justifiably claim that the commission did not give sufficient time to collect proof of ‘rigging’ because every entity has been claiming over the past two years that it has abundant evidence of poll manipulation, which it is ready to present before the appropriate forum. Hence, no foot dragging will be plausible.
There is no second opinion about the legal acumen of a majority of these lawyers. Every political party has tried to hire the best. They have preferred only those lawyers, who fully buy their point of view on the previous elections.
However, what was needed more than the legal knowledge and expertise of the lawyers was unimpeachable evidence and proofs to establish that the polls, regarded by local and international monitors and supervisors as the most fair and transparent compared to all the previous elections, were manipulated to the extent that their results did not truly reflect the mandate given by the voters. The legal attorneys will base their arguments only on the controversial material provided by their sponsors.
Political forces, which have decided to become party to the proceedings of the commission, have filed their brief statements along with the proofs while others are in the process of giving final touches to their assertions. In its first meeting, the commission, which meets on April 16, had asked the political parties that contested the 2013 elections to submit their statements by Wednesday.
Under the ordinance, the commission has the authority to punish any person who abuses, scandalizes or ridicules it. Section 3 says it will have the same powers as the Supreme Court to punish any person, who abuses, interferes with or obstructs its process in any way or disobeys its order or direction; scandalizes it or any of its member or otherwise does anything which tends to bring it or any of its member in relation to his office into hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Any person, who does anything which tends to prejudice the inquiry or determination of any matter pending before the commission or does any other act, deed or thing, which, under any other law, constitutes contempt of court, will qualify for punishment. However, fair comment made in good faith and in public interest on the final report after the completion of the inquiry will not constitute contempt of the commission.
The commission has a specific scope of inquiry. It will inquire into and determine whether or not the elections were organised and conducted impartially, honestly, fairly, justly and in accordance with law; whether or not the polls were manipulated or influenced pursuant to a systematic effort by design by anyone; and whether or not their results on an overall basis are a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate.