8.2 C
New York
Wednesday, August 10, 2022
HomeWorldPakistanBanned Funding: ECP Summons Imran Khan on August 23 - Pakistan

Banned Funding: ECP Summons Imran Khan on August 23 – Pakistan

Election Committee of Pakistan (ECP) on Friday sent notice to PTI Chairman Imran Khan and summoned him on August 23 in prohibited finance case, in by which he decreed that party received foreign funds.

According to the EKP website, the case titled “Notice to the Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in terms of Rule 6 of Political Party Rules 2006, in agreement of decision of the commission of August 2 in The name of the case “Akbar Sher Babar” was fixed for hearing on August 23, at 10.00.

it also sent a notification to Imran in separate hearing with regarding his disqualification, to be heard on August 16th.

Elections earlier this week body, in the unanimous verdict ruled that PTI did indeed received prohibited funding and filed a notice party asking why means should are not subject to confiscation.

ECP of three bench led by Chief Commissioner for Elections Sikandar (CEC) Sultan Raja issued a decision in case brought by PTI co-founder Akbar S. Babar, pending since November 14, 2014.

In its written judgment, the commission noted that party “knowingly and willfully” received funding from Wootton Cricket Limited, operated by business tycoon Arif Naqvi. party was a “voluntary recipient” of forbidden money of $2,121,500, the report said.

The ECP stated that party “knowingly and intentionally” also received donations from Bristol Engineering Services (a UAE company), E-Planet Trustees (Cayman Islands) private registered company), SS Marketing Manchester (UK private company), PTI USA LLC-6160 and PTI USA LLC-5975, which were “hit by prohibition and in violation of Laws of Pakistan.

It’s gone on say that party also received donations through PTI Canada Corporation and PTI UK Public Limited Company. “From both companies, the amounts received on its accounts, of PTI in Pakistan hit by prohibition and in violation of Laws of Pakistan.

Besides, party received donations from Australia’s Dunpec Limited and Pakistan’s Anwar Brothers, Zain Cotton and Young Sports. again in violation of law.

“PTI Pakistan, through fundraising campaigns led by PTI USA LLC-6160 and PTI USA LLC-5975, has been the recipient of of donations from 34 foreign citizens and 351 foreign companies. Collection of donations and contributions from foreign citizens and companies hit by prohibition and in violation of Laws of Pakistan,” the statement said.

Election Observer also said PTI was found be a beneficiary of donations made Romita Shetty, American business woman of of Indian origin, who was in violation of law.

The EKP stated party owned only eight accounts before the commission and announced 13 accounts unknown. “Data received from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) reports that all 13 accounts waived by PTI were opened and managed senior PTI’s management and leadership [a] central and regional level.

The Commission noted that party also failed mention three accounts that were also operated by partyx senior leadership. Non-disclosure and concealment of 16 bank PTI reporting is a ‘serious omission’ on part of PTI guidance and in violation of Article 17(3) of Constitution, it says.

Article 17(3) says: “Every political party must take into account for source of his funds in conformity with law.”

PTI Chairman presented Form-I for five years (between 2008-2013), which was found be “highly inaccurate on the foundation of in financial statements received by this commission from the SBP and other material available on record”.

“Consequently […] case belongs to the area of Article 6(3) of Political Parties Order 2002 (PPO). Therefore, the commission indicates that notice may be sent to the defendant. party in terms of Rule 6 of PPO regarding why the above prohibited items cannot be confiscated. office is also aimed at initiating any other action in accordance with the law in light of this order of commission, including referral of the case to the federal government”.

Article 6(3) of The PPO states: “Any contribution made, directly or indirectly, by any foreign government, multinational or domestically registered public or private company, firm, trade or professional associations are prohibited, and parties may only accept contributions and donations from individuals.”

The commission has at its disposal also said he was “forced to believe that Imran Khan failed fulfill their obligations under Pakistani law.”

The PTI Chairman has for filed a Form-I for five years in a row and signed a certificate that does not meet with Accounting information before us- he said.

“Imran Khan, for five years under review submitted documents that were extremely inaccurate and wrong. Even during the course of scrutiny and hearing by this panel, PTI continued to cover up and withhold complete as well as full information disclosure of [the] source of their own funds,” the statement said.

Link to disqualification against Imran

Separately, the ESP has also received for hearing recommendation of disqualification of imran from public office filed group of related to MNA with Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM).

It was fixed for hearing on August 18, according to the commission website.

The link was filed yesterday by MNA Barrister Mohsin Nawaz Ranja to Chief Electoral Commissioner Sikander Sultan Raja with signatures. of MPs Agha Hassan Baloch, Salahudin Ayubi, Ali Gohar Khan, Syed Rafiullah Agha and Saad Wasim Sheikh.

He requested the CJP to disqualify Imran on counts 2 and 3. of Article 63 of read the constitution with Article 62(1)(f). it also had documentary evidence to support their claims against ex-premier.

Article 62(1)(f) says: “A person should not be qualified to be elected or selected as a member of Majlis-i-Shura (Parliament), unless […] he is shrewd, righteous and non-wasteful, honest and amin, the court did not say otherwise of law.”

Article 63(2) says: “If any question arises whether a member of The Majlis-i-Shura (Parliament) has forfeited the right to be a member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall, unless he decides that such a matter has not arisen, refer the matter to the Electoral Commission within thirty days. as well as should he fail do it within the specified period, it is considered that it was submitted to the Electoral Commission.

Whereas Article 63(3) states: “The Electoral Commission shall decide on a matter within ninety days of its receipt, or shall be deemed to have been received, and if it of opinion that a member has been disqualified, he ceases to be a member and his seat becomes vacant.”

Follow World Weekly News on

Derrick Santistevan
Derrick Santistevan
Derrick is the Researcher at World Weekly News. He tries to find the latest things going around in our world and share it with our readers.

Leave a Reply

Must Read