Faisal Vawda takes his disqualification case to Supreme Court – Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani Tehreek-i-Insaf politician Faisal Vawda has been sentenced to life in prison for not being eligible to serve as a member of parliament, and has asked the Supreme Court on Friday to overturn the February 9 decision of the Pakistan Election Commission (ECP) that barred senators from running. I filed a petition. parliamentary politics.

The former senator’s petition, through Chief Adviser Waseem Sajjad, pleaded with the Supreme Court that the ECP offered no basis or reason to disqualify him for life by invoking Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The ECP appears to be under the impression that persons disqualified under section 63(1)(c) of the Constitution (dual nationals) will be automatically punished under section 62(1)(f), the petition added: I did. This was not right.

He argued that in order to be punished under section 62(1)(f), the court had to have evidence as well as ‘men’s rea’, and both were missing from the ECP declaration.

The petition is basically an appeal against the rejection of the appeal of the ECP decision by the High Court of Islamabad. completion.

The appeal submitted to the Supreme Court named the ECP, counsel Mian Asif Mehmood, Qadir Khan Mandokhel, Mian Muhammad Faisal and Dost Ali Jessar as respondents.

The petitioner was disqualified for life from parliamentary politics when the ECP invoked section 62(1)(f), despite the Supreme Court ruling in the 2021 Aladino Bayo case that the Commission was not a court. The petition said within the context of section 62(1)(f).

Also in Muhammad Sulman’s case, the Supreme Court found that the ECP had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Article 218(3) of the Constitution or Article 9(1) of the 2017 Election Act. Qualification or disqualification of the returned candidate.

Thus, the petition argued, the February 9 ECP order expressly denied the commission’s takeover of jurisdiction to permanently disqualify former Senator Vawda.

The ECP also ignored this, arguing that no election to the House of Representatives (Parliament) or local councils could be in question except by an electoral petition submitted to the Tribunal under section 225 of the Constitution.

The constitutional plan is that the ECP prepares for the election and is responsible for all administrative actions in the process, but the campaign ends by issuing a notice stating that a candidate has been elected. petition.

So, after the judicial process has been taken over, only the tribunal can question the election, and the appeal lies with the Supreme Court, the petition said. If the ECP’s argument is accepted, Article 225 is duplicated.

Similarly, Article 9 of the Electoral Act gives the ECP limited power to exercise the powers of the Court for a period of 60 days, and if the Board’s position is accepted, there is no need to enact Section 9 under the ECP. All powers under Section 218 and Section 8(c).

The petition added that it is an established principle of the law that neither Articles 225 nor 9 of the Election Code can be disregarded when interpreting the powers and functions of the ECP, and it is necessary to look at the language and meaning of the statement as a whole. In particular, with reference to the opening words beginning with: “I hereby solemnly confirm and declare to the best of my knowledge…”

“This preface shows that a person, even if he or she honestly believes something, especially with regard to legal matters, cannot be immediately convicted if his beliefs violate the provisions of the law,” the petition asserts. “The language of the statement is to be interpreted strictly because it is subjective and punishable.”

The ECP added that the petition should have taken into account the fact that the petitioner was not a lawyer and that he believed a particular state of things based on the knowledge available at the time.

Posted at Serb on February 19, 2022