attached clipping of newspapers with his petition as a proof of the said ordinance.
The IHC bench observed that how could the court issue directives on an ordinance that is not before the court. Counsel for GG Jamal argued before the court that the said ordinance was issued at midnight, and it is discriminatory towards Fata National Assembly members to curtail their right of vote.
Talking to this correspondent, advocate Abbasi said that Fata got four seats for senators through elections at which 11 National Assembly members of Fata could poll four votes each as per the previous presidential ordinance on Fata regulations issued in 2002. The federal government, through recent ordinance, has repealed the 2002 ordinance and now they have divided 11 members of Fata into groups of three where each group will elect one senator. Abbasi further said that the current ordinance is ambiguous as it doesn’t address the issue of remaining two senators out of 11.
Counsel for GG Jamal argued before the court that the current ordinance was issued in a hasty manner, and it was not discussed on any forum before getting issued. The ordinance is in violation of Fata National Assembly members’ right of vote and also violates transparency and fairness.
In the wake of all this, the ECP postponed the Senate elections for Fata and sought attorney general of Pakistan’s advice on the issue.In another matter, the same IHC bench issued notices to a Senate candidate from Fata Abdur Raziq Afridi and the ECP after petitioners Muhammad Iqbal and Imtiaz Afridi adopted before it that Afridi is a tax defaulter of worth 200 million rupees.
The petitioners sought from the court to direct the ECP to reject candidature of Abdur Raziq Afridi. They, through their counsel Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, adopted before the court that the Cantonment Board, Peshawar, through a letter dated February 26, 2015, had apprised the ECP that Abdur Raziq Afridi is a defaulter of 200 million rupees on account of property tax. Despite this fact, the ECP accepted his candidature.
Barrister Gohar argued before the court that the respondent may be stopped from contesting election.The IHC bench said that how could it stop the election when polling is going on. At this, Barrister Gohar said that the court can direct the ECP not to notify respondent’s victory till adjudication of this matter.The court, issuing notices to the said respondents, directed them to submit reply within fortnight.