ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) denied on Saturday apprehensions that it ever attempted to conceal any source of funds or committed any fraud with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

In a rejoinder to the ECP’s response before the Supreme Court in the Hanif Abbasi petition seeking disqualification of PTI chairman Imran Khan and secretary general Jahangir Tareen over non-disclosure of assets, existence of offshore companies by them as well as being a foreign-aided party, the PTI accused the ECP of being biased since it was sitting with a predetermined mind.

Headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, a three-judge Supreme Court bench will resume hearing the petition of Hanif Abbasi on Tuesday.

Argues that disqualification of party head under Constitution is not ECP domain

On Friday, Mr Khan had submitted before the top court a chart of remittances he received from his former wife Jemima Khan also explaining that relevant and available records had already been produced to satisfy the court and to rebut the allegations against him.

In its rejoinder filed through senior counsel Anwar Mansoor, the PTI argued that the disqualification of its party head under Article 62 or 63 of the Constitution was not the domain of the ECP under the Political Parties Order (PPO), 2002.

At the same time, to determine whether a political party received foreign funding does not fall under the domain of the ECP and thus the commission had no jurisdiction to audit the accounts of the political parties and enter into fishing or roving inquiry.

The PTI also accused the ECP of targeting it since many political parties had made expenditures more than the funds it received but no action had ever been taken against them.

It also denied that the party received foreign aid or prohibited funds, adding that the consequence of any political party receiving funds from prohibited source had already been provided for under Article 6(4) of the PPO whereas the consequence of foreign-aided party was provided differently under Article 15 of the PPO.

If a party received contributions from a multinational or an association which had prohibited sources then it would be absurd and legally unsustainable to label that party as a foreign-aided party. The only contribution or donation that was prohibited by Article 6(3) of the PPO was the funds received from the foreign government, the reply explained.

Other than that there was no overlap in receiving funds from prohibitory funds and foreign-aided party since the scope of each was distinctive, the PTI said, adding that if the intention of the parliament was to have both these penalties to overlap, then there would not be separate provisions and separate penalties for both.

Moreover, the declaration that a party had to be foreign aided had to be with a rational and underlying intention that party was against the integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan, it said. The PTI contested that the ECP was empowered to take cognisance of the matter suo motu on an application of any person as information of any source. It has been held by the superior courts that suo motu power has to be specifically provided by enabling statute but there had been no provision in the PPO that enables ECP to have suo motu power. Thus the ECP cannot assume the power which has not been conferred upon it.

The task before the ECP, once the statement of accounts by the parties had been submitted, was to scrutinise it but not to go beyond that scope.

Similarly, reopening of accounts of any political party, which the ECP had accepted as proper would mean to review of a decision on part of the commission. The party also contested that a tribunal or a court were vested with inherent power of review and undo any fraud, misrepresentation or something decided without jurisdiction.

The power of review is not an inherent power, the PTI emphasized, adding that the ECP cannot be compared at the same pedestal as the power to review of the Supreme Court.

Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2017