IHC CJ says court cannot interfere in ECP proceedings

A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) remarked on Tuesday that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was a constitutional forum, therefore, the court would not halt its proceedings, but would ensure that no party had any complaints against the polls supervisor.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, took up Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition related to the foreign funding case. It sought replies from the ECP and the political parties.

Representatives of the Awami Muslim League (AML) and the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) appeared before the court, while the ECP submitted a written report. During the hearing the chief justice asked the ECP lawyer why the case was lingering on for eight years.

The chief justice further inquired, whether the ECP audited accounts of the political parties every year. The ECP law director informed the court only questionable accounts were scrutinised. The ECP lawyer said that a detailed report in this regard could be submitted in the court.

The chief justice said that if the accounts of a political party were objectionable, a response could have been sought. If proved, the objectionable accounts could be seized, he added. The court was informed that one case was filed by Akbar S Babar, while another by Farrukh Habib. The ECP lawyer said that the scrutiny committee did not give Akbar S Babar access to the record.

READ ECP reserves decision on disqualification of dissident PTI members

The court heard that the scrutiny committee was formed on two cases – one against the PTI and the other against other political parties. The chief justice remarked that it meant that the scrutiny committee had been formed for specific cases.

The lawyer for Akbar S Babar said that the matter could be concluded in just days. The ECP lawyer said that Babar’s complaint came in 2014 and the second complaint in 2018 while a third complaint was filed in 2020.

The chief justice said that it was his understanding that a party objects that if its case was decided first, it would have political implications but if the cases of all the political parties were decided at the same time, the effects would be collective.

The ECP lawyer said that in his opinion the case which was close to conclusion should be decided first, while the proceedings of other cases be expedited. The chief justice replied that the court would not prevent the ECP from proceedings.

The bench ordered the ECP and the political parties to submit their response on the matter. It said that the political parties should be provided a level-playing field and that no political party should have any complaint against the ECP proceedings. The hearing was adjourned till May 30.