ECP postpones Islamabad LB polls

CEC says practice of changing number of UCs ahead of polls must stop


Saqib Virk December 27, 2022

ISLAMABAD:

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has postponed the local body elections which were scheduled for Dec 31 in the federal capital on the grounds that the number of union councils are being increased in line with the boost in population.

On the Federation’s request, the ECP cancelled the schedule of LB elections and postponed them, saying that the detailed decision would be issued later.

A five-member bench of the ECP heard the case related to the LB elections in Islamabad on the orders of the Islamabad High Court.

Advocate General Islamabad Jahangir Jadoon, former attorney general Ashtar Ausaf, PTI's Babar Awan and Ali Nawaz Awan, while Jamaat-e-Islami's Mian Aslam appeared before the bench.

During the hearing, Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja inquired whether the census report had come.

Ausaf said that the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics reported an increase in the population of Islamabad, and the “ECP should look into the issue of the increase in population”.

Recently, the government claimed that the population of the city jumped to a whopping 200 million and as a result, the number of union councils had to be increased from 101 to 125.

It was noted that the IHC also recognised the increase in population, and authorised the ECP to take the final decision.

During the hearing, the CEC said that constituencies had been demarcated twice in Islamabad as well as in Punjab. “It is going to happen for the third time. Why the government did not think earlier that the union councils should be increased on time,” Raja said.

“Now that the schedule has been announced, they want to increase the UCs. The government has put the commission in a complicated situation. It is written in Article 148 of the Constitution that elections are to be held according to the local law. Now if that law is changed, what should be done?”

The CEC said that there should be such a legislation that the LG elections were held on time. “We have to face resistance for the LG elections in the provinces as well. The election of the mayor has been directed, and we don't even have his nomination papers.”

He questioned what if tomorrow the number of union councils were to be reduced.

Raja said, “We will write to parliament that preparations for the LG elections should be completed on time. According to the Constitution, it is necessary to hold LB elections. However, there is a fear that the government may change the union councils again after the constituencies … the government should stop this practice.”

He said the governments postpone LG elections every other day by amending the elections act.

During the hearing, PTI lawyer Awan said in his arguments that the schedule had been issued. “Now, it is necessary to hold the LB elections on Dec 31 because they have been delayed twice before. The government is a party in this case. The IHC has not issued any order related to the LB elections, but has given authority to the ECP regarding LB elections.”

The CEC said that despite these arguments, the IHC has annulled the ECP’s decision and also asked to review the number of union councils.

Meanwhile, the lawyer of Jamaat-e-Islami took the position that the IHC did not limit the authority of the ECP. “Our position is that we stand with the ECP. All the authority belongs to the commission. The elections have to be conducted by it [ECP].

“The federal government will reduce the powers of the ECP, and if these powers are given to them, the elections will never be held.”

Later, after listening to the arguments of the parties, the ECP reserved its decision. It was pronounced an hour later.

The Election Commission cancelled the schedule of the LB elections to be held on December 31 in the federal capital, and postponed them.

IHC surprised

The IHC on Tuesday expressed surprise when it was revealed that the population of the federal capital was mentioned as 200 million in a summary during the hearing of the LB elections case.

The court questioned the veracity of the claim given that Pakistan's population numbered around 222 million.

The IHC was hearing the PTI appeal to hold LB elections in Islamabad on Dec 31.

The PTI challenged the decision of the single bench of the IHC to nullify the ECP’s earlier verdict and hear all stakeholders before deciding on holding elections on Dec 31.

The party claimed that increasing the number of union councils, days before the poll's scheduled date, was of "no importance", praying that the single bench decision be annulled and the ECP's decision on the matter restored.

The PTI counsel stated that just 11 days ago, the government increased the number of union councils from 101 to 125 after claiming that the population of the city had increased.

To the court's earlier question regarding the population of the federal capital, the lawyer replied that 205 million was written in the approved summary. He claimed that the government increased the number of union councils to 101 according to the city's population six months ago, and was now further increasing local seats to 125.

The PTI counsel questioned the government's claim of increase in population.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that when the PTI was in power, it did not hold by-polls, as is the case with the incumbent government. "Maybe, it suits political parties not to hold LG elections," he said.

The PTI lawyer repeatedly pleaded the court to stop the ECP from giving its decision on Tuesday (yesterday), saying that it should not give a decision on the matter till Wednesday or else the decision would be made subject to the decision of the court.

The court, while rejecting the request for an immediate injunction on the PTI's appeal, said that it would decide in the plea on Wednesday (today) after hearing all parties.

The hearing was then adjourned till today.

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