The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday rejected the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) plea against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision in the prohibited funding case, saying it was “premature” at this stage.
“…We find that this petition is premature and not yet ready for decision. A show cause notice is issued to the petitioner to respond to the provisional findings of violation of law contained in the fact-finding report. is,” the judgment said.
In August 2022, the Election Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PTI after it concluded — based on a fact-finding report — that the party received funding from prohibited sources. The notice was later challenged in the IHC.
A larger bench of Islamabad High Court comprising Chief Justice Aamir Farooq, Justice Mian Gul Hasan and Justice Babar Sattar reserved the verdict on January 11 after the arguments were completed.
The judgment said that Khan has the right to raise all his objections to correct or change the findings recorded in the report, including findings beyond his jurisdiction before the ECP during show cause proceedings. Raise any jurisdictional objection. .
“…The ECP shall have the duty to consider all the facts and legal claims with an open mind and in accordance with law and […] by a reasonable order without any interest in confirming the findings in the report. to decide them. Or otherwise to try to draw a predetermined conclusion.”
The court said that since the report was provisional and would be formalized only after the PTI was given a “fair opportunity” to record its statements, it “regarded the certificate submitted by Chairman PTI”. not inclined to judicial review of preliminary findings of fact. Provisions of Article 13(2) of the PPO”.
The High Court also said that it is within the realm of possibility that the show-cause notice may also be withdrawn if PTIECP is satisfied that it has not received any prohibited funding.
The court said it was confident that as the repository of public authority in a country governed by the rule of law, the ECP and the federal government would not violate the rights of the PTI and its chairman as enshrined in law and the Constitution. Guaranteed.
“Even if the PTIECP is aggrieved by the final decision passed by the PTIEC after the conclusion of the show cause proceedings, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy under law, including a constitutional decision. The first judicial review procedure is included.If the court so advises, we dismiss the instant petition as premature.
PTI may lose its election symbol.
Speaking to JEE News, former ECP secretary Kanwar Dilshad termed the verdict as “an important development” that could have several ramifications for the party.
Dilshad said the PTI had approached the High Court against the ECP’s decision in the prohibited funding case under Sections 204 and 210 of the Election Act, 2017, which allows the commission to confiscate funds.
When asked about the implications of the IHC verdict, Dilshad said the ECP can now freeze the party’s assets under the law.
The Election Commission can also withdraw the election symbol issued to PTI.
Last hearing
During the hearing, the court had observed that the ECP’s responsibility was to do only what the Constitution allowed – which was limited to confiscation of funds.
While the ECP claimed during the hearing that he had no authority to change his decision, the court observed that if the PTI presented satisfactory evidence to the court – proving the legitimacy of the funds – The amount will not be forfeited.
During the hearing, PTI’s counsel argued that the ECP had termed it a “foreign-aided” party and invalidated PTI chief Imran Khan’s announcement.
“The financial affairs of political parties are looked after by chartered accountants,” he argued. ECP has targeted PTI.
The Chief Justice had said that the ECP did not give any declaration in its report, “The decision of the ECP is sometimes called an order, sometimes a report and sometimes just an opinion.” In my opinion, it was a fact-finding report,” he said.
However, the ECP representative insisted that it was not just a report but a decision.
He said that the ECP could not have issued a show cause notice without giving a decision.
During the hearing of the case, IHC Chief Justice Aamir Farooq said: “Are you afraid that Imran Khan will be disqualified on this issue? The ECP will not make any declaration in this show cause notice, nor criminal charges against Khan.” His authority extends only to the extent of confiscation of funds.
Moreover, the court had also criticized the ECP in the previous hearing for taking the matter to the federal government, as by doing so several cases were registered by the FIA against the PTI.
Now, if the court gives a verdict in favor of PTI, the notice will be withdrawn and the cases against the party will be withdrawn. It is also likely that the court will advise the electoral body to re-examine the matter.
PTI challenged the Election Commission’s decision.
On August 10 last year, PTI had challenged the ECP’s decision in the prohibited funding case in the IHC seeking annulment of the order.
In his petition filed in the IHC, PTI Additional Secretary General Umar Ayub asked the court not only to set aside the August 2 verdict but also to quash the ECP’s show cause notices sent to PTI Chairman Imran Khan. Also cancel the notice.
The petitioner said he was “deeply saddened” by the fact-finding report – which revealed that the PTI received funds from foreign sources – and demanded that it be “perverse, wrong and without powers and jurisdiction”. Exceeded”.
In his plea, Ayub also asked the court to “declare that any action recommended by the ECP is beyond its jurisdiction and that no action can be taken on the basis of the fact-finding report”.
PTI also made ECP a party in the case.
Decision of Election Commission in Prohibited Funding Case
On 2 August 2022, the ECP announced in a unanimous decision that PTI had received prohibited funding. The case was earlier referred to as a “foreign funding” case, but later the Election Commission accepted PTI’s request to call it a “prohibited funding” case.
The commission found that donations were received from the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Arab Emirates.
The ECP verdict said that PTI received funds from 351 businesses including 34 individuals and companies.
Thirteen unaccounted accounts also came to light, the commission said in the judgment, concealing the accounts was a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution.
The funds were also in violation of Article 6 of the Political Parties Act.
Further, the ECP found that Khan submitted a false nomination form I and the affidavit provided regarding party accounts was also not authentic.
