CEC appointment: Supreme Court rebuffs Khursheed Shah’s plea

Instructs PM to appoint permanent head of ECP by November 13 .


Hasnaat Malik October 30, 2014

ISLAMABAD:


The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down opposition leader Khursheed Shah’s appeal for more time to finalise the appointment of a permanent chief election commissioner (CEC) – a post that has been vacant for over a year now.


A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, also directed the prime minister to appoint the new poll chief by November 13 after completing the required consultations.

Issuing a stern warning earlier this month, the court gave the federal government two weeks to appoint a permanent head of the top poll supervisory body, or else it would withdraw its judge, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, who is currently serving as the acting election commission chief.

During the hearing on Thursday, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, who was representing the opposition leader, had sought another three months for the appointment of the new election commissioner.

Citing political crisis in the country, the lawyer contended that the situation inside and outside parliament had been uncertain for the past few months. He said the consultation process has been resumed to review election reforms.



Upon this, the chief justice said that consultation between the prime minister and the opposition leader regarding the appointment of CEC is a constitutional requirement, adding that the post has been vacant for more than a year.

The judge pointed out that the failure to appoint a permanent election commissioner was hampering not only the poll body’s functioning but also the apex court as one of its judges was serving as chief of the poll body.

He added that the poll body required a permanent head who could formulate policies. He questioned why the consultation process was not completed, despite the court’s direction to fill the position earlier this year.

Expressing his dismay, the judge said that despite the formation of the election reforms committee it may take years to introduce the poll reforms in the country.

The bench also quizzed the attorney general over the appointment of a permanent election commissioner. The AG informed the court that no instructions had been received to seek more time for holding consultations over the appointment.

After hearing the arguments, the court directed the federal government to appoint the head of the poll body by November 13.

Meanwhile, while talking to reporters outside parliament, the veteran Pakistan Peoples Party leader Khursheed Shah expressed disappointment over the ruling party’s stance, adding that he had filed the application with the consent of the federal government but it did not support his plea in the court.

Shah also stated that all the opposition parties within parliament would be consulted over the appointment, adding he would also consult PTI if it returns to parliament.

Earlier this week, Shah had approached the apex court, seeking a three-month extension for the completion of the process. The move came ahead of the court’s deadline regarding the election commissioner’s appointment.

Justice (retd) Fakharuddin G Ebrahim, who was appointed as the 13th CEC, had resigned on July 30, 2013 – a day after the presidential polls for which opposition parties accused the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) of failing to ensure impartiality.

Progress over delimitation process

During the hearing, the bench also rejected the ECP’s request seeking six to nine months’ time to carry out delimitation of constituencies.

The commission was directed to complete the delimitation process for Local Government (LG) elections within 45 days.

Declining the poll body’s request, the court directed the commission to submit reports about the steps, which require six to nine months. Subsequently, the court observed that it will take up the matter for hearing in December.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st, 2014.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ