Toshakhana verdict: SC advocate gives references of cases deciding on ECP jurisdiction

A Supreme Court (SC) advocate and a renowned legal expert Abuzar Salman Niazi has given references of three cases related to the top court’s judgements about the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Yesterday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified the PTI chief Imran Khan in its verdict of the Toshakhana case.

Legal experts had expressed concerns over the ECP’s verdict in the Toshakhana case against Imran Khan and raised questions about the jurisdiction of the institution to pass such judgements.

Abuzar Salman Niazi said in a Twitter message that the SC ruled that ECP was not a court in the Hanif Abbasi case (2018 PLD 189 SC) and again gave the same ruling in the M Salman case (2022 CMR 42), stating that ECP has no jurisdiction to decide qualifications (Article 62) or disqualification (Article 63).

He added that in the Zaman case (2015 SCMR 1303), the top court ruled that ECP powers are administrative, not judicial.

Hanif Abbasi Case (2018 PLD 189 SC), Supreme Could held ECP is not a Court. M Salman Case (2022 CMR 42) Supreme Court held ECP has no jurisdiction to decide qualifications(Art 62) or disqualification (Art 63).2015 SCMR 1303 Zaman Case, ECP powers are administrative not judicial.

— Abuzar Salman Niazi (@SalmanKNiazi1) October 21, 2022

In another tweet, he wrote, “Be clear on one thing, at the moment disqualification (period) is just one time. However,if IK is found guilty& convicted on charges of committing “Corrupt Practices” by the Session Court, den under such circumstances, disqualification period will b 5 years from the date of release.”

Be clear on one thing, at the moment disqualification (period) is just one time.However,if IK is found guilty& convicted on charges of committing “Corrupt Practices” by the Session Court, den under such circumstances, disqualification period wil b 5 years frm date of release.

— Abuzar Salman Niazi (@SalmanKNiazi1) October 21, 2022

Another renowned lawyer, Salman Akram Raja also expressed concerns over ECP’s verdict and wrote on Twitter, “If someone is to be declared disqualified as ghair-sadiq on account of the filing of wrong statements then the declaration of can only come from a court, not the ECP, under Ar 62(1)(f). ECP has correctly refrained from such declaration.”

If someone is to be declared disqualified as ghair-sadiq on account of the filing of wrong statements then the declaration of can only come from a court, not the ECP, under Ar 62(1)(f). ECP has correctly refrained from such declaration.

— salman akram raja (@salmanAraja) October 21, 2022

He added, “Filing a wrong statement of assets does not lead to disqualification. Disqualification can occur only if prosecution is commenced within 120 days of filing and upon conviction sentence of two years of more is awarded. This is no longer possible. 2/3”

Filing a wrong statement of assets does not lead to disqualification. Disqualification can occur only if prosecution is commenced within 120 days of filing and upon conviction sentence of two years of more is awarded. This is no longer possible. 2/3

— salman akram raja (@salmanAraja) October 21, 2022

“Imran Khan has not used the alleged wrong statement of assets to contest an election and make an incorrect representation before the electorate. Hence Mian Nawaz’s precedent, itself a highly contentious decision, doesn’t apply,” he concluded.

IK has not used the alleged wrong statement of assets to contest an election and make an incorrect representation before the electorate. Hence Mian Nawaz’s precedent, itself a highly contentious decision, doesn’t apply. 3/3

— salman akram raja (@salmanAraja) October 21, 2022

To this, Abuzar Salman Niazi commented, “Agreed. All disqualifications in past under Sadiq and Ameen (62(1)(f)) were with respect to misdeclaration under oath (with afffidavit) in nomination papers. In IK case it was not issue of misdeclaration in nomination papers.”

Agreed. All disqualifications in past under Sadiq and Ameen (62(1)(f)) were with respect to misdeclaration under oath (with afffidavit) in nomination papers. In IK case it was not issue of misdeclaration in nomination papers https://t.co/eVg9n3gvzN

— Abuzar Salman Niazi (@SalmanKNiazi1) October 21, 2022