ISLAMABAD: After Imran khan confession, while speaking to journalists at Adiala jail, acknowledged that he had called for a protest outside the GHQ if he was arrested. Information Minister Atta Tarar said the government had decided, in principle, to place a ban on the PTI. “We have principally decided to ban PTI, but waiting for a broader consensus (among ruling allies) to impose the ban,” he said during an interview at tv channel.
While the PTI members and his legal team have been at pains to clarify that he meant a “peaceful protest”, PTI’s opponents have pounced on the statement, citing it as a vindication of their misgivings about the party.
Earlier, the government’s stance had been that consultations were underway among the ruling allies regarding the decision to ban the opposition party.
But now, even the PPP seems to have been swayed, approaching the Supreme Court to challenge the July 12 verdict that awarded reserved seats to the PTI and recognised it as a parliamentary party.
The PPP, which instituted the review petition through senior counsel Farooq H. Naek, seems specifically aggrieved with the SC’s interpretation within the meaning of Article 51(d)(e) as well as Article 106 that the PTI “was and is” a political party that secured or won general seats in the national and provincial assemblies in the Feb 8 general election.
This is the third such petition, as earlier the PML-N on July 15 moved the SC seeking review of the order contending that the full bench, instead of interpreting the Constitution, entered into the domain of legislation.
Likewise, three women members elected on the reserved seats from PML-N had also filed review petitions.
The PPPP reiterated that PTI neither filed any case before the ECP, nor before Peshawar High Court (PHC), or before the Supreme Court, hence it is not entitled to any relief, let alone a relief which was not even pleaded.
Moreover, it added, the short order has not noted that 80 MNAs had filed their nomination papers as independent candidates and then as independent candidates joined the SIC. “None has even come forward to state otherwise,” it pointed out, arguing that the assumption in the short order under review that the MNAs were PTI candidates was liable to be reviewed.
According to the July 12 short order, 41 returned candidates were given a 15-day period to join any political party even though they did not show affiliation with PTI even in one of the columns of the list submitted by the ECP.
This novel procedure is in stark contradiction to the Constitution, the Elections Act, 2017 and the settled jurisprudence, the petition contended.
The petition also said the short order was against Rule 92 (6) of the Election Rules, 2017, which state once an independent candidate joined a political party, there was no option to recall or cancel the same.
Also, the short order was against the settled principles of interpretation of the Constitution since by carving out a procedure that was not provided under the Constitution, the short order might have gone into the realm of creating and not just interpreting the constitution that was against the SC jurisprudence, the petition said.