ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa questioned why the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed independents after winning the general elections joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) instead of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), whose certificate they had attached with their nomination papers for contesting the February 08 polls.

“Why the independent candidates elected to join the SIC and not the PTI,” the chief justice asked. They have committed a political suicide by merging into the SIC, he further said and added, “In my view, your case would have been stronger if you had joined PTI after the elections. If those controlling the SIC change their mind tomorrow, you will be left with nothing.”

A Full Court, headed by CJP Faez, on Monday, resumed hearing on SIC’s appeal 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 completed their submission.

The ECP lawyer was ordered to provide Sahibzada Hamid Raza’s election record of 2018, wherein, he contested against the PTI candidate and was defeated. What is the status of Hamid Raza now; is he still chairman of SIC, the court asked.

The chief justice noted that there were 13 political parties in the Parliament, including JUI, Mahmood Khan Achakzai and MQM, which was its ally in the previous government. Instead of joining any of them, it joined a party which did not contest the elections. He said, according to Salman Akram, the independents did not join Tehreek-e-Insaf as they were afraid of Election Rules.

Salman told that due to Election Rules, it was feared that the party (PTI) would be banned (in foreign funding case); therefore, the independents joined the SIC. He complained that the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Supreme Court refused to entertain their petitions and the Commission was adversarial to them.

The bench inquired from him who have decided that the PTI-backed independents would join the SIC. Salman did not divulge the details but said a thorough discussion took place before the polls.

Justice Athar Minallah noted that the Election Commission in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in intra-party case by misinterpreting the verdict declared that the PTI candidates need to contest the general elections as independents. The wrong interpretation by the Commission needs to be corrected by this Court (SC). He said this Court has the power to declare the ECP February 22 verdict per incuriam. “We are here to protect the fundamental rights of the voters.” The matter was poorly handled by the ECP; he said and added that it is an important case.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that why the candidates who in their nomination papers had declared that they are PTI members and attached its certificate did not approach the apex court.

Salman Akram said they (independents) be treated as PTI candidates and be allowed to elect women and non-Muslims on reserved seats. However, Faisal Siddiqui said these reserved seats should go to the SIC.

The chief justice remarked that if PTI still exists as a political party, why did its members join another party? If we accept your argument, joining another party would be like committing political suicide, which contradicts your own arguments.” He stated: the court is bound by the words of the Constitution, not by interpretations of the Election Commission or yours.

Salman said that Hamid Raza, chairman SIC, before the elections discussed the matter with the PTI leaders that after the elections the SIC would merge into PTI. He wanted to contest the February 8 elections on the PTI ticket, but in view of the SC judgment he contested the elections as an independent.

Justice Yahya Afridi, said as per the reply of the Election Commission, the SIC constitution does not allow the membership of women and non-Muslims. Is this constitutional, he asked. Siddiqui replied that there is no clear and simple answer to it.

The chief justice maintained that Pakistan’s flag has white colour, which denotes minorities living in Pakistan. He questioned how SIC could exclude the non-Muslims from taking part in political activities. He further asked whether the voters were aware that their representatives would join the SIC after winning the elections.

Justice Athar said the ECP instead of protecting the rights of the voters has acted as adversarial and it should have seen the matter in the larger perspective.

The chief justice remarked that instead of talking about a larger picture or smaller picture why not we focus on the Constitution. He said in view of the larger picture this Court rendered judgments in support of the “doctrine of necessity”.

Upon that, Justice Athar remarked; “When was this country governed under the constitution?” The chief justice responded; “now they are trying that the country is run in accordance with the constitution and the law.”

Justice Yahya inquired what Hamid Raza had written in his nomination papers. Salman said the SIC did not contest general elections. Hamid was not carrying SIC’s certificate. Faisal Siddiqui stated that the nomination papers of Hamid Raza are irrelevant. However, the chief justice said: “I think it is relevant”.

Salman Akram requested the court to read down Section 104 of the Election Act, and that if the law is obstructing the constitutional purpose then it is declared inconsistent in achieving the purpose. He said the independents who have contested the elections and now want to join a political party for the purpose of the reserved seats of women and non-Muslims then the ECP should give a fresh schedule for that.

Earlier, Justice Mansoor inquired from SIC’s counsel that as per the proportional representation system, each entitled political party in the National Assembly and Provincial Assembly would get its share of reserved seats of women and non-Muslims in percentage of the seats won in the general elections, adding no party can get more seats than its share. He questioned where the remaining seats would go.

Siddiqui replied that the House cannot be left incomplete. The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024