The Lahore High Court (LHC) adjourned the hearing of a plea by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan against the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) move to strip him of his party chairmanship following his disqualification in the Toshakhana reference.
The plea will not be heard after Eidul Fitr. LHC’s larger bench headed by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan issued the order.
As proceedings commenced today, the PTI chief’s counsel barrister Ali Zafar told the court that he is ready for initiating his arguments. The ECP’s counsel argued that Islamabad High Court (IHC) had already fixed April 19 on a similar petition pending.
The ECP counsel further objected over not making the speaker of the national assembly a respondent in the case.
To this, bench’s member Justice Shahik Karim observed that making the speaker a respondent is not necessary. The bench also remarked that the roster will be changed after the Eid holidays and one of the judges on the present bench might not be a part of the bench.
Read ECP warns PTI leaders of issuing arrest warrants
Earlier proceedings before single bench
In January, the LHC’s single bench headed by Justice Jawad Hassan barred the ECP from removing Imran as the chairman of PTI in pursuance of the verdict issued in the Toshakhana case. The court issued the directives after it accepted the former prime minister’s petition against the ECP notice that restrained him from rendering as party chairman. The LHC then issued notices to the attorney general of Pakistan and the ECP.
It is pertinent to mention that ECP on December 5, 2022, had initiated the process to remove Imran as the PTI chairman in the light of its verdict in the Toshakhana case. He was disqualified under Article 63(1p) of the Constitution for making false statements and incorrect declarations.
The ECP on December 13, 2022, also informed the IHC that it had initiated proceedings to remove Imran from the post of PTI chairman. The ECP started the proceedings against the deposed prime minister after disqualifying him from his Mianwali seat of the National Assembly in October in the Toshakhana case.
Also Read Govt has no other option but to go to IMF: Imran
After that on January 4, the petitioner approached the LHC against the ECP’s proceedings, pleading that the cognizance and exercise of jurisdiction by the ECP on the basis of alleged incorrect statement of assets and subsequent disqualification was unlawful and contrary to the Constitution.
Before the single bench of the LHC, Imran’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar had contended that the electoral watchdog did not have the authority to remove someone from the position of party chairman.
In that proceeding, Additional Attorney General Nasar Ahmad had argued that the petitioner concealed the facts about the pendency of his petition on the same issue before the IHC, wherein notices were issued and interim relief was also granted to him.
The remark irked Barrister Zafar who pointed out that the fact about the proceedings before the IHC was mentioned in the petition filed in the LHC.
However, Justice Hassan observed that since important Articles of the Constitution and provisions of the Election Act 2017 required interpretation, he deemed it fit to refer the matter to the LHC chief justice for forming a larger bench.
Imran’s petition
Read LHC adjourns Imran’s party chairmanship plea
While the ECP issued the impugned notice to Imran on December 7, 2022, the petitioner argued that the entire scheme of his qualification and disqualification had been “misconstrued” and the precedent set by the Supreme Court (SC) in the disqualification of former premier Nawaz Sharif has been “misapplied” to the detriment of Imran.
No declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution has been passed by any court of law against the petitioner Imran Khan, the petitioner added up.
In fact the impugned findings of ECP are to the detriment of the entire scheme of parliamentary democracy which is not warranted in law and are liable to be set aside by the court, the petitioner contended in the petition.
He further implored that the ECP cannot issue the impugned notice to the petitioner since it never made a declaration against him under Article 62(1)(f).
Imran also requested the LHC to declare the impugned notice illegal and hold that the ECP findings against the petitioner are without lawful authority.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ