• ROs reject 12.5pc of 25,951 nomination papers
• Fafen asks ECP to be transparent with rejection decisions

ISLAMABAD: Retur­ning Officers (ROs) appo­inted for the Feb 8 elections have rejected around 12.5 per cent of nomination papers submitted by the candidates from across the country for the national and provincial assemblies.

An analysis of the statistics about the nomination papers accepted and rejected by ROs and released by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) reveals that almost one-eighth of the papers were rejected.

In all, 25,951 papers had been filed for the 859 general seats of national and provincial assemblies, out of which 3,240 (12.49pc) were rejected by the ROs.

Out of the total 7,473 nomination papers filed for the 266 general seats of the National Assembly, 1,024 (13.70pc) papers were rejected. Thus 6,094 men and 355 women are now left in the field for the NA constituencies. How­ever, the situation is likely to change as the process of filing of appeals, that started on Monday and will continue till Jan 3, may result in some of the hopefuls coming back to the arena.

The highest ratio of rej­ec­tions — 45pc — was seen in the federal capital, where 93 nominations out of the total 209 stood rejected.

Among the provinces, the highest proportion of rejections for the NA’s general seats Balochistan tops with 14.58pc. Out of the 631 papers filed in the province, 92 were rejected by the ROs.

In Punjab, 3,621 nomination papers were filed against the NA’s general seats, out of which 521 (14.39pc) were rejected.

In Khyber Pakhtun­khwa, 152 (11.42pc) out of the total 1,331, while in Sindh 166 (9.88pc) of the total 1,681 nomination papers were rejected.

Provincial assemblies

For 593 seats of the four provincial assemblies, 18,478 aspirants had submitted their nominations, out of which 2,216 (11.99pc) have been rejected.

The rejection level remained highest in Balochistan as far as nominations for the general seats of provincial assemblies are concerned.

In Balochistan, a total of 1,788 nomination papers had been filed, out of which 386 (21.59pc) have been rejected. A total of 520 (12.11pc) nominations out of 4,294 in Sindh, 367 (10.60pc) out of 3,461 in KP and 943 (10.55pc) out of 8,935 papers in Punjab have been rejected.

As many as 22,711 validly nominated candidates are left in the run for the general seats of National Assembly and four provincial assemblies, after clearing the scrutiny phase.

They include 6,449 aspirants for the National Assembly and 16,262 hopefuls for provincial assemblies.

The ROs declared nominations of 15,590 male and 672 female candidates as valid and their total number for PAs stands at 16,262.

Hence, nomination papers of a total of 21,684 male candidates were declared valid, including 6,094 for NA, whereas a total of 1,027 female aspirants are now left in the electoral arena, including 355 for NA and 672 for PA seats.

Appellate tribunals

Under the law, those declared invalid for Feb 8 elections have the option to move the appellate tribunals appointed in the federal capital and the four provinces for the possible relief.

The ratio of rejection is slightly higher than the 2018 general elections, but lower than the 2013 polls. In 2018 and 2013, 10.4pc and 14.6pc of nomination papers were rejected during the scrutiny process, respectively.

Though details of the nominations accepted and rejected in 2018 is not available on the ECP’s website, a report about the 2013 elections shows that Sindh was on top in terms of the ratio of rejected nominations, both for the national and provincial assembly seats, coming to 19.33pc and 20.47pc, respectively.

Fafen’s call

In a related development, the Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) urged the ECP to publish the ROs’ decisions about objections to nominations and rejections of nomination papers on its website, noting that it will contribute to a more informed discourse and strengthen electoral transparency. Section 62(11) of the Elections Act, 2017 requires the ROs to endorse their decision on each nomination paper, either accepting or rejecting it, and in the case of rejection or objection to acceptance, record brief reasons for their decisions.

Although the Elections Act, 2017 does not contain any specific provisions that warrant publication of such decisions, Fafen believes that Section 4(3) empowers the ECP with expansive authority to undertake any measures necessary to fulfil its constitutional mandate of conducting elections honestly, justly, fairly, and in accordance with the law, while safeguarding against corrupt practices. “By sharing ROs’ decisions, the ECP will empower citizens to comprehend the reasons behind these decisions, and encourage informed opinions about the electoral process.

“This measure will not only reinforce the transparency of the electoral process, but also serve as a safeguard to its credibility against the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation that often stems from incomplete information,” Fafen said in a statement.

As per Section 62(9), the ROs may reject the nomination papers for defects in a candidate’s qualifications to be a member of the national or provincial assembly; defects in qualifications of proposer or seconder to subscribe to nomination papers; material deficiencies or falsehood in declarations and documents required to be submitted with the nomination papers; or ungenuine signatures of the proposer or seconder.

However, the ROs cannot reject nomination papers for defects that are not of a substantial nature, and may allow any such defects to be remedied forthwith, including an error in regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate or their proposers or seconders so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll.

The ECP needs to look into whether these provisions have strictly been complied with. In case of non-compliance, the ECP may use its powers under Section 55 to proceed against the officials concerned. Moreover, the ECP may review an order passed by an officer under the Act or the Rules, as provided in Section 8(e) of the Elections Act.

Published in Dawn, January 2nd, 2024