CJP says PTI itself to blame for not holding intra-party elections

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa said on Monday that the PTI created issues for itself by not holding the intra-party elections, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

During the hearing of the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) reserved seats’ case, the chief justice remarked it was incorrect to say that the PTI was not aware of the consequences of not holding the elections.  

A 13-member full-court bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by CJP Isa, heard the SIC’s appeal against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) verdicts that deprived the party of its reserved seats. 

“The truth of the matter is that the PTI kept delaying its elections,” he said, adding, “The party kept seeking time from the courts. And now it is blaming the Supreme Court.”

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that when a candidate submits the party’s certificate, he would deemed to be its candidate, otherwise independent.

At that very moment, the ECP’s lawyer said, “This is the point on which I and you are on the same page.”

Showing his displeasure, Justice Mandokhel said he did not want to be on the same page with him. “It would be better if you tear this page apart,” he remarked angrily.  

Justice Muneeb Akhtar that when the PTI lost its electoral symbol of ‘bat’, the election commission did not make its stance clear. “The commission did not tell whether the party could contest the elections. And when things became clear, the commission said it did no wrong.”

Justice Athar Minallah said that it was after the apex court’s verdict that the ECP had declared that the candidates would contest the general elections not as PTI, but as PTI-backed independent candidates. “What would have been the situation if the SC had not declared the party ineligible to contest the elections?” he questioned.  

Giving his arguments, the election commission’s lawyer said that he had submitted to the court the list of independent candidates who had attached the party certificates with their nomination papers.   

Justice Mandokhel asked what would be the status of these candidates if they had not submitted the party certificates.

“They would have been deemed independent,” the ECP’s lawyer replied.

He informed that SIC Chairman Sahibzada Hamid Raza, in his papers, had shown himself to be the candidate of both the PTI and the SIC.

“If that was the case, why did the election commission declare him an independent candidate?” Justice Shahid Waheed questioned.

The commission’s lawyer replied that he was declared an independent candidate at his request. “There were discrepancies in Hamid’s papers,” he added.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, on the occasion, remarked that now it had been proved that Hamid had submitted the PTI certificate along with his papers.  

Justice Muneeb opined that after the PTI lost its election symbol, the ECP ought to have clarified its position. “It did not tell whether the party could contest the elections,” he said, adding it was binding on the election commission to give a clear picture of the situation before the elections held on February 8, 2024.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked the ECP’s lawyer, why the commission declared those candidates ‘independent’ who had submitted the PTI certificates and did not withdraw their papers as well.

Justice Ayesha Malik, on the occasion, asked the election commission’s lawyer, why the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) had been given reserved seats in 2018 when the party had not even applied for that.

The lawyer replied that the BAP had contested the elections for Balochistan and National assemblies. 

“Can you please provide me a copy of the ECP’s decision about the party? Was a meeting held at the commission’s office to discuss the matter?” Justice Ayesha questioned.  

The lawyer said that there was a file, but no such meeting had been held. “The decision on BAP had not been taken by serving ECP members,” he informed.

He argued that PTI certificates were of no use after the party leadership was found guilty of not holding intra-party elections.  

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that if the court reached the conclusion that it was wrong to declare the candidates ‘independent’, then the three-day period would start afresh.

Justice Mandokhel asked PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, why you and other party leaders had submitted your nomination papers as independent candidates. “You told us that you had attached PTI certificates with your papers,” he asked.

The barrister replied that he had submitted two papers; on one, I had written the word ‘independent’. “But the election commission showed only one paper in the court.”

Speaking on the occasion, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Advocate General (AG) said that the BAP was allotted reserved seats in 2018 despite the fact it had not submitted the list for the purpose. 

Justice Mandokhel reminded him that at that time, BAP was PTI’s ally. “Did you challenge reserved seats given to the BAP in a court then?” the judge questioned. The KP AG replied in negative.

The judge said, “We will remember so many things if we go into the past.”

The chief justice was of the view that the case’s hearing was presently centered around formulas. “Set the rules aside, and just follow the constitution,” he said, adding, “The constitution is clear on the subject under review. There is no ambiguity in it.”

Justice Mansoor wished he had the same brain that the CJP had. “Perhaps I do not understand the constitution easily,” he remarked.

Justice Minallah opined if the ECP had not kicked the PTI out of the electoral race, the situation would have been different today.  

The attorney general said that the purpose of giving reserved seats was to give representation to women and minorities. “Not a single in the parliament can be left vacant,” he argued.

The AG said that in 2002, reserved seats had been allotted to political parties on the basis of proportional representation. “Independents will only be counted when they join a party,” he said.

Justice Minallah said that the formula of proportional representation was devised after including the SIC. “But later the election commission said that the SIC was not entitled to reserved seats,” the judge said.

The attorney general replied that initially, the status of the SIC was not clear. “It was after recognizing the SIC as a political party that the ECP had given reserved seats to it,” Justice Minallah remarked.

The AG argued that independent candidates could not be counted for getting reserved seats.

Justice Ayesha asked him on what basis he was saying that.

Addressing the attorney general, Justice Shahid Waheed said the formula you had told us just now was in violation of Section 94 of the Election Rules. “Is the same formula being followed since 2002 for reserved seats?” Justice Ayesha questioned.

Justice Shahid, on the occasion, said there was no Election Act, 2017 in 2002.

The AG replied the same formula for reserved seats had been laid down in the Act.

Justice Ayesha said nowhere in the constitution it was written that the seats of independents should be reduced for the sake of reserved seats.

Reporter Amanat Gishkori