PTI ranks interpret JC report in five divergent ways

ISLAMABAD: At least five divergent voices or reactions have emerged from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on the report of the 3-judge inquiry commission, reflecting confusion and split in its ranks.
One opinion was articulated by PTI Chairman Imran Khan - I accept the report but have reservations; the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) members should resign; the inquiry commission stopped short of finishing its job; I extol Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk and the superb job done by the panel; and we will not take to the streets and will go back to the assemblies.
In almost all political parties, which are not fan clubs or ruled by cult leaders, the policy expressed by their chiefs is considered the guiding force for all and sundry in their folds. This is not the case when it comes to the PTI. Or maybe, Imran Khan has approved different responses to the report.
Another opinion has been enunciated by prominent PTI leader Hamid Khan, who is of the view that the party did not fight the case in a professional manner. He holds PTI lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and senior party leader Jehangir Tareen responsible for the failure.
Yet another view has been aired by Ishaq Khakwani, who has stated that the PTI will go to the people to tell them that the commission did not do justice although there was rigging in the 2013 general elections.
The fourth opinion has been vented out by the PTI’s social media team, which has unprecedentedly bashed the judges of the commission and the superior judiciary.
Tareen has presented the fifth opinion saying that the commission resorted to the doctrine of necessity while dismissing the PTI allegations as inconsequential. In his view, it was reflected in paragraph 534 of thefindings. This paragraph reads: ‘however on account of the potential serious consequences which its findings may have on the Governing of the State and potential criminal consequences for individuals, the Commission did not deem it appropriate to

adopt a standard of proof lower than the balance of probabilities.’
However, Tareen ignored the foregoing paragraphs, which justified this decision of the commission. These are being reproduced to understand the actual context.
Paragraph 530 says: “In its written submissions the MQM standpoint was that the standard of proof in deciding election petitions was beyond reasonable doubt but since the Commission was not hearing an individual election petition the standard should be in between the two tests of balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt.’
The next paragraph says: “As can be seen the parties differed greatly with regard to the appropriate standard of proof to be applied. The PML-N requested proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the MQM pleaded for an in between standard the BNP-A requested proof on the ratio of probabilities and the PTI and PPP, which argued for a standard less than the balances of probabilities, although the PTI later in its oral arguments leaned towards a balance of probabilities, the Commission considered this issue very carefully as a matter of law.
Paragraph 532 says: “The Commission was of the view that the consequences which may flow from a finding/decision was relevant in determining the standard of proof and noted that the findings of the Commission will have two fold direct effects of serious nature. The first relates to Section 3(b) of the presidential ordinance, namely, that the 2013 elections were manipulated or influenced pursuant to systematic efforts by the design by anyone.
“The PTI has alleged that such manipulation was done by PML-N, its supporters, accomplices, associates and cohorts. In case the allegations against the party or any individual are established, it would of necessity entail serious consequences both politically and legally.
“The second effect, in the event the finding on the terms of reference goes in favour of PTI as stipulated in the Accord (or Memorandum of Understanding), may lead to dissolution of both national and provincial assemblies and holding of fresh elections; Paragraph No.4 of the accord reads: 4.1 In consequence of clause 3 hereinabove, if the Commission determines that the result of the elections, on an overall basis, are not a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate with respect to the polls, the following steps shall be taken as a consequence: (a) dissolution of the National Assembly by the prime minister and fresh elections shall be held to the National Assembly; and (b) appointment of a Caretaker Cabinet in accordance with Articles 224 and 224-A of the Constitution. In this event, PML-N will also consult PTI in the formation of the Caretaker Cabinet. Simultaneously, each of the PAs shall also be dissolved by the respective Chief Ministers and fresh elections shall also be held. For this purpose the PPP and the National Party are being requested to give their respective consent by executing the Affirmation at the foot of this Accord.
“4.2: In case, in consequence of clause 3 hereinabove, if the Commission determines that the election results, on an overall basis, are a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate with respect to these polls, all of PTI’s allegations regarding the elections shall stand withdrawn and the National Assembly and each of the PAs shall continue to function in accordance with the Constitution and PTI shall perform its due role in the Parliament and the democratic process.”
Paragraph 533 of the findings says: “The Commission in the end after weighing all the various submissions and considerations came to the view that since the inquiry was not a criminal trial the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard was deemed not to be the appropriate standard of proof. This standard may be applicable to election petitions but the Commission is not considering individual cases.
Paragraph 535 says: “The Commission was of the view that since the inquiry was essentially of a civil nature the balance of probabilities standard of proof would be the most appropriate, but at the same time taking account of the fact that within that standard there must be the more cogent evidence if the consequences of the findings are likely to be more severe to individuals or the Governance of the State.”