Supreme Court seeks reply from ECP, other respondents today regarding the matter of polls in KP, Punjab
Justice Munib Akhtar says ECP’s decisions had become an ‘obstruction’ in the way of the apex court’s orders
ISLAMABAD ( Web News )
Issuing notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for dragging feet on its orders, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday sought guarantees from the government and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for remaining peaceful for free, fair, and transparent elections. The court has summoned reply from ECP, federal government, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkwa governors today (Tuesday). The court has adjourned further hearing of the case till 11:30 AM today (Tuesday).
These developments came to the fore during the hearing of the plea regarding the date for general elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on Monday.
A five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the plea. Apart from the CJP, the bench includes Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
The PTI decided to move the apex court following the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone the Punjab polls from April 30 to October 8 after financial and security authorities expressed their inability to support the electoral process.
In light of the Supreme Court’s split ruling last month, President Dr. Arif Alvi had announced the date for the Punjab polls after consulting with the ECP.
Following the ECP’s announcement, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Haji Ghulam Ali also urged the electoral body to also hold the general elections on the same date (October 8) as the Punjab polls given the growing security threats from terror groups operating from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border regions.
At the outset of the hearing, PTI’s lawyer Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said that contempt of court has been committed thrice.
“When was the election schedule issued?” questioned CJP Bandial.
The PTI’s counsel replied that the schedule was issued on March 8. “The Election Commission did not have the authority to give a date for the elections,” he added.
Barrister Zafar said that the KP governor failed to give a date for the polls in the province despite the Supreme Court’s orders.
He added that the president, after consultation with the ECP, gave April 30 as the date for polls.
Barrister Zafar said that the apex court had ordered the ECP to fix the earliest date for elections after the completion of the 90-day period.
“Fixing a date for the polls far later after the 90-day deadline was also contempt of court,” he said, adding that the ECP has either changed or suspended the Constitution.
The Ministry of Interior and Defence refused to provide security personnel, he added.
Syed Ali Zafar said that the Constitution does not allow the postponement of elections on the basis of the administration’s non-cooperation.
“What guarantee is there that the situation will be better in October?” he questioned,
“What do you want from Supreme Court?” Justice Mandokhail asked the PTI lawyer.
At this, the PTI’s counsel said that the top court should ensure the implementation of the Constitution and its order.
Justice Mandokhail remarked it was the high court’s job to ensure the implementation of the orders.
“Elections will never be held if the reason for lack of funds is accepted,” said Zafar, adding that the matter was just not confined to the execution of the court orders.
“One high court cannot hear the matter of elections in two provinces,” said Barrister Zafar.
He added that the Supreme Court had announced its decision using its authority, which still prevailed.
“ECP’s decision became a hurdle in the way of the Supreme Court ruling.”
The PTI’s counsel said that only Supreme Court could decide better whether the orders were violated or not. “It is a matter of fundamental rights of the people of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,” he added.
Justice Munib Akhtar said that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decisions had become an “obstruction” in the way of the apex court’s orders.
Meanwhile, the PTI lawyer said that if the reason for the delay in polls — as given by the ECP — was accepted, then “elections will never take place”. “The matter just does not concern to the court’s orders.
“The matter of elections in two provinces cannot be heard by on high court,” he reasoned, adding that the SC had earlier used its authority on the matter and still had jurisdiction over it.
At that, Justice Akhtar said that the ECP’s decision has become “an obstruction in the orders of the SC”.
“Only the Supreme Court can decide better whether the orders were violated or not,” the judge observed.
At one point during the hearing, Barrister Zafar asked: “What is the guarantee that the security situation will improve by October?”
Here, CJP Bandial asked if the ECP could set aside the poll date given by the president, noting that there was no past order from the SC regarding the matter.
“We have several examples in our history where the date for elections has been extended,” he pointed out, recalling that elections were also delayed after the death of Benazir Bhutto and the decision was accepted on a national level.
“Elections were also delayed in 1988 when the system of government changed,” he said, adding that no one had challenged the matter of extending the date for polls so far.
“Elections in KP and Punjab are a matter of the fundamental rights of the people of the provinces,” the top judge observed. He also asked if there any provision in the Constitution to determine the term of caretaker government.
Justice Mandokhail further inquired if the date given by the president was within the stipulated 90-day deadline.
The petition, moved by PTI Secretary General Asad Umar, former Punjab Assembly speaker Mohammad Sibtain Khan, former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker Mushtaq Ahmad Ghani and ex-lawmakers of Punjab Abdul Rehman and Mian Mahmoodur Rashid, pleaded that the ECP’s decision was in violation of the Constitution and tantamount to amending and subverting it.
In the petition, PTI sought directions for the federal government to ensure law and order, provisions of funds and security personnel as per the ECP’s need to hold the elections.
It also requested the court to direct the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor to announce the date for elections to the provincial assembly. Last week, KP Governor Ghulam Ali also proposed Oct 8 as the date for holding elections in the province. Earlier, he had announced May 28 as the date for polls.
In the petition, the PTI questioned the ECP’s authority to “amend the Constitution” and asked how it could decide to delay elections to any assembly beyond the period of 90 days from the date of dissolution of the said assembly as mandated by the Constitution.
The petition argued that the ECP was bound to obey and implement the judgments of the Supreme Court and had no power or jurisdiction to overrule or review them.
The ECP cannot act in defiance of the Supreme Court’s directions as it has done in this case which was illegal and liable to be set aside, the petition pleaded. By announcing Oct 8 as the date, the ECP has delayed the elections for more than 183 days beyond the 90-day limit as prescribed in the Constitution.
The petition said that if the excuse of unavailability of security personnel was accepted this time, it will set a precedent to delay any future elections.
The petition added that there was no assurance that these factors — financial constraints, security situation and non-availability of security personnel — would improve by Oct 8.
The “so-called excuse” would mean the Constitution could be held in abeyance every time elections were due, the petitioners feared adding that in the past similar situations have persisted, but elections were held in spite of them.
These situations can’t be used as excuses to “subvert” the Constitution and deny people their right to elect representatives.
“Not holding elections in case of threats by terrorists will amount to giving in to the threats, which is in fact the aim of all terrorist activities,” the petition explained.