ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday announced its reserved verdict in the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s fact finding report in the prohibited funding case and dismissed the same. A larger-bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq and comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Justice Baber Sattar announced the short order of the case filed by the PTI challenging the ECP’s decision and seeking to stop FIA’s action.
The IHC stated in its written order that in view of the above, “We find that this petition is premature and not yet ripe for adjudication.” It further said that the petitioner has been issued a show-cause notice to answer the tentative findings regarding breach of law recorded in the Fact Finding Report. The petitioner has a statutory right under Rule 6 of Political Parties Rules to be afforded an opportunity to be heard as part of its right to due process. It added that the right to be heard cannot be deemed to be a circumscribed or limited right as has already been explained above.
The petitioner will therefore have a right to raise all its objections to seek the correction and/or reversal of findings recorded in the Fact Finding Report, including by raising any jurisdictional objections before the ECP during the show cause proceedings with regard to findings recorded in excess of its authority. The verdict said, “Once we have found that the findings in the Fact Finding Report are tentative and will only be formalized after the showcause proceedings affording PTI a fair opportunity to be heard, we are not inclined to judicially review the preliminary findings regarding the truthfulness of the certificate furnished by Chairman PTI in terms of Article 13(2) of the PPO. The tentative findings of ECP with regard to the truthfulness of such certification would be informed by what is submitted by PTI before the ECP in response to the show-cause notice.”
“And it is within the realm of possibilities that the showcause notice may even be with drawn if PTI satisfies ECP that it received no prohibited funding. In such event the question of falsity of the certification by Chairman PT would simply wither away in view of ECP’s conclusive findings in the aftermath of the show-cause proceedings,” said the IHC bench. It continued that as there exist no definitive findings with regard to the truth or falsity of the certification made by the Chairman PTI pursuant to Article 13(2) of PPO at this stage, there is no reason for us to setaside ECP’s tentative findings. The IHC maintained that it is quite possible that while scrutinizing the sources of funding of political parties, ECP comes to the conclusion that a party has received funding from such prohibited sources that could possibly attract the characterization of the party as a foreign-aided political party. However, the power to determine whether or not a party is a foreign-aided political party falls within the domain of Federal Government and not the ECP as provided under Article 15 of PPO.
“In such circumstances, common sense would dictate that ECP, as the regulator of political parties, would share any actionable information with the federal government to enable it to consider whether such information ought to be a trigger for action under Article 15 of PPO,” added the bench.
The bench concluded that for the aforementioned reasons, “we are not inclined to judicially review the Fact Finding Report at this stage as we find the petition to be premature. We are confident that as repositories of public authority in a country sustained by rule of law the ECP and the Federal Government will not act in disregard of the rights of PTI and Chairman PTI as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. It added that in the event that PTI is aggrieved by the final decision rendered by ECP after conclusion of the show-cause proceedings, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies under law, including the remedy of seeking judicial review before a constitutional court, if so advised. “We dismiss the instant petition accordingly for being premature,” said the IHC bench.