ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to submit its reply and explain the reasons why it ordered re-polling on the seat of a chairman in the local bodies elections held in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
The apex court three-member, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial, conducted the hearing of plea against the ECP’s order for re-polling.
Read more: Justice Umar Ata Bandial to replace Gulzar Ahmed as new CJP
During the hearing, CJP Bandial remarked that the state institutions should be independent in their decision-making, and they should not be under any kind of pressure.
“We want to demarcate the jurisdiction of the ECP,” he said.
Advocate Kamran Murtaza argued before the apex court that the election commission had given the order for re-polling following voting in tehsil Sarai Naurang of district Lakki Marwat had to be stopped, on account of the deterioration of the law and order situation.
Petitioner lawyer Latif Khosa told that court that voting in only one polling station was disturbed, and it was business as usual in the rest of the polling stations.
To this Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Khosa as to what was his opinion on the incident of firing at the gate of women’s polling station.
“The returning officer’s (RO) report says that the law and order situation had deteriorated to such an extent in the constituency that voting had to be stopped and re-polling was deemed necessary,” he said and added that even one person was killed due to firing.
Justice Mansoor remarked that so scared were the women that they did not come out to vote on the day.
Khosa argued that he believed in the independence of the ECP, but at the same time, he said, “I want to emphasize that its report is not fair.”
Read more: PTI accepts defeat in first phase of K-P local govt elections
Chief Justice Bandial remarked, “There were 108 polling stations in the constituency, and your client had won that election.”
DG Law Commission sought more time from SC for ECP to submit its reply whereas the petitioner’s lawyer requested the court to give its verdict before February 13 as re-polling was due to be held on that date.
After hearing the arguments, the court adjourned the hearing till February 8.
