Disenfranchisement of women: Repolling likely in NA-5, NA-27 next weekend

Court to check voting record to see if women were disenfranchised.


Our Correspondent August 25, 2013
An elderly voter casts her ballot during the by-election in Peshawar. PHOTO: AFP

ISLAMABAD:


Re-polls at polling stations in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa constituencies where women were barred from voting in Thursday’s by-elections are likely to be held by next weekend, official sources said.


The results of the nine polling stations each of NA-5 Nowshera-I and NA-27 Lakki Marwat were withheld following reports that women were not allowed to vote by local elders.

Talking to The Express Tribune, ECP officials said they will submit the record of the concerned polling stations to the Peshawar High Court on Monday. PHC Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan had taken notice of reports of women being barred from voting in the two constituencies.

The officials said that while re-polls would be held next weekend if the court ordered it to do so, no re-polls would be held if the record proved there was no anomaly in the voting process in NA-5 and NA-27.



According to ECP officials, there is no law in the country which stipulates any particular number of female votes is required to validate the results. They said, in such an event, the election authorities had compiled the results of the two constituencies already.

Interestingly, the ECP last year proposed a law stipulating that if the number of votes cast by women in any constituency was less than 10% of the total number of votes cast, the results would be annulled and a re-poll would be held. The proposed law was rejected by the previous Parliament, however.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 25th, 2013.

COMMENTS (2)

salman | 10 years ago | Reply

pti is winning those seats anyway

Dj | 10 years ago | Reply

And yet no word from ECP about pp-150. Just shows how badly rigged the general election was.

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