Lawyers give heated arguments as ECP hears PMLN MNAs’ petitions

ISLAMABAD: A four-member bench of the Election Commission of Pakistan Thursday heard the applications of three PMLN MNAs, seeking the transfer of petitions against them from the incumbent poll tribunal.

Lawyers from both the PMLN and PTI gave heated arguments before the bench, headed by Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja.

PMLN MNA Anjum Aqeel’s lawyer read out the order of the Election Tribunal Islamabad and contended the first verdict was given in the absence of a candidate in the tribunal, which directed collection of Forms 45 and 47. “We wrote that the Election Commission has notified the returning candidates. Despite that, the election tribunal fixed petitions for hearing even after the stipulated time and sent notices to all parties to submit reply,” he noted.

He continued that the tribunal also issued notices to the Election Commission and asked if it could give directions to the Election Commission. To this, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Member Ikramullah Khan asked that could the body that created the election tribunal give directions to it. The lawyer said the tribunal could not give directions to the Election Commission.

The ECP Sindh Member, Nisar Durrani, said the tribunal must have given instructions to the ROs. However, the PMLN lawyer said they were given last chance despite not being given evidence without taking testimony. He claimed the tribunal did not give them a chance and alleged it was not working as per procedure, as they had also objected that the petitions were filed illegally. He said the tribunal gave the petitioner an opportunity to rectify mistakes in the petitions. “We fear that the election tribunal will not give us justice,” the lawyer charged.

PTI’s senior lawyer and one of the candidates Shoaib Shaheen urged the bench to adjourn the hearing till Monday. The CEC contended that they would halt hearing if a stay order had been issued and shared with them as well, which would be brought on record.

The PMLN lawyer also came up with the point that the tribunal had appointed registrar High Court as its registrar, which it could not do on its own. “Does that mean the petitions have not been filed with the election tribunal,” asked the ECP KP Member.

The lawyer replied that no petition was filed with the tribunal and explained the petitions were to be submitted to the election tribunal on April 10 but were submitted on April 15 instead. He explained that a petition must be filed with the tribunal within 45 days of the gazette notification.

PMLN MNA Raja Khurram Nawaz’s lawyer charged that the tribunal violated the trial procedure. He urged for changing the tribunal and called for a new one, if no other tribunal was available.

PMLN MNA Tariq Fazal Chaudhry’s lawyer argued that the tribunal acted through registrar of Islamabad High Court, to which, the chief election commissioner said he might have been appointed registrar by the election tribunal. The lawyer said as per his information neither the ECP nor the tribunal had appointed the registrar to work for the tribunal. He also charged the entire proceedings of the tribunal were illegal and that it exercised powers of suo motu notice. “We are not being given a fair trial and we don’t expect justice from it,” the lawyer claimed.

NA-48 (PTI-backed) candidate Muhammad Ali Bukhari’s lawyer started arguments and pointed out that according to the tribunal order, certified copies of Forms 45, 46 and 47 were opened in the court and these were submitted by the Election Commission. As per the tribunal order, he noted copies of the forms were currently with the tribunal and said some wrong things were told here, which needed to be clarified.

He contended that the constitutional position did not matter if High Court judges become tribunals and that no material order had been passed by election tribunal so far, adding the tribunal could seek records for review before framing issues.

Ali Bukhari clarified his petition was submitted after 28 days and no objection was raised in written reply. He noted the tribunal orders were not challenged and that he provided a list of witnesses with his application. He added the PML petitioner neither objected to the tribunal nor gave any list of witnesses. “The petitioners are using the Election Commission’s shoulder while the election tribunal is working as per law. All the candidates and the Election Commission have submitted Form 45; the successful candidates are not submitting the same,” he noted.

He challenged the rivals to submit Form 45 and send them to jail if they turn out to be wrong. He added that the Election Amendment Ordinance will not be applicable retrospectively.

NA-47 candidate Shoaib Shaheen’s lawyer Sajeel Shehryar Swati said that the cases were being run in a hurry, while the Elections Act had clearly stated that the election petitions should be disposed of within six months. The lawyer claimed the case of the three constituencies was based on documentary evidence and noted Tariq Fazal Chaudhry did not submit any objections to the tribunal. His advocate sought time to file a reply to the tribunal and the tribunal gave 25 days to submit the reply, but the reply was not submitted. Later, he said the lawyer was changed and the objection of maintainability was filed.

“If Section 151 of the Elections Act comes up, a new commission will have to be formed. Why did the law empower the Election Commission to set up tribunals? Why not chief justices make election tribunals? Lahore High Court chief justice’s decision on tribunals will be challenged soon,” said the chief election commissioner. The hearing was adjourned till Friday.