ISLAMABAD: A day after tendering an apology to the Election Commission of Pakistan in a contempt case, Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) Secretary General Asad Umar said on Wednesday he had decided to retract it because the ECP was a “party and not acting like an impartial body”.
In a video message released by the PTI’s media department, Asad Umar said he had instructed his legal team to file an amended reply and omit the “paragraph that created ambiguity”.
According to lawyers, the PTI leader said, “my statement doesn’t constitute an apology”.
“Whatever legal language was used (by my lawyers in the reply), I stand by my words about the ECP that it’s clearly a party and not acting as an impartial constitutional body.” He said he had already “demonstrated with arguments” that the ECP decision in the foreign funding case was contrary to facts and against the law.
The PTI leader said the ECP had no mandate to try someone for contempt. Article 204 of the Constitution confers the powers only on the Supreme Court and high courts, he contended. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear in the Hanif Abbasi case that the ECP was not a court.
Alleges commission is a party, not an impartial body
“I stand by my statement over the ECP’s partiality.”
The reply submitted on behalf of Asad Umar to the Election Commission on Tuesday reads: “…..if this Commission feels that the statements made are in the nature that amounts to contempt, the applicant/alleged contemnor places himself at the mercy of the Commission and states that he is sorry for the statements made and that he may be excused and the proceedings dropped.”
It was pointed out that the vires of Section 10 of the 2017 Elections Act relating to the ECP’s contempt powers had already been challenged on the touchstone of Article 204 as the Election Commission was “neither a court nor a tribunal, as held in many judgements of superior courts”. It cannot be given the power to initiate contempt proceedings, Asad Umar said.
“The petition is pending adjudication before the Sindh High Court. Although the matter is sub judice, the court’s orders shall have a blanket effect on the legality of these proceedings.
“It would be appropriate to cause the proceedings to be halted at this stage. Should the High Court come to the conclusion that Section 10 of the Elections Act 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution, the entire proceedings would abate, but in the meantime serious prejudice would have been caused to the PTI.
“If this Commission is not biased, it would consider and halt the proceedings,” the statement reads.
Moreover, it further argued, the ECP cannot proceed in the matter as the initial notice was issued by the secretary to the Election Commission, and not by the commission itself.
The secretary’s notice, as well as the show cause notice issued by the Law Division’s director general, were without any authority as both were contrary to Section 2(ix) of the Elections Act and Article 218 of the Constitution, the statement observed.
Published in Dawn, February 16th, 2023
