LHC CJ's unexpected agreement with CEC

ISLAMABAD:

In a move that caught the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) off guard, Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Alia Neelum has thrown her support behind Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja's decision to exclude four LHC judges from serving as election tribunals in Punjab.

The LHC Registrar submitted a report to the Supreme Court, detailing the minutes of a meeting held on July 18 between the LHC Chief Justice and the CEC.

During the proceedings, Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman read the relevant portions of this report before the five-judge larger bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa. Interestingly, PTI's legal team was left in the dark regarding the report's contents.

The report stated, "The Chief Election Commissioner, in meaningful consultation with the Honorable Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, expressed his willingness to retain the four judges already appointed as Election Tribunals via letter dated April 26, 2024.

Furthermore, referring to the recent amendment contained in Section 140(1) of the Election Act 2017, the CEC indicated that additional election tribunals, if necessary, would be appointed from ex-judges of the high court, eliminating the need for future consultation with the LHC CJ as outlined in Section 140(3) of the Election Act 2017."

The PML-N-led government is likely to be on cloud nine with this development, as the judges excluded from election tribunal appointments include Justice Shahid Kareem, Justice Asim Hafeez, Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf, and Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh.

Although former LHC CJ Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had nominated these judges, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) hesitated to appoint them without explanation. The judges are regarded as outspoken within the high court.

The agreement of the LHC CJ to exclude these four judges has raised eyebrows, especially given earlier reports suggesting she would stand firm against withdrawing any nominee from her predecessor, Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan.

During the hearing, CJP Qazi Faez Isa appeared satisfied with the resolution of the issue concerning election tribunals in Punjab.

The SC, led by CJP Isa, adjudicated major matters related to the recent February 8 elections.

However, PTI has expressed strong reservations about the CJP's conduct regarding election-related issues. PTI counsel Hamid Khan sought CJP Isa's recusal from the bench on Tuesday, but the CJP did not entertain the application.

The Supreme Court, under CJP Isa's leadership, has been instrumental in setting the stage for the general elections, yet did not address why elections had not been held within the mandated 90 days.

When the LHC suspended the ECP's notification regarding the appointment of executive officers as Returning Officers (ROs), CJP Isa intervened, overturning the LHC's interim order.

PTI had requested that judicial officers be appointed as ROs to prevent controversy surrounding Forms 45 and 47.

Additionally, on January 13, CJP Isa declared PTI's intra-party elections illegal, stripping the party of its election symbol.

The ECP did not recognize PTI as a parliamentary party, leading PTI-backed candidates to join the Sunni Ittehad Council, which was also denied reserved seats.

The issue of reserved seats found its way to the apex court, which ruled that PTI was entitled to these seats. With the SC's intervention, the election tribunals are now expected to operate effectively.

CJP Isa, while hearing an election matter, has noted that the ballot papers cast are the determinative factor. "What is recorded by a presiding officer or a returning officer in the requisite forms is not the final determination of the vote count if the votes are ordered to be recounted, which is done by opening the bags/packets containing the ballot papers.

"The ballot papers which are cast are the primary evidence of the election result. To the said forms attaches a presumption of correctness until the ballot papers are ordered to be recounted," the judgment states.

CJP Isa explains that a candidate may request a recount of the votes, and if such a request is allowed, the votes are recounted after issuance of notice to all the candidates, with recounting taking place in the presence of all those who choose to attend.

If there is a dispute in this regard, the actual votes cast determine the controversy.

However, it is needless to state that if the seals of the bags/packets are found to be broken or tampered with, the sanctity of the votes therein stands compromised.

In light of this order, lawyers suggest that the controversy surrounding Forms 45 and 47 may come to an end, potentially benefiting government lawmakers from the recounting.