Defeated PTI candidates seek legal redress
PTI supporters condemn the attack on the 'long march' convoy held by Pakistan's former leader Imran Khan in Wazirabad. PHOTO: REUTERS
Several defeated candidates backed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the elections have turned to the Lahore High Court Multan Bench seeking legal recourse.
Notable among them are Meher Sajjad Cheena, an independent PTI candidate from NA-186 DG Khan, Sardar Mohiuddin Khosa, an independent PTI candidate from PP-290 DG Khan and Faheem Saeed Changwani from PP-291 DG Khan.
Also Ali Muhammad Khalul, an independent PTI candidate from NA-184 DG Khan, Akhlaq Ahmed Badani, an independent PTI candidate from PP-287, Farhat Abbas, an independent PTI candidate from PP-286, Iqbal Khan Patafi Advocate, an independent PTI candidate from PP-269 and Jam Muhammad Younis Advocate, an independent PTI candidate from PP-268 moved to court against alleged rigging.
These candidates, along with Malik Saqib Iqbal Advocate from DG Khan, filed writ petitions at the Lahore High Court Multan Bench on Monday, and the court has reserved its decisions after the hearings.
Simultaneously, Dr Akhtar Malik from PP-219 has lodged a petition at the Lahore High Court Multan Bench challenging the election results for the constituency.
During the hearing, Advocate Malik Altaf, representing Dr. Akhtar Malik, argued that the issuance of Form 47 regarding Wasif Mazhar’s victory was conducted in accordance with the law, and the consolidation was carried out as per Form 45, which bears Mazhar’s signature. He emphasised that Form 45 was duly checked and signed in both Mazhar’s and Dr Akhtar Malik’s cases.
The counsel urged for the dismissal of Dr Akhtar Malik’s petition, who contested from PP-219 under the banner of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
Conversely, Muzaffar Hussain, the lawyer for the Election Commission, contended in court that resorting to the High Court was premature as an appeal was already pending with the election commission.
He further argued that the high court petition was inadmissible since the Returning Officers (ROs) had adhered to the legal procedure for releasing the results.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 13th 2024.