ISLAMABAD - Chairman Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s counsel Tuesday adopted the stance that it is bizarre that the Election Commission of Pakistan ECP) disqualified him (Imran) for the assets that he legally purchased and lawfully sold. Khan’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar made the submission before a single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq who conducted hearing of a petition of the Chairman PTI against his disqualification in the Toshakhana reference. Ali Zafar submitted before the bench that Khan was elected as MNA from NA-95 Mianwali in July 2018 but, through an illegal order of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) dated 21/10/2022, ECP disqualified him from this seat under Article 63(1) (p) of the Constitution. The decision of the Speaker to send the reference and order of ECP is unconstitutional and void ab initio, he submitted. He adopted the stance that the Speaker without any document or evidence had filed a reference before the ECP asking it to disqualify Imran Khan under Article 62(1)(f). He submitted that acting malafide in law, ECP also accepted the reference and disqualified Imran Khan from the seat. He argued that for a disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) to take place there must be a pre-existing declaration from a Court of Law against the Member. He pointed out that in this case there was no declaration from a court. Barrister Zafar further argued that ECP is not a Court of Law and there are many judgements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in which it has been decided that under Article 62(1)(f) no declaration can be made by ECP at all. He referred to the latest case of Faisal Vowda in which the Supreme Court has decided that ECP has no jurisdiction to give any declaration under Article 62(1)(f) that a member is not Sadiq or Amin. Barrister Zafar contended that since the reference had been filed by the Speaker under Article 63(2) of the Constitution under which it was necessary that the ground as provided in Article 63(1) must exist at the time of the decision before the Speaker or the ECP. However, he pointed out that in this case no issue under Article 63(1) was involved or existed at the time of the Speaker’s decision or even when ECP was called upon to answer the question raised in the reference. On this ground also, he argued that the only answer that ECP could give to the question raised by the Speaker was that no disqualification existed under Article 63(1) and hence the reference should have been dismissed on this ground alone. Khan’s counsel submitted that even if the provisions of Election Act are looked at, it is clear the entire Election Act, does not give any power or jurisdiction to ECP to disqualify anyone on the ground of misdeclaration or concealment of assets in the statement. On merits also, he submitted that he had filed all the documents before ECP, including the evidence, in the shape of challan forms that Imran Khan had paid for the gifts and deposited the money in Government Treasury and only then legally obtained the gifts.