PTI proposes 'rotation policy' for CEC in draft amendments

Submitting draft amendments to the National Assembly (NA) secretary, Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) lawmakers, including Asad Qaiser, proposed “rotation policy” for the chief election commissioner (CEC) and modification in prevailing laws for the appointments of judges.

The SIC lawmakers — through their proposed set of amendments — demanded to approve rotation policy for the chief election commissioner (CEC) in which each province should be given equal representation to lead the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Subsequently, the appointment of judges should be approved on the basis of “merit” following a competitive test to avoid nepotism in order to strengthen independent judiciary, said SIC leader Asad Qaiser — a central leader of the Imran-founded Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) whose party merged into former after the 2024 nationwide elections.

After elaborating on the proposed amendments, Qaiser added that it was a longtime tradition to name the runner-up in the prime minister’s election as the opposition leader in the National Assembly.

The politician urged the NA speaker to notify appointment of the PTI-SIC joint candidate Omar Ayub Khan — who was runner-up in the PM’s election — as the opposition leader.

The former ruling party had not only levelled serious “rigging” and “election results’ manipulation” allegations after the February 8 general polls but it has blamed the sitting CEC Sikandar Sultan Raja for making biased decisions which created hurdles for the party to take part in the recent elections.

After nationwide polls in February, the Imran-founded party demanded CEC Raja to step down from the office over “failure to stop election rigging”.

The PTI, along with other major parties, decried the election results, alleging systematic rigging in the February 8 elections — the biggest polls that the country staged in its more than seven-decade history. The top PTI leader also demanded that the polling authorities issue election results in line with Form 45 — as several parties claim that there were discrepancies in the results based on Form 47.