HomeWorldPakistanIHC sends notice to ECP on PTI plea against ...

IHC sends notice to ECP on PTI plea against Prohibited Funding Verdict – Pakistan

Islamabad High Court (IHC) on On Thursday, a notification of preliminary admission was sent to the election commission. of Pakistan (ECP) on PTI petition challenging bodysentence election in in the case of prohibited financing.

Three members more bench composed of IHC Acting Chief Judge Aamer Farouk, Judge Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb and Judge Babar Sattar took up app earlier today.

During the hearing, the VVK called the ESP for arguments in a business on 24 August. It is said that decision on admissibility of PTI plea will be accepted after arguments are presented on both sides.

At the beginning of At today’s hearing, PTI attorney Anwar Mansour told the court that the review of in partyaccounts started in 2018.

But the Supreme Court ruled [at that time] these accounts of all political parties should check,” he pointed out, claiming that the ECP had “targeted” PTI and “exceeded its authority and scope.”

At the same time, Judge Farouk asked, body investigated complaints. Mansour replied that only the details of individuals who claim to be party members have been examined.

Continuing his argument, PTI’s lawyer stated that the law only allows ECP to confiscate prohibited funding received party. “He has no other abilities besides this one.

He said that the Political Parties Ordinance 2002 gave political parties chance make amends. “According to rule 10, party will be provided chance correct himself and he will be allowed to resubmit his papers.”

Subsequently, Judge Farouk asked, “What law did the CCP apply? [in the funding case]?

Mansour replied that he had passed the verdict in Prohibited Funding Case under the PPO. “However, the investigative committee relied on another law,” he said. added.

“But how this is possible? Acting Chief of IHC justice asked what Mansour said he could show it’s in court.

PTI Lawyer also said the ECP included unverified details in dealing with examples of funding received from Romita Shetty and Arif Naqvi. “This way they presented their own PTI agents as foreign firms,” he said.

At the same time, Judge Aurangzeb stated that the lawyer does not keep the case “in one item” and asked if the funds had been sent to party transnational companies.

“No. We have a definition of there are multinational companies here,” Mansour replied, and then moved on to reading the definitions. out loud. Subsequently, the judge asked him if the CEP had been told about all this.

“Yes, we did. But they never said anything,” the lawyer said, adding that the law does not say that funds cannot be taken from anyone other than an individual. “But it states that only individual funds can be taken.”

The judge replied that not a single word could be ignored.

However, Mansour argued that a company owned by one owner could be considered an individual.

Can not dissolve a party in spelling of Madness: Justice Sattar

Meanwhile, the judges asked the PTI lawyer, party wanted ESP annulment court decision in a business.

“The court may omit some remarks from the election commission’s report,” Mansour replied. Judge Sattar asked under what jurisdiction was this possible.

Meanwhile, Judge Farooq said that it was just report and that no action was taken by the ECP.

“This is a lawsuit,” a PTI lawyer said, arguing that the commission had said the case fell under Article 17. of The constitution, which stated that every political party should Account for source of his funds in conformity with law.

“They are very skillfully trying to reconcile the case with Article 17(2) [of the Constitution],” he said.

The law states: “Every citizen who is not in service of Pakistan has the right to establish or be a member of political party, subject to any reasonable limits established by law in interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan and such law should provide that if the federal government declares that any political party formed or is operating in in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, Federal government within fifteen days of such a declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court, whose decision on this link should be final”.

However, Judge Sattar said that this was not the 1970s and one could dissolve a party during the spell of madness. “You just to tell us your reservations.

Judge Farouk also stated that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) would look into the matter separately. “Tell us What are you want?

“We can go and correct the findings of in factfind report,” he said, adding that ECP had clarified that the PTI accounts were not clear.

The referee said the FIA ​​too first investigate and take action only if it falls within its jurisdiction. “Right now, government must prove that PTI is funded from abroad party,” he added.

However, a PTI lawyer said the agency was “harassing” party.

Separately, Judge Sattar stated that the federal government would issue notification to PTI prior to filing the return. “The fears you set forward premature,” he added.

For his part, Mansour argued that the FIA ​​and the federal government regarded the ETUC report as an “order”, arguing that the pre-election body was neither a court nor a tribunal.

The court subsequently upheld its verdict. on PTI petition. He later sent a notice of pre-appointment to the ECP and summoned him. on 24 August for arguments over cause.

Petition

Last week, party moved IHC against ESP decision in prohibited funding case.

According to the petition, the issue of financing PTI was considered by the Supreme Court.

“These legal issues have been decided by the Supreme Court. of Pakistan and in light of saying (legal principles or remarks made judges who do not influence the result of case) and correlation (determination of the judge on dot of law, not just statement of law) established down Sun case was transferred back to ECP for examination of accounts of all political parties, including PTI. Unfortunately, only PTI was the target.”

petitioner claimed that the matter against PTI refers to the approval of receiving “funds from a prohibited source”.

PTI in his petition stated: “The forbidden source of fund in accordance with Article 6(3) of The 2002 Political Parties Decree is contributions and donations received from foreign government or transnational, or domestically registered public or private company, firm, trade or a professional association…”

” party explained and reconciled each account through financial expert oral like also by submitting a written financial summary, reconciliation of each transaction and explanation of all amounts received with his reconciliation with verified accounts,” the petition reads.

“However, in complete ignoring all arguments and without explanation for such disregard, defendant [ECP] passed contested fact-Report on the find “is added.

ECP Was Incomplete, Petitioned out“in absence of in total amount of members as defined in Constitution and insufficient representation from all provinces? If so, does that disenfranchise the provincial representation? on CEP in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan allowing manipulation and outside political interference in in work of ESP.

Prohibited funding saga

Earlier this month ECP, in unanimous verdict, held that party received millions of dollars of funds from 351 foreign companies and 34 foreign nationals, including a US-Indian businesswoman, and ordered the release of notice to PTI asking them to explain why the prohibited funds were received should not be lost.

Read: Who Contributed to Prohibited PTI Funds?

ECP of three bench headed by Chief Electoral Commissioner Sikander (CEC) Sultan Raja announced verdict in a case brought by PTI founding member Akbar S. Babar that has been pending since November 14, 2014.

ESP also said party owned only eight accounts before the commission and announced 13 accounts unknown. The Commission noted that party also failed mention three accounts that were also operated by partyx senior leadership.

Verdict also stated that the PTI Chairman submitted 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”.

PTI said the verdict confirmed its position that it has never received foreign funding, but may be the case. of prohibited funding, while government counts decision “charge sheet” against “crimes” of in party and its head Imran Khan.

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