ISLAMABAD: The PTI as a party is a “private entity”, and only members are allowed to vote in its intra-party elections, Barrister Ali Zafar argued before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Monday as arguments were wrapped up on petitions filed against the party’s elections held on Dec 2.
After the arguments, a five-member ECP bench, headed by Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja, reserved its judgement on petitions filed by 14 PTI members, including one of the party’s founders, Akbar S. Babar.
The petitions called the intra-party elections “fraudulent and without legitimacy” and urged the ECP to declare them void.
Arguing on behalf of PTI, Mr Zafar said his party’s elections were the same as those held by the Lahore Gymkhana Club, where only members could vote.
Commission reserves verdict on pleas challenging intra-party polls; LHC refuses to halt Imran’s jail trial in contempt case
He claimed that none of the 14 complainants were PTI members and had no locus standi — right to bring a matter to court — to file a complaint against the elections.
Mr Zafar argued that none of the complainants submitted member’s fees to the party, and none, except Mr Babar, retained their status as party members.
Syed Ahmad Hassan Shah, the counsel for Mr Babar, and three other complainants, stated that the Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to become a member of a political party.
Talking to the media outside the ECP, Mr Babar criticised the PTI’s labelling as a “private entity”.
He said the PTI counsel’s statement was proof that the party was being run like a private company with the sole motive of acquiring power.
LHC turns down request
Separately on Monday, a Lahore High Court (LHC) full bench turned down a request to immediately suspend the jail trial of former prime minister Imran Khan in the ECP contempt case.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Aalia Neelum asked Mr Khan’s counsel about the objection that the party did not provide certified copies of documents with the petition.
In response, Advocate Ishtiaq A. Khan said certified copies were not provided to them, and they obtained these from ECP’s website.
Justice Neelum remarked that the case could not proceed until the objection was removed.
She also asked the counsel how the jurisdiction of LHC was established against ECP’s order issued in Islamabad.
The lawyer argued that the LHC had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. However, the judge interjected, saying the petition should have been filed with the Islamabad High Court or LHC’s Rawalpindi bench.
The counsel pointed out that the Rawalpindi bench referred a similar case to the principal seat for hearing.
Justice Neelum asked the counsel about the notification of the jail trial, to which he replied that no notification was issued, but the trial had started.
A lawyer for the ECP told the bench that the Home Department issued the notification on December 8.
The bench asked Mr Khan’s counsel if he intended to challenge the notification for jail trial.
Later, notice was issued to the ECP before the matter was adjourned.
Wajih Ahmad Sheikh in Lahore also contributed to this report
Published in Dawn, December 19th, 2023
