ECP and PTI fight it out in top court
Imran’s party questions the electoral panel’s neutrality in the foreign funding case
The Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The cold war between the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has intensified, with the opposition party questioning the electoral panel’s neutrality before the Supreme Court on Saturday.
Showing complete mistrust in the ECP probe over the allegations of foreign funding, the PTI also complained to the top court that the ECP was specifically targeting the party with ‘mala fide intention’.
Through its counsel Anwar Mansoor Khan, the PTI filed a concise statement in the Supreme Court over the ECP’s reply in the case filed by Hanif Abbasi of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
Foreign funding case: PTI fails to submit account details – yet again
The PTI statement points out that the ECP acted with bias in the matter as there were glaring violations in audited accounts of other political parties, but the ECP ignored them and was focusing its energies on entertaining a third-party complaint against the PTI even when the commission was not empowered to entertain such complaints.
The PTI rejects the ECP’s allegation that the party has acted in a fraudulent manner in connection with the foreign funding issue.
“By virtue of this allegation, the ECP has become a party to the foreign funding case and thus cannot hear the same. The ECP is sitting with a predetermined mind, getting information which is incorrect from some source [based on] which they have come to the conclusion that the PTI is acting fraudulently,” it says.
The statement adds that the ECP and all its members are making direct allegations against a political party, being the second largest party that has made full and complete disclosure of funds from abroad, having come through proper banking channel.
PTI counsel struggles to provide money trail in foreign funding case
The party wonders that in such state of affairs, how the ECP can be neutral, adding that all the allegations are vehemently denied.
“Unfortunately, the ECP is [only] targeting the PTI which shows an apparent bias of the ECP against the PTI. If the ECP thought that it had suo motu powers, it could have taken the matter, but [it] did not want to take up matters of other parties, targeting only the PTI,” says the party statement.
There was no provision in the Political Party Order (PPO), empowering the ECP with suo motu powers, it claims, adding that it had not committed fraud or concealed information, instead a fund-raising policy had been publicly announced on its website.
“All funds received by the PTI have been disclosed [in accordance with] the policy announced by the party and [in conformity] with legal requirements of the PPO. If the ECP, at the time of filing of the Form 1, required this information, it could have done so,” it says.
“The ECP’s reply clearly showed its intent. Moreover [other] political parties [spent] more than the funds received, yet no action was taken by the ECP. Some political parties have the money [without] even documenting the same,” it adds.
The PTI, the statement says, was the only political party which made “proper and complete disclosures” in Form 1. “The ECP did not raise any objection to the Form until an outsider, who has had a dispute with the party with ulterior motives, files complaint/case,” it contends.
Foreign funding: PTI attorney granted time for consultation
Regarding ECP’s jurisdiction of review, the party’s reply says that the power of review is not an inherent power, and the ECP cannot be compared with the Supreme Court, adding that the ECP has no statutory powers to review its decision.
During the course of hearing, the Supreme Court wondered whether the ECP, under the PPO, was a court or tribunal.
The PTI contended that the ECP had not replied to this query because it was aware that there was no enabling provision under the PPO, empowering the ECP to act as a court or tribunal.
“The ECP does not have competence or authority to entertain complaints made under the political party order due to absence of explicit provision. The ECP can, after filing of accounts, scrutinise the accounts and then show cause under Article 13 and Article 6(3) but due to the absence of an explicit provision in law, the ECP cannot entertain complaints and enter into [the] fishing and roving inquiry, leading to adjudication on allegations raised by the complainant,” the party contended.
The ECP, through its counsel Ibharim Satti, also submitted before the apex court details of PTI’s accounts and those of other political parties.
The cold war between the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has intensified, with the opposition party questioning the electoral panel’s neutrality before the Supreme Court on Saturday.
Showing complete mistrust in the ECP probe over the allegations of foreign funding, the PTI also complained to the top court that the ECP was specifically targeting the party with ‘mala fide intention’.
Through its counsel Anwar Mansoor Khan, the PTI filed a concise statement in the Supreme Court over the ECP’s reply in the case filed by Hanif Abbasi of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
Foreign funding case: PTI fails to submit account details – yet again
The PTI statement points out that the ECP acted with bias in the matter as there were glaring violations in audited accounts of other political parties, but the ECP ignored them and was focusing its energies on entertaining a third-party complaint against the PTI even when the commission was not empowered to entertain such complaints.
The PTI rejects the ECP’s allegation that the party has acted in a fraudulent manner in connection with the foreign funding issue.
“By virtue of this allegation, the ECP has become a party to the foreign funding case and thus cannot hear the same. The ECP is sitting with a predetermined mind, getting information which is incorrect from some source [based on] which they have come to the conclusion that the PTI is acting fraudulently,” it says.
The statement adds that the ECP and all its members are making direct allegations against a political party, being the second largest party that has made full and complete disclosure of funds from abroad, having come through proper banking channel.
PTI counsel struggles to provide money trail in foreign funding case
The party wonders that in such state of affairs, how the ECP can be neutral, adding that all the allegations are vehemently denied.
“Unfortunately, the ECP is [only] targeting the PTI which shows an apparent bias of the ECP against the PTI. If the ECP thought that it had suo motu powers, it could have taken the matter, but [it] did not want to take up matters of other parties, targeting only the PTI,” says the party statement.
There was no provision in the Political Party Order (PPO), empowering the ECP with suo motu powers, it claims, adding that it had not committed fraud or concealed information, instead a fund-raising policy had been publicly announced on its website.
“All funds received by the PTI have been disclosed [in accordance with] the policy announced by the party and [in conformity] with legal requirements of the PPO. If the ECP, at the time of filing of the Form 1, required this information, it could have done so,” it says.
“The ECP’s reply clearly showed its intent. Moreover [other] political parties [spent] more than the funds received, yet no action was taken by the ECP. Some political parties have the money [without] even documenting the same,” it adds.
The PTI, the statement says, was the only political party which made “proper and complete disclosures” in Form 1. “The ECP did not raise any objection to the Form until an outsider, who has had a dispute with the party with ulterior motives, files complaint/case,” it contends.
Foreign funding: PTI attorney granted time for consultation
Regarding ECP’s jurisdiction of review, the party’s reply says that the power of review is not an inherent power, and the ECP cannot be compared with the Supreme Court, adding that the ECP has no statutory powers to review its decision.
During the course of hearing, the Supreme Court wondered whether the ECP, under the PPO, was a court or tribunal.
The PTI contended that the ECP had not replied to this query because it was aware that there was no enabling provision under the PPO, empowering the ECP to act as a court or tribunal.
“The ECP does not have competence or authority to entertain complaints made under the political party order due to absence of explicit provision. The ECP can, after filing of accounts, scrutinise the accounts and then show cause under Article 13 and Article 6(3) but due to the absence of an explicit provision in law, the ECP cannot entertain complaints and enter into [the] fishing and roving inquiry, leading to adjudication on allegations raised by the complainant,” the party contended.
The ECP, through its counsel Ibharim Satti, also submitted before the apex court details of PTI’s accounts and those of other political parties.