Rashid challenges Imran to prove rigging allegations in Parliament

Information minister says unsuccessful attempts have been made to discredit elections and the election commission


Web Desk September 24, 2014
Rashid challenges Imran to prove rigging allegations in Parliament

ISLAMABAD: Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid on Wednesday urged PTI chief Imran Khan to bring his grievances about the 2013 election to Parliament, while presenting a fact-sheet titled ‘The Truth behind PTI's allegations’. 

“Parliament is the only platform to raise your issues in a democratic system,” said Rashid, while addressing a joint press conference with Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and Minister of State for Information Technology Anusha Rehman in Islamabad.

The information minister said Imran should raise his concerns regarding the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) Post-Election Review report in Parliament, while clarifying that the report released by the ECP on September 22, does not claim that the PTI was winning the polls during the general elections.

Rashid went on to add that unsuccessful attempts have been made to discredit the May 2013 elections and the election commission.

Further, Finance Minister Dar said that elaborate and effective measures were introduced in the 2013 elections to ensure transparency for the first time in the country's history.

“The election procedure needs to be reformed but this doesn’t mean the results of the general elections should not be accepted,” the finance minister said.

“Initially the PML-N won 148 seats in the National Assembly against the required 136 for a majority, while PTI just won 34 including minorities and seats reserved for women,” Dar claimed, questioning, how a party with just 34 seats could make claims of forming a government.

“If PTI had complaints against elections, it should have filed petitions with the election tribunals,” the finance minister said, adding that PTI filed a total of 58 petitions, including 30 against National Assembly constituencies. "Of these 30 constituencies, only 15 were from Punjab and PML-N and PTI candidates were in direct contest in just two of these constituencies," he added.

Referring to the PTI’s demands, Dar said, “We even offered PTI vice chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi to take over the chairmanship of the parliamentary committee on electoral reforms.”

COMMENTS (18)

Muneer | 10 years ago | Reply

@liaqat ali: The problem is that the votes polled are sealed after vote counting has been done/result announced.After the bags are sealed they could only be opened on the court orders for re-counting.How the Interior Minister know that 60000 to 70000 votes are un-verifiable in each constituency?.There are only two options:-Either the Minister knew it in advance,of the rigging which took place OR the boxes were re-opened illegally and their verification done.It clearly raised doubts about the validity of the votes polled and thus elections become controversial.

ishrat salim | 10 years ago | Reply

The ECP is yet to put on their website form 14, 15,16 & 17 as per rule. why have they not done that. yet ? The election had flaws as per the draft report Dec2013, which bred rigging & that is what IK is talking about. When election has been conducted against all those mentioned flaws, you think the result will be fair ?

PML N has gone mentally berserk. They did not comprehend that they will be challenged this way. The way the press conference was conducted by Mr Dar in presence of Mr Rashid & Ms Anusha was as if the election was conducted by them. It was not them, but the caretaker govt, so let them justify, but panic has set in their bones. Why not let commission be formed to confirm all aspect of EC management of election, instead of creating road blocks. TORs as per PML N will never be agreed. Let TORs be made by SC, if SC is really interested to resolve the issue. SC can do this as per article 190 of the constitution, so what SC is waiting for ?

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