ISLAMABAD: Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafique knocked the doors of the Supreme Court on Thursday for reversal of the May 4 ruling of an election tribunal de-seating him.

Earlier in the day, the Election Commission de-notified the PML-N leader as member of the National Assembly. “In supersession of this commission’s notification of even number dated May 6, 2015, and pursuant to the judgement dated May 4, 2015, passed by the Election Tribunal, Faisalabad, (Camp at Lahore) in election petition No 194/2013 titled (Hamid Khan vs Khawaja Saad Rafique and others), the Election Commission of Pakistan hereby de-notifies the membership of Khawaja Saad Rafique in the National Assembly from constituency NA-125 Lahore VII, with effect from May 4, 2015,” said a notification issued by the ECP.

While allowing the petition of PTI Vice President Hamid Khan, the tribunal asked the ECP to hold a fresh election in the constituency within 60 days.

In his appeal filed through senior counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmad, the PML-N leader requested the apex court to urgently hear the matter and suspend the tribunal’s ruling till a decision on his appeal.

The de-seating of Mr Rafique has also set off a debate whether the PML-N leadership will look for a substitute for the office of the railways ministry or wait till the matter is finalised.

Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid told Dawn that the party would wait for a final outcome since Mr Rafique had moved the Supreme Court for a stay against the tribunal’s judgment.

“If the stay is granted, he will continue to act as minister; otherwise, the party leadership will take a decision on the matter,” he said.

In his appeal, Mr Rafique named 20 people as respondents, including Hamid Khan, the candidates who contested the NA-125 election and two returned candidates from provincial assembly constituencies PP-155 and PP-156, Mian Naseer and Yasin Sohail, respectively.

The petitioner argued that the tribunal’s order to hold re-election in the NA-125 constituency was manifestly illegal and without lawful authority because it was based on gross misconception of the law and principles warranting interferences in the election matters and de-seating of an elected representative of the people.

“The tribunal’s order was in effect tantamount to penalising the returned candidate (Saad Rafique) and the electorate of NA-125 for real or purported fault of others,” the petitioner said.

Mr Rafique said a certified copy of the May 4 order was delivered to him on May 6, the perusal of which revealed that while the preliminary objections raised by the appellant (Saad Rafique) to the maintainability of the election petition have been rejected, the tribunal had categorically held with respect to the questions whether the election of Saad Rafique was procured or induced by corrupt or illegal practice, and whether any corrupt or illegal practice was committed by the returned candidate or his election agent that neither of these stood proved on the record.

“The May 4 order is violative of the established principles of the law repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court with respect to the sanctity attached to the electoral process and the quality and quantum of evidence required for declaring an election to be void as a whole,” the petitioner contended.

He argued that the tribunal’s findings were based on mere conjectures and surmises and as such was not tenable in the eye of the law. Besides, he added, Hamid Khan had miserably failed to prove the case as pleaded by him in the election petition and, therefore, the tribunal’s decision was not sustainable in the eye of law.

“By allowing Hamid Khan to place on record fresh affidavits during the pendency of the election petition, the tribunal has misconstrued the law and grievously erred in excluding the applicability of the provisions of the notification of March 16, 1985, by the ECP,” the petitioner said.

The findings returned in the judgment were also vague in material particulars and in effect based on no evidence, Mr Rafique said, adding that the existence of the election cell at the office of the district returning officer concerned was also presumptive and based on no evidence.

He said the order was also passed in gross departure from the principles pertaining to procedure and construction of election laws, as laid down by the Supreme Court.

“It is a settled principle of law that mere contravention of any provisions of the act or rules will not vitiate the elections,” the petitioner emphasised.

Published in Dawn, May 8th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play