Prohibited funding case: IHC reserves verdict on PTI plea against ECP report

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s fact-finding report in the prohibited funding case.

A larger bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, and Justice Babar Sattar heard the PTI’s petition challenging the ECP’s decision and seeking to stop the FIA’s action.

During the hearing, the IHC chief justice remarked that the ECP’s decision in the prohibited funding case against the PTI was an “observation” and that if the PTI proved that the funds were not prohibited, the decision would have to be changed.

Barrister Anwar Mansoor on behalf of the PTI argued that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had begun its action in the context of the ECP’s decision.

Justice Aamer said that the commission’s decision was sometimes being called an order, sometimes a report, and sometimes an opinion. He maintained that he viewed that it as a fact-finding report. The PTI lawyer maintained that the ECP had no authority to give such a declaration.

The IHC CJ said that the electoral body had not given any declaration that stated Imran Khan is not honest and trustworthy. He added that the commission had only made one conclusion. At this, Mansoor stated that the ECP had in fact given its declaration and reiterated that it did not have the authority to do so.

He continued that the ECP had used the word “hold” and Justice Aurangzeb questioned how the commission could do that without showing its show-cause notice to the PTI.

Justice Aamer inquired that whether the former ruling party was worried about disqualification at the hands of the ECP. In response to it, the lawyer said that the ECP had declared PTI chief Imran Khan’s declaration of funding to be wrong. He added that the ECP had dubbed PTI a “foreign-aided party” which it did not have the authority to do.

The IHC CJ said that the ECP had not given any declarations in its report, while Justice Miangul said that the ECP should have reached a conclusion before issuing the show-cause notice. The lawyer further said that Imran Khan was not made a party in the case, rather the PTI as a whole was made a party. He said that the ECP did not issue a notice to Imran Khan.

Later, the lawyer of the ECP argued that the commission’s verdict would be called a decision because a show-cause notice was issued after that. The court said that the ECP had shown that it would forfeit the funds to the government if the case was proven. The ECP advocate replied that the funds could only be confiscated as a final result.

The court inquired why the ECP referred the matter to the federal government to which the lawyer stated that the commission was a regulator and told the government the information they had discovered.

Justice Aurangzeb inquired that how the ECP had the authority to refer the matter to the federal government. At this, the ECP lawyer said that the commission received information and forwarded it to the government. He added that further action is yet to be taken against the petitioner.

Justice Farooq said that the court was not there to solve political problems but to observe the law after the PTI’s counsel alleged that the proceedings before the ECP were not “fair”. Justice Aurangzeb questioned what would happen if the PTI successfully defended the show cause notice against it by the ECP. The ECP lawyer replied that the matter would end if the party could defend itself.

The IHC CJ said that the ECP was giving the party a chance and questioned what the PTI wanted, adding that the ECP had said that the points satisfied by the PTI would be removed from the decision. “If you are not satisfied with the decision again, you can come to the court,” he added.

Mansoor said that the commission would only remove matters related to the funding and maintained that the ECP misinterpreted the law.

The IHC bench said that it would look into the party’s objections about the last two lines of the ECP’s decision.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, the IHC reserved its verdict in this matter.

The PTI additional secretary general, Omar Ayub, filed the petition through his counsels, former attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan, Shah Khawar advocate, and Faisal Fareed advocate, and prayed before the court to declare the ECP’s decision dated August 2, void.

In the petition, the PTI lawyer stated that the petitioner is grossly aggrieved by the fact-finding report heard on 21-06-2022 and announced on 02.08.2022 by the ECP. He added that the petitioner being utterly dissatisfied of the impugned fact-finding report, being contrary to facts and the law, additionally having been passed in excess of authority and in violation of the judgments of the Superior Courts, seeks to challenge the impugned fact-finding report.

The petitioner added that as the impugned fact-finding report followed by the show cause notice dated 05.08.2022 (received on 06.08.2022) is of the respondent, being an administrative authority, and whereas there is no provision in law providing for an appellate authority to challenge the illegal orders passed by the respondent, the petitioner, has no other efficacious remedy available but to impugn the Impugned fact-finding report of the respondent, in this present writ petition before this High Court.

It maintained, “The Impugned Fact Finding Report is tainted with malafides, arbitrary and without lawful jurisdiction, in excess of lawful authority and in violation of Articles 17 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The impugned fact finding report in fact shakes the principles of democracy and violates the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 9 and 17(1) and (2).”

Therefore, it prayed before the court to suspend the operation of the impugned fact-finding report dated 02.08.2022 of the ECP and suspend show-cause notice dated 05.08.2022, issued by it.

The PTI also requested the court to declare that the said fact-finding report is perverse, incorrect and in excess of authority and jurisdiction. It further prayed to declare that any action suggested by the ECP is beyond authority and that no action can be taken on the basis of the said fact-finding report.

The petitioner further requested the court to declare that holding that, “the matter falls within the ambit of Article 17(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 6(3) and Article 2(c)(iii) of the PPO 2002”, is Illegal and in excess of authority and jurisdiction.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023