CJP says ECP was ‘overtly generous’ with PTI during its govt, gave it 2 years to hold internal polls – Pakistan

At the outset of the hearing, the ECP counsel came to the rostrum. When CJP Isa asked Makhdoom whether the PHC’s written order had been issued or not, the latter replied that it had not been.

The lawyer then read out the PHC order that restored the PTI’s ‘bat’ symbol. He said that the ECP had not yet received “any notice” of the PHC order, to which the chief justice said, “I have not read the case file either.”

The top judge asked Makhdoom when he would be ready to present the case, at which the counsel urged the SC to adjourn the hearing till Monday. Makhdoom further said that the political parties would be allotted electoral symbols tomorrow.

Here, the CJP observed that to adjourn the hearing till Monday, the PHC’s recent verdict would have to be suspended, adding that the apex court was ready to hear the case on Saturday and Sunday as well. The ECP lawyer then sought time till tomorrow to prepare for the case.

Makhdoom recalled that the PTI was supposed to hold its intra-party polls in 2022 and that the electoral watchdog issued a notice to the PTI for not holding the intra-party polls according to its party constitution.

Here, Justice Mazhar asked about the process for appointing the party’s CEC mentioned in the PTI’s constitution, to which the ECP lawyer said that Jamal Ansari was the previous party CEC, after which Niazi took the role.

Upon the chief justice asking who were the other members of the PTI’s election commission, Makhdoom said “no member other than the CEC was appointed”.

However, when the CJP asked Hamid if the same was true, the PTI counsel answered it was not. The top judge then inquired about the documents pertaining to the appointment of members of the PTI’s electoral body.

Here, the PTI lawyer said he had sought time to prepare for the case, adding that he would present arguments on the ECP’s appeal not being maintainable and not having the right to claim.

Makhdoom argued that the constitution of the PTI’s election commission for the intra-party polls was “not legally correct”. When CJP Isa asked Hamid if the ECP counsel’s claim was true, he replied in the negative.

Here, the PTI lawyer reiterated that the ECP’s appeal was not maintainable, at which the chief justice directed him to present his arguments first.

Hamid contended that the electoral watchdog could not file an appeal in the apex court as a “respondent has to file an appeal, not the election commission”.

Justice Isa asked whether the ECP could not “defend its orders”, to which the PTI counsel raised the question: “Can a judge file an appeal against its own verdict?”

At one point during the hearing, CJP Isa observed, “The election commission is not just a quasi-judicial body. It is a constitutional body.”

“It has two functions; one [is] regulating the affairs of political parties, which is an ongoing exercise, and the other is free and fair elections,” he added.

The chief justice said that customs collectors could also file appeals against their verdicts in high courts, remarking that the question of maintainability would then also arise on the PTI’s appeal before the PHC.

Hamid reiterated that an affected party could appeal verdicts but not the ECP, asking if a district judge could challenge its order being struck down. To this, Justice Isa noted that district judges were subordinate to the judiciary whereas the electoral watchdog was a “separate constitutional body”.

The PTI lawyer then referred to a past judgment where he said the SC had prevented a commission and the federal ombudsman from appealing their decisions, at which the top judge asked if such verdicts could be applied to constitutional bodies.

“Institutions constituted under the law and the Constitution cannot be alike. The election commission formed under the Constitution would use its powers according to the Constitution,” the CJP observed.

Here, Hamid contended that the ECP was not emphasising the Constitution but rather the Elections Act 2017.

“This will amount to virtually finishing off the constitutional body,” the chief justice remarked, adding that the PTI counsel was making a “very hypotechnical argument” for which he had no precedent.

Justice Isa noted that there was a “very clear line of demarcation” between the functions of a constitutional body and a statutory one, which he said was a “sub-constitutional body functioning under a statute”.

He remarked, “If they’re (ECP) doing their job, we won’t take over their job [or] how to do it [or] how better to do it.”

CJP Isa then again asked about the whereabouts of the documents about the appointments of PTI’s election commission members and sought the complete record of the case proceedings from the ECP.

In his arguments, Makhdoom, the ECP lawyer, stated that the commission had received 14 complaints against the PTI’s intra-party polls. When asked who had filed them, the counsel replied that the petitioners were PTI members.

At this point during the hearing, Babar’s counsel, Ahmed Hasan, came to the rostrum and told the court that his client was a founding member of the PTI and had served at “various positions” in the party.

The CJP wondered, “Then why is he not a PTI member?”, asking Hamid whether Babar had been expelled from the party. Justice Mazhar noted, “In my view, a founding member does not ever stop being one.”

The top judge also asked if Babar had joined another political party, to which the PTI counsel said, “This is a separate discussion that who is a founding member and who is not.”

When the chief justice asked Hamid if he was a founding member of the party, the lawyer replied that he was.

Babar’s counsel argued that the Islamabad High Court had declared that his client was a PTI member.

CJP Isa then wondered whether the PTI’s intra-party polls were held uncontested, responding to which the ECP lawyer said that there used to be three panels before but then an “announcement was made that all people have resigned and the elections were held uncontested”.

Makhdoom further added that there was no competition for any party position. Here, Justice Isa asked who Niazullah Niazi was, at which he came to the rostrum.

The top judge asked Niazi whether he thought that everyone being elected without contest was a “weird coincidence”. The PTI member stated that all position-holders of the party were elected without contest.

When the hearing resumed after a break at 1:40pm, the ECP lawyer once again came to the rostrum and presented its 64-page order on the PTI’s intra-party polls.

He argued that the intra-party elections were held “secretly” and the documents submitted by the party were “not in accordance with facts”.

The CJP then asked the ECP lawyer to explain the various provisions of the PTI’s constitution that dealt with the party’s appointments.

“PTI federal election commission shall be formed to conduct intra-party elections with a permanent secretary,” Makhdoom read out from the PTI constitution.

CJP remarked, “They’ve made a great Constitution. Everything has been mentioned here.”

Justice Mazhar then asked where the PTI’s permanent secretariat was, to which the ECP lawyer said it was not mentioned in the party constitution and read out an Islamabad address stated on a PTI letter.

When the CJP asked if the party currently had a secretary general, Makhdoom said it was a “grey area”. He said the role was held by Omar Ayub but the ECP “maintains that the previous secretary general, as per their record, Mr Asad Umar, continues to be the secretary general on their record”.

Justice Isa further asked if Umar was still part of the party, the counsel replied that personal statements about quitting the party were present but there was “nothing on the record”.

The top judge then asked where the PTI’s intra-party polls were held, specifically asking whether they took place at someone’s house or at an office.

The PTI lawyer answered that they took place at Chamkani ground in Peshawar, at which the chief justice further asked if there was a notification available for the same. Here, Justice Hilali asked why the party conducted the intra-party polls in a “small, unknown village”.

Here, CJP Isa noted that there was nothing on record as to where the elections were held in Peshawar, asking how PTI workers found out where to cast their votes. “Party workers should know where they can cast their votes,” he remarked.

“We had informed party workers on Whatsapp,” PTI’s Niazi replied. “We have a video, you can play it in court,” he added. However, the chief justice stated that the video could be played outside the court as the SC runs cases on the basis of documents.

At one point, Justice Isa also inquired about the result of the PTI’s 2022 elections. “Who was elected in these polls?” he asked Hamid. In his response, the PTI counsel said he would need to seek directions from his client on the matter.

Hamid added that the 2022 intra-party polls had been declared invalid by the election commission and the PTI subsequently held internal elections afresh within 20 days. At that, CJP Isa asked why the party had challenged the ECP order to reject the 2022 polls and at the same time also held new intra-party polls.

Coming to the rostrum, Barrister Gohar replied that the said petition was filed when the “ECP was trying to remove Imran Khan from the position of the party chairman”. But the CJP inquired why the party had filed similar petitions in the Lahore High Court and the PHC.

“The ECP passed an order, you challenged it in the LHC […] they made a five-member bench, then Ali Zafar said the petition should be kept infructuous. Then how did you go to the PHC?” CJP Isa asked.

Hamid replied that the PTI approached the PHC after the elections were held and the ECP declared them null and void. “The reason is that when we held elections, we were not being provided security anywhere except Peshawar,” the counsel maintained.

“But the problem is that this is a time-related case. They [ECP] are not giving you a symbol, you want a symbol,” Justice Isa said, highlighting the urgency of the case.

Resuming his argument, ECP counsel Makhdoom recalled that a single-member bench of the LHC had dismissed a petition against the election commission’s order to revoke the PTI’s electoral symbol. Here, the CJP asked Hamid if the party owned the petition, to which the latter replied in the negative and said the plea was filed by a candidate.

Turning to the commission’s counsel, the top judge asked: “As a general rule, court’s order of a high court by a learned single judge in the writ petition and another province’s court order in ICA [intra-court appeal], which takes priority?”

Makhdoom responded that both cases “stand more or less on the same plain”.

Further, he noted that the ECP has objected to the procedure of the appointment of the PTI’s incumbent chief election commissioner and said it was not informed how the change took place.

Here, the CJP noted that PTI’s earlier position was that its 2022 intra-party polls were in accordance with its constitution. “Some people were elected, what happens to those people? Were they heard? Are they conceding that the elections [of 2022] were not in accordance with the law?” he asked.

For his part, the ECP counsel said: “Before the ECP, they took the position that since you have pointed out all these defects, in order to cut the controversy short, we will recall those elections and hold elections afresh. That’s how the second elections came about.”

Justice Isa asked if the 2022 elections were also unopposed to which Makhdoom responded in the affirmative. “Sir, this has been going on since the time when the party was in administration. The first reminder to hold elections was issued on May 24, 2021,” the ECP counsel said.

He added that the PTI sought an extension on the grounds of Covid, after which they were given a year’s time to hold polls. Makhdoom also read out loud the letter issued to the party in 2021.

“You were overtly generous because they were in government. They are themselves accepting that Nov 1, 2020, is the target date and you said ‘take two years’,” Justice Isa said.

Here, Justice Hilali stated that a number of other parties were also given similar extensions on the pretext of Covid.

Upon being inquired why the 2022 elections were declared invalid, Makhdoom replied that “several provisions of the PTI constitution were violated” and “several of the persons were not appointed correctly”.

“See Makhdoom sahib, we wanted to see if your behaviour with them [the PTI] has hardened now for some reason, or your behaviour with them has been the same,” the CJP remarked, noting that the notices issued by the ECP showed that the commission wanted the party to hold elections.

“We wanted to see your attitude, whether it changed now or was the same,” Justice Isa reiterated.

At one point, the top judge also asked if the ECP had adopted a discriminatory behaviour with the PTI, to which Makhdoom replied in the negative.

The ECP’s petition, submitted by former attorney general Makhdoom Ali Khan, argued that the PHC should not have proceeded with the case without first issuing a notice to the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP).

This procedural step was necessary because the legal question at hand pertained to the federal government, involving the interpretation of Article 17 of the Constitution and its relationship with the provisions of the Elections Act of 2017, it said.

The petition also highlighted that the PHC’s order conflicted with previous Supreme Court rulings, which have consistently discouraged high courts from intervening in the electoral process, which, as per the Constitution, was exclusively within the ECP’s jurisdiction.

The petition emphasised that the high court’s judgement effectively nullified key sections of the Elections Act and Election Rules by restricting the ECP’s constitutional and statutory roles in regulating and supervising intra-party elections of political parties. This interpretation contradicted the principles established in previous superior court rulings, it said.

Furthermore, it undermined the fundamental purpose of Section 215(5) of the Act, in conjunction with Rules 157 and 158, which aim to foster democracy, pluralism, and transparency within political parties by ensuring timely intra-party elections, it added.

Additionally, the PHC ruling disregarded the essence of Section 208(2) of the Elections Act, which is intended to guarantee equal opportunities for all party members to contest elections for any political party office.

It said the high court order not only rendered relevant provisions practically redundant but also enabled a political party to undertake “sham” intra-party elections without any checks and balances. This, the ECP’s petition said, was not only contrary to Article 17 of the Constitution but was also in conflict with the principles of democracy.

The petition also pointed out that the PHC’s order overlooked the fact that the Elections Act was enacted under a democratic government and led to the repeal of various election laws, some of which were established during times of extra-constitutional rule.