Maryam expresses happiness over SC decision
Staff Reporter Islamabad
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the PTI’s appeal against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s directives to conduct re-polling in the entire constituency of NA-75 Daska.
A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, had taken up an appeal filed by PTI candidate Ali Asjad Malhi challenging the ECP’s Feb 25 decision to order re-election in the entire constituency.
In the short order, Justice Bandial said the court had taken the decision in light of the law, the Constitution and its own jurisdiction.
The judge also remarked that “guidelines” will be issued to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Reacting to the news, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz said that it had once again been proven that Prime Minister Imran Khan and his “false” government had tried to rob the votes of the people of Daska.
“A re-election will not suffice.
These robbers will have to answer for stealing the people’s votes and kidnapping the ECP staff,” she said.
Maryam congratulated party workers who stood against those stealing votes as well as Nosheen Iftikhar, the party’s candidate for the constituency.
Maryam expressed happiness over the decision of Supreme Court to hold re-polling in National Assembly constituency NA-75.
Speaking to the media, Malhi said that the PTI will think about filing a review petition after the detailed judgement is released.
“We are confident about beating the PML-N,” he said, adding that the party respected the apex court’s decision.
During the hearing, ECP’s counsel Mian Abdul Rauf argued that the commission’s decision did not mention “organised rigging” and was based on violations of the law.
The Punjab IG and other officials did not respond to repeated calls, polling remained suspended at 13 polling stations while firing incidents also took place in the constituency, he pointed out.
If all the clauses of the Election Act are not implemented, the election is considered null and void, he said.
“From the current situation in the constituency, it is clear that countless clauses of the Act were violated,” he said, adding that the constituency did not have a “level playing field”. “What do you mean by level playing field?” Justice Bandial asked.
“You are of the opinion that the conditions favoured one party and not the other. If there was unrest, then the situation was unfavourable for all.”