The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday suspended its earlier order in which the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was directed to decide the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) foreign funding case within a month as the latter’s lawyer put up compelling arguments.
A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Babar Sattar, suspended the earlier directions given by IHC judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani while hearing the intra-court appeal filed by the PTI lawyer against the ECP’s alleged bias in the foreign funding case.
The court clubbed the petitions of PTI against the decision of Justice Kayani and against the ECP’s conduct, and sought comments from the respondents.nEarlier this month, Justice Kayani had dismissed the PTI’s petition seeking to keep the details of its foreign funding confidential, terming it "non-maintainable" and "misconceived".
He also rejected the request to prevent giving access of the case’s record to dissident PTI founding member Akbar S Babar and a request to remove him from the case proceedings.
The PTI had filed petitions on January 25 and 31 that were subsequently rejected by the ECP on March 15. The party had then filed a petition challenging the ECP’s decision to dismiss the pleas.
At the outset of hearing, the chief justice asked that why the proceeding was ongoing after the scrutiny committee had told the ECP that the documents submitted by the complainant Babar were not “verifiable”.
PTI lawyer Shah Khawar argued that the decision taken by the bench was “unconstitutional”.
The lawyer objected to the bench’s use of harsh terms such as “face the music", stating that such words were unbecoming of the bench.
Read PTI wants Akbar Babar out of foreign funding case
“The single bench used the word ‘foreign funding’ in the decision even though the case before the ECP is of prohibited funding,” he said, adding that it was not the prerogative of the bench to order the electoral watchdog to take a decision within 30 days.
Chief Justice Minallah said that the law permitted the ECP to scrutinise the accounts of political parties every year and if prohibited funding was found, the funds would be confiscated under the law of 2002.
The lawyer argued that his party “has not been treated fairly and that it has been singled out”. He contended that the Political Parties Order, 2002 read with Article 17(3) of the Constitution contemplates that all political parties are to be treated equally and fairly.
He apprised the bench that the “ECP is a creation of the Constitution and, therefore, its proceedings are to be regulated without interference by the court”. “The direction given by the single judge in chambers to decide the matter within 30 days is not in consonance with the constitutional mandate.”
After hearing the arguments, the bench suspended the direction given by Justice Jayani to conclude the pending matter within 30 days.
In its written order, the bench remarked: “We expected that the ECP will ensure that an uneven playing field is not created by treating the political parties differently. “We expected the ECP to proceed with the scrutiny process by treating all the political parties equally and in accordance with the law.”
The court also served notices to respondents on the plea of PTI against the conduct of ECP. The petition had alleged the ECP for working with adopting the way of discrimination. The court adjourned further hearing of the case till May 17.
The court issued notices to 17 parties, including the PML-N and the PPP, the ECP, Akbar S Babar and other parties, seeking their replies and adjourned the hearing till May 17.
On January 4, the ECP’s scrutiny committee submitted its report after 95 hearings and nearly four years.
The report disclosed that the PTI leadership had committed gross violations of funding laws by allowing the collection of millions of dollars and billions of rupees without any source and details from foreigners, including Indian nationals and foreign companies.
The PTI foreign funding case is pending since November 14, 2014.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ