ISLAMABAD – Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on Monday remarked that despite having a year, PTI was unable to conduct intra-party elections.
The CJP gave these remarks while hearing the case related to the reserved seats of Sunni Ittehad Council in the Supreme Court
A SC 13-member full court, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, is hearing the case.
The bench comprises Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Ameen-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
At the beginning of the hearing, Election Commission’s lawyer Sikander Bashir Mohmand presented his arguments.
Sikander Bashir informed the court that he would complete his arguments in 30 minutes, presenting four legal points.
He stated that at the time of submitting party certificates, PTI had no organizational structure. Certificates for the elections were submitted with the signature of Gauhar Ali Khan, and PTI had not conducted intra-party elections according to the law at that time. PTI had no structure when Form 66 was submitted.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked lawyer Sikander Bashir where the mistake occurred and who made it. The lawyer replied that in the nomination papers, a blank meant an independent candidate. PTI issued Form 66 on December 22 and the affiliation certificate on January 13, but the affiliation certificate should have been attached with the nomination papers. Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if PTI’s nomination papers stated that the certificates were attached. Lawyer Sikander Bashir said the Election Commission made a decision on December 23, and later the Peshawar High Court gave its verdict.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar inquired whether the certificates were incorrect because the PTI chairman had not been elected by that time. Lawyer Sikander Bashir said the certificates were invalid because the PTI chairman had not been elected when they were submitted. Hamid Raza had shown his affiliation with the Sunni Ittehad Council in the nomination papers and should have issued the ticket as the chairman of the Sunni Ittehad Council.
The Election Commission’s lawyer further stated that Hamid Raza submitted his nomination papers on December 22, identifying himself as the candidate of the Sunni Ittehad Council, and mentioned in brackets that the affiliation was with PTI. Hamid Raza submitted the party affiliation on January 13.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the declaration should be submitted before the date of the Election Commission, and the sign is a later matter. Lawyer Sikander Bashir explained that Hamid Raza’s documents varied from one another. Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if Hamid Raza should have submitted the certificate of the Sunni Ittehad Council or as an independent candidate. The lawyer replied that Hamid Raza should have submitted the certificate of the Sunni Ittehad Council.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar stated that in the declaration, Hamid Raza identified himself with PTI and not as an independent candidate. The lawyer further explained that the Election Commission’s decision came on December 22, Peshawar High Court’s on January 10, and the Supreme Court’s on January 13. PTI informed the Election Commission about intra-party elections on February 8. If PTI had informed the Election Commission about intra-party elections by February 7, something could have been done.
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that if PTI had done so, the Election Commission’s own schedule would have been affected. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated that the issue of PTI’s intra-party elections had been ongoing for many years, and PTI had repeatedly requested time for intra-party elections. Don’t blame the Supreme Court; the Election Commission could have looked into it earlier. Just like in football, we’re considering extra time, but the actual game is 90 minutes.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the question was whether the elections were legitimate or not. If the symbol was taken on December 22, it meant there was a party for the elections. Chief Justice remarked that it was an accepted fact that despite taking a year, PTI could not conduct intra-party elections and requested a year as Prime Minister to conduct intra-party elections.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail later stated that candidate Ali Muhammad Khan had not written anything in the certificate or declaration, and there were numerous such candidates with blank nomination papers. The Election Commission’s lawyer informed the court that his Urdu was weak and sometimes confused ‘Sahibzada’ with ‘Shehzada’. During the hearing, lawyer Sikander Bashir struggled to pronounce PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab’s name correctly. He stated that Kanwal Shauzab’s petition should not be heard as she was not affected by the decision, and she is the head of the Women Workers Wing in PTI.
Lawyer Sikander Bashir mentioned that four people were elected as independent candidates for the National Assembly but did not merge with the Sunni Ittehad Council.
Justice Yahya Afridi inquired how six candidates, according to the Election Commission’s record, gave PTI certificates but were considered independent candidates.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked how many candidates’ certificates and declarations were accepted by the Election Commission, to which the lawyer responded that all remained independent candidates.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that independent candidates have the option to affiliate with someone within three days, and the issue will be resolved.
Justice Ayesha Malik asked how BAP party was given reserved seats in KP in the previous elections.
The lawyer replied that the decision to give seats to BAP party was not according to the law, and no hearing was held regarding giving seats to BAP party.
Justice Ayesha Malik questioned how the Election Commission could take two different stances on the same issue, to which the lawyer replied that the current Election Commission made its decision after hearing all parties.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if BAP party won seats in the elections to get reserved seats. Is there any law that if a party wins seats in one province, it cannot get seats in another province? Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired if it is correct to say that on February 8, five elections were held, with federal and provincial elections being separate.
With this, Election Commission’s lawyer Sikander Bashir Mohmand completed his arguments. Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if Barrister Gauhar Ali Khan was present.
Upon his query, Gauhar Ali Khan came to the rostrum.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked him if he had submitted PTI’s declarations and certificates in the first hearing, to which he said yes.
However, according to the Election Commission’s record, some nomination papers were submitted, and some were not.
Which statement of yours is correct?
Gauhar Ali Khan replied that each candidate can submit two forms, and he submitted forms as both an independent candidate and PTI candidate.
The Election Commission brought one form, but PTI’s forms should also be brought.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that one has to contest elections on one form, so how did you write two?
Gauhar Ali Khan stated that four nomination papers are submitted for one constituency, and there is also a covering candidate. He did not submit nomination papers from different parties.
The certificates were delivered by 4 PM on December 22, and the Election Commission’s decision came at 9 PM.
The Election Commission did not provide most of the records to the Supreme Court.
At this point, an assistant lawyer said that Farooq Naek could not reach the court, and PPP’s lawyer Shehzad Shaukat adopted Makhdoom Ali Khan’s arguments. Kamran Murtaza stated that JUI-F is adopting the Election Commission’s arguments.
There was a misprint regarding the inclusion of minorities in the party, which caused a misunderstanding.
There is a separate section regarding the minorities.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if the Election Commission did the right thing.
Lawyer Kamran Murtaza replied that they stand with the constitutional institution.
PML-N’s Barrister Harris Azmat submitted written arguments.
Afterward, a break was taken in the case of reserved seats.
After the break, the hearing resumed, and Attorney General Mansoor Usman started his arguments.
During the previous hearing, Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the Election Commission misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision and excluded an important party from the election race.
