PTI approaches IHC against ECP's prohibited funding case verdict

The Election Commission of Pakistan’s verdict in the prohibited funding case against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was challenged in the Islamabad High Court by the party on Wednesday.

In its plea, filed by the PTI's additional secretary general Omar Ayyub, the party has requested the IHC to declare the ECP’s decision, delivered on August 2, illegal.

Moreover, the PTI has called for the decision to be annulled along with the show cause notice sent to the party for not declaring 13 'unknown' accounts that were found linked to it.

The application was filed through former Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan, lawyer Shah Khawar and Faisal Fareed.

'PTI pocketed millions illegally'

Last week, the ECP had announced its ruling in the long-awaited, cliffhanger case of the PTI's prohibited funding, and ruled that the party did, indeed, receive illegal funding. It also issued a notice to the party asking why the funds should not be confiscated.

A three-member ECP bench headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikander Sultan Raja had announced the verdict in a case filed by PTI founding member Akbar S Babar, which had been pending since November 14, 2014.

In its written order, the ECP had said the political party received millions of dollars in illegal funds from foreign countries, including the United States, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and Australia.

Read Sword of Damocles falls on Imran’s PTI

"The office is also directed to initiate any other action under the law, in light of this order of the Commission," said the 68-page judgement.

The electoral watchdog also declared that 13 'unknown' accounts have been found linked to the party and the submissions by PTI chief Imran Khan were 'inaccurate and wrong'.

'All accounts legal'

Earlier, PTI senior leader Fawad Chaudhry offered an explanation for the 16 party accounts that the electoral watchdog’s verdict termed as illegal and undeclared.

In a press conference, Chaudhry said that “subsidiary accounts were opened under party leaders’ names” ahead of elections and were therefore “declared”.

“The accounting formula – that accountants follow, is that they don’t do double counting,” he said, claiming that the 16 accounts were, in fact, subsidiary and had they been included then, “it would double the count”.

“The amount that comes into the main account is declared,” he explained, “accountants don’t count the amount in subsidiary accounts,” he claimed.