Adeeb Kaker
Islamabad (July 6, 2017): Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s counsel on Thursday raised questions over maintainability of the reference filed in Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) seeking disqualification of PTI chief as MNA.
On Thursday, the ECP resumed hearing of a petition seeking the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan on charges of collecting party funds from foreign sources.
Click Play Button to Watch this Video
The five-member ECP bench headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Justice (retd) Sardar Muhammad Raza heard the petition.
Imran counsel Shahid Gondal raised objections over the petitioned filed by Hashim Bhutta. He added that Hashim Bhutta was the son of former PML-N MNA Naseer Bhutta. He argued that the petition was filed on the behest of PML-N.
He maintained that application seeking disqualification can not be filed directly in ECP, saying that the reference was not maintainable.
The CEC asked the PTI chief counsel whether he was also avoiding to file reply in this matter too. The CEC added that your client had not yet filed reply in other cases too.
Upon this, the counsel pleaded the bench to first hear his objections over the petition. The Commission adjourned hearing till July 12, asking the counsel t advance argument on the objection in next date of hearing.
The petition was filed in the context that under the country’s laws, a political party cannot receive funds from foreign individuals or organisations. To keep an eye on the funding source, all party chiefs are required to submit a declaration to the ECP while submitting details of their party assets.
To substantiate his claims against PTI, Mr Bhutta had attached some documents that the party, currently at loggerheads with the ruling party had received around $3 million through various sources in American states, Texas and California.
Bhutta’s counsel Sharafat Chaudhry had argued that Imran Khan had submitted a certificate of 2010 to 2015 stating that the PTI had not collected funds through any “prohibited means”, whereas his client had documents to negate the claims of cricketer-turned-politician.
Related News
