Clean bowled: RO rejects PTI's petiton against rigging at NA-125 Lahore

Hamid Khan had alleged Saad Rafique rigged elections at NA-125 in Lahore.


Web Desk May 14, 2013
Photo of a ballot box that went viral on social media.

LAHORE: The returning officer rejected Hamid Khan’s petition regarding rigging done by Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) candidate Khawaja Saad Rafique who won in NA-125 Lahore, Express News reported on Tuesday.

Hamid Khan of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) alleged that at NA-125, the PML-N candidates and their agents, “in a systematic, deliberate and pre-planned scheme … with the active connivance and support of presiding officers and the police” cast bogus votes and tampered with ballot boxes and ballot papers.

Khan sought a recount of the votes and verification of the counts furnished by the presiding officer.

Talking to The Express Tribune, Saad Rafique had said that the PTI should accept its defeat in the constituency rather than make accusations aimed at casting doubt on the PML-N mandate.

He had further said that if the PTI chief could be defeated in Lahore, it was no surprise that he should defeat Khan.

On Monday, Returning Officer Khalid Mehmood Bhatti issued notice to the PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique (winner at NA-125), for May 14, on the complaint of losing PTI candidate Hamid Khan.

COMMENTS (28)

Salman Saleem | 9 years ago | Reply

PTI should follow the due course of action. Its candidates should file petitions in election tribunals set by ECP for objections of results. If they are not satisfied from there, they can go to courts then.

Salman Saleem | 9 years ago | Reply

Imran Khan termed it as "Wicket Down", whenever some politician joined PTI. It meant that other party was failed. So when a petition by PTI's Hamid Khan for recount in NA-125 is rejected by RO on technical grounds, it is a failure for them. So it can be termed as: "Clean Bowled" :)

VIEW MORE 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

Most Read