[ad_1]
ISLAMABAD: The lead attorney for the PTI, Barrister Ali Zafar, contended that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was not authorized by the Election Act or the Constitution to assess intraparty polls as the Supreme Court continued to hear the party’s symbol matter on Saturday.
The arguments started when Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that there were two issues at stake: first, was the ECP’s right to investigate the intraparty elections, and second, was the Peshawar High Court’s ability to intervene and reverse the ECP’s ruling.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had earlier on Friday threatened to take action against the PTI should inconsistencies in its internal elections be discovered. He emphasized that the court should not get involved in the affairs of the ECP because it is a constitutional organization.
Furthermore, the chief stated on Saturday that the fundamental issue was one of democracy rather than the application of party constitution. He continued, saying that political parties should be democratic as well as the nation.
After the ECP contested the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) decision to overturn the nation’s highest electoral body’s decision to remove the PTI party symbol, or “bat,” earlier this week, the Supreme Court has convened to hear the case.
Barrister Ali Zafar withdrew the accusation of bias after the Chief Justice said, “You would have to prove ill intentions on the part of ECP.”
As the chief justice put pressure on the PTI lawyer to provide proof to support the allegations of malice and the establishment’s pressure on the ECP, the counsel withdrew.
He made these comments when Barrister Ali Zafar stated that the PTI’s loss of its party symbol violated Article 17 and that the intraparty elections were conducted in accordance with the party constitution.
The PTI counsel was also informed by the chief judge that his client had received notice from the ECP during their tenure in power. He noted that since no one had challenged the Election Act, the court would not address its constitutionality.
The top justice emphasized the necessity of fortifying the institutions while explicitly stating that the court lacked authority over the constitutional organizations.
In response to the lawyer’s claim that the ECP lacks the authority to control intraparty votes, the chief judge pointed out that the Constitution also included no mention of the nation’s highest electoral body providing political parties with insignia.
The chief justice said that he would have to demonstrate who has the power and whether no one does, as the counsel reiterated the position that the ECP lacks the ability to examine the intraparty votes.
“You’re saying that the ECP can only impose fines, but on the other hand, you’re not accepting its authority?” In response to the PTI counsel’s argument regarding the maximum penalty in the event of intraparty elections, he brought up a discrepancy.
Additionally, Barrister Ali Zafar contended that the Election Act required the ECP to give a certificate no later than seven days following the intraparty polls. The three-member bench’s Justice Musarrat Hilali noted that the document’s release was contingent upon elections being held in accordance with the party constitution.
Justice Mazhar once reminded Barrister Ali Zafar that the ECP hadn’t acted on its own initiative—rather, it had only taken action in response to complaints.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said, “You ask for a level playing field, you must also give one to your members.” He also questioned the party’s transparency in its polling and the definition of who was eligible to run for office.
Whenever the PTI lawyer was pressed for evidence to support his claims, Justice Hilali was had to respond that he lacked any documentation.
Read More: PTI could contest polling on a different symbol because of their own “mistake”: Bilawal
The judges questioned the wisdom of fielding candidates through a panel, indicating that no one can run for PTI seats in an individual capacity. This brought up another problem related to candidates during the hearing.
The Chief Justice asked whether it was not against democratic norms to allow anyone to declare their candidacy in his remarks. “Why a person cannot challenge the results of a poll for [party] chairman.”
In response, Barrister Ali Zafar stated that while the PTI constitution called for a panel, that should not have been the case.
[ad_2]
Source link
