahab, argued that the council’s definition encompassed the corporation, and the corporation’s definition encompassed the metropolitan corporation. Importantly, he said, all the candidates in their nomination forms have stated the KMC as the name of the council.

He contended that this strongly implied that to contest an election, one must be an enrolled voter of the KMC, and Wahab qualifies as a registered voter of the council as defined in the LG Act, 2013.

Separately, the Malir tribunal dismissed the appeals on the grounds that they were filed late, as the last date of filing appeals against ROs’ decisions was October 16, but the appeals in question were filed on October 17.