ISLAMABAD: Justice Yahya Afridi said when he read that non-Muslims cannot become members of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) then it affected him.
A Full Court, headed by CJP Faez, on Thursday, heard an appeal of SIC for not allocating women and minorities reserved seats to it in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies. Faisal Siddiqui, SIC counsel and Salman Akram Raja representing PTI Women Wing In-charge Kanwal Shauzab have completed their submissions.
The bench directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to submit the list of party affiliation certificates and declaration on oath of PTI-backed SIC candidates.
During the proceeding, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, representing ECP, argued that the SIC cannot have reserved seats as its constitution prohibits non-Muslims to become its members.
According to the ECP’s reply, filed before the apex court last week, “Article 3 of the Constitution of SIC restricts the membership of SIC to only adult Muslims.”
Justice Ayesha A Malik asked Sikandar did he check the constitutions of other political parties when allowing them reserved seats of non-Muslim, adding if not then why did he mention this that the SIC constitution does not allow non-Muslims to become its members.
Sikandar replied that it is very relevant to check the SIC constitution when he noticed this point. “As a counsel, it came to my knowledge, therefore, I considered it very relevant and pertinent to bring it to the notice of the Court.”
Upon that, Justice Yahya Afridi said: “It makes an effect on me when I read it.” The chief justice remarked, who are the citizens of Pakistan, is given in the constitution and the flag symbolise it.
Sikandar then contended that the appellant has taken a position in their appeal that they are not members of PTI, adding their case is that they are independent and joined the SIC. He said the position taken by some members of the bench would destroy the appellants’ case. The position identified by the bench
has created an anomaly,
he added.
Justice Munib responded that the anomaly has not been created by the Supreme Court, but by the Election Commission which has declared them (the PTI members) as independents.
When three or four judges at the same time were asking questions from Sikandar, he then said: “When everyone speaks then people are bewildered what the bench is thinking.” He contended that the Full Court is hearing the SIC appeal under Article 185, but I have been asked questions which are not relevant to this case.
The ECP counsel presented a list of 81 PTI-backed candidates who contested general elections and later joined SIC. He said only an independent can join the political party in the assembly.
He informed that Sahibzada Hamid Raza’s affiliation ticket was of the PTI but he later contested the election as an independent. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that he (Hamid) made a statement on oath that is a candidate of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-Nazriati.
Sikander told that the last date of final list of candidates was 12-01-24, while the deadline for allotment of the symbol was 13-01-24. Justice Jamal questioned that whether before the final date a candidate could withdraw from one party and join another party. The ECP counsel replied that before the allotment of the symbol he can do so.
The court inquired if the declaration and the party affiliation certificate did not match what would happen and whether it was the power of the returning officer (RO) to declare a candidate an independent. The counsel told that there are consequence of mismatch of the declaration and the certificate.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that according to the chart of 81 candidates, provided by the ECP, out of 81 candidates, 35 left it blank, and some mentioned PTI-N and some wrote PTI in their declaration, adding while in party affiliation certificate, out of 81 PTI-backed candidates, 65 wrote “Nil” in the party affiliation. He said does it not show the non-seriousness of the PTI members.
Justice Munib inquired when the candidates mentioned in their nomination papers that they belong to PTI then why they were treated as independents. He noted that the declaration and the symbol for contesting elections are different. He said in Serial No22 of the 81 candidates list, the person throughout the election process kept him as the PTI member, besides that the ECP treated him independent candidate.
Justice Ayesha said that the ECP’s order dated 22-12-23 created confusion. He asked the PTI members to bring the party when it was not contesting elections. “You kept them confused,” she added.
Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that the ECP did not eliminate the PTI from the election fray. He said when after the Supreme Court’s judgment if there was any confusion then it should have approached the president of Pakistan under Section 240 of the Election Act, 2017, for clarification. But the Commission did not consult the president on this issue.
The chief justice asked that if the president had not responded or said something else or sat on the request then what had happened. He said the president, who belonged to the PTI, though acknowledged that he is authorised to give a date, but did not do so despite the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Justice Munib said when the order dated 22-12-23 was passed then whether there was political government or caretaker government? He said was it as neutral and independent as the Election Commission to hold the free and fair elections.
Justice Athar said: “We recognise the ECP as a constitutional body, and when we talk about democracy and election then whether the people of Pakistan expressed their free will on February 8.” He said the burden of misinterpretation of the SC’s judgment would rest on the Commission.
Sikandar on a lighter note said that the people would say that 81 candidates and the judges think alike. He said that the ECP’s judgment is not absurd because the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s five-member bench upheld it unanimously.
Upon that, Justice Mansoor said that the PHC 5-judge bench’s verdict is not binding on them (the SC). He remarked that the party cannot be disenfranchised and the ECP is not realising the impact of declaring the PTI members as independents. He said whether the ECP deliberated upon the SC judgment or left it to the returning officers?
Justice Jamal questioned whether the ECP has the power to declare any candidate independent. He said that this is an agreement between the party and its members whether they contest on the party ticket or as an independent. The judge asked what is the effect of affidavit without the withdrawal of certificate.
The case was adjourned until Monday (July 1st).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments