57 affidavits submitted by PTI proved bogus

 

NA-122 vote transfer case

PTI says 23 affidavits were submitted and none of them was fake

ISLAMABAD: At least 49 affidavits submitted by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in NA-122 vote transfer case have been proved fake which has made it a unique case in Pakistan’s legal history with the highest number of fake documents submitted along with one single petition. 

The case along with all these fake affidavits now lies in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The PTI, on the other hand, insists in its official reaction to The News that all documents are genuine and no forgery or tampering has been made.

Contrary to its public claims that thousands of votes have been transferred out of NA-122 after 2013 general elections and before October 2015 by-polls and that it has collected 2,000 affidavits verifying this fact, PTI has submitted only 49 such affidavits with its petition before Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and with an election petition filed before Election Tribunal of Lahore. All these 49 affidavits have been proved as fake as ECP and Nadra record as well as the final voting lists of 2013 general elections, still present in official records and also available with different political parties, show that all of them were either voters of other constituencies or were not voters at all. The election tribunal has already dismissed the PTI petition filed by its candidate, Aleem Khan, who has challenged the tribunal decision before the apex court. Now the petition filed in election tribunal will be shifted to the apex court along with all affidavits. ECP has also dismissed a petition filed by Aleem Khan alleging massive vote transfer from the constituency. ECP also held that some of the affidavits submitted by Aleem Khan were apparently bogus and that commission reserves the right to proceed against him. However, commission hasn’t issued details of the number and nature of the fake affidavits. Also the words used by ECP that ‘some of the affidavits were bogus’ gave an impression as if some were genuine.

In fact, PTI has submitted some 500 affidavits, out of which 353 were not even alleging anything wrong and the text of these affidavits merely state that signatory of affidavits were residents of NA-122 while their votes were registered in other constituencies. It was a true statement and there are hundreds of thousands of people residing or doing jobs in some constituency and their votes are registered in other constituencies. It is alleged in case of only 49 affidavits that signatories of affidavits were registered voters of NA-122, polled their votes in NA-122 but later their votes were transferred to other constituencies before October 2015 elections.

Interestingly, in its official response to The News, PTI further decreased this number and stated that it had submitted only 23 affidavits which are claiming that signatories of affidavits were voters of NA-122 during 2013 elections and later their votes were transferred. It is incomplete contradiction to party’s earlier public claim which was in thousands.

When The News contacted senior PTI leader Naeemul Haq, he said that it was a technical issue and he did not understand technicalities involved in it. “Shoaib Siddiqui, PTI MPA from Lahore, is handling this case and whatever he will state, is the official version of PTI,” Naeem added.

When The News contacted Shaoib Siddiqui and asked him different questions, he responded, “In fact, it is true that we have collected 2,000 affidavits. However, when detail of these affidavits started becoming public, PML-N and especially some people representing Sardar Ayaz Sadiq started threatening people who have submitted these affidavits. So in order to ensure security and safety of these people, while submitting our petitions, we have submitted only 500 affidavits out of total 2,000 available with us and rest can be submitted during the process of trial of the case.” Shoaib Siddiqui further added, “Only 23 of these submitted affidavits claim that signatories of the affidavits were registered voters of the NA-122 during 2013 elections and later their votes were transferred out of NA-122. We submitted voting lists of both the 2013 and 2015 elections with these 23 affidavits”. When asked whether the list he was referring to as of 2013 was actually a list of 2013 general elections, he maintained that all documents were official and verified.

Shoaib Siddiqui went on to admit, “In fact, we have ‘played technically’ and around 350 affidavits only state that signatories of the affidavits are residents of NA-122 but their votes are registered in other constituencies. They do not claim that their votes were registered in NA-122 during 2013 elections so such affidavits cannot be termed fake”. On the question that as per record available with The News, the number of affidavits claiming to be registered in NA-122 during 2013 elections is higher than 23, Shoaib said that only 23 such affidavits were annexed with petitions. When asked if this would become a case with the highest number of fake documents submitted along with any single case as according to top legal and constitutional experts of the country, if these affidavits and documents are fake they have never witnessed any case with such a big number of fake documents. Shoaib said that no fake document had been submitted so the assertion was totally wrong and baseless.

However, all the 49 affidavits submitted with PTI petitions are present with The News and record of the election commission and Nadra prove that these affidavits are bogus. According to legal experts this is a very serious matter and ECP’s inaction on this count can prompt others to repeat the same practice in future quoting precedent of this case to avoid any punishment. Experts add that this will create a mess. However, no official response was available from ECP. Senior officials of the commission told The News that only members of the commission including Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) could make any decision in this regard. It is also important to mention here that some voting lists presented by PTI before media at different occasions as lists of 2013 elections were not the final voting lists and were some old lists.

Conversation with some of these 49 voters, quoted below, suggests that they were approached by some person representing Aleem Khan who asked them that they would manage to transfer their votes in NA-122 and got their signatures on these affidavits. Most of them were unaware about the body of the affidavit in which they were making a statement on oath which is presented before Supreme Court now. However, PTI’s Shoaib Siddiqui insisted that voters contacted the party at their own and submitted these affidavits with their own will.

Following is the list of 49 persons claiming in their affidavits that they were voters of NA-122 during 2013 elections, they cast their vote in NA-122 but later during October 2015 by-elections they came to know that their votes had been transferred to other constituencies. When their record has been checked in ECP and Nadra, it is revealed that they were not voters of NA-122 during 2013 general elections and were registered in other constituencies at that time. Following details give their names, CNIC numbers and the constituency in which they were registered during 2013 elections and hence proved their affidavits as fake;

1- Adnan Saleem S/O Muhammad Saleem, 35201-5531044-9, NA-124,

2- Muhammad Imran Ahmad S/O Muhammad Siraj Din, 35201-7345787-3, 

3- Zaib U Nisa W/O Muhammad Abbas, 35202-9265342-2, NA-116,

4- Irum Amir D/O Amir Javaid, 35202-8183842-0, NA-104,

5- Amir Javaid S/O Nazeer Ahmad, 35202-2705169-7, NA-104,

6- Qutab Khan S/O Dilawar Khsn, 35202-4924927-3, NA-33,

7- Alim Khan S/O Muhammad Din, 35202-7008482-1, NA-33,

8- Shazia Bibi W/O Shehbaz Hussain, 35202-2962322-2, NA-134,

9- Shamim Jaan W/O Muhammad Akram, 35202-2517598-2, NA-120,

10- Rehman Khan S/O Shah Khan, 35202-8272951-5, NA-119,

11- Iqbal Javaid S/O Manzoor Hussain, 35202-9388350-7, NA-134,

12- Shehbaz Hussain S/O Manzoor Hussain, 35202-2590458-7, NA-134,

13- Shoukat Ali S/O Chutan Shah, 35202-0209905-3, NA-150,

14- Sumaira Perveen W/O Adulghfar, 35201-7199392-9, NA-124,

15- Sheikh Muhammad Usman S/O Sheikh Abdul Raheem, 35202-2607221-5, NA-130,

16- Margreat Guldzeen W/O Anwar Qadir, 35202-2772395-4, NA-123,

17- Muhammad Qauyom S/O Muhanmad Shareef, 35202-4034247-1, NA-123,

18- Muhammad Usman Qauyom S/O Muhammad Qauyom, 35202-2627405-1, NA-123,

19- Sohail Qauyom S/O  Muhammad Qauyom, 35202-0224111-5, NA-121,

20- Sarwar Banu W/O Muhammad Qauyom, 35202-5557046-5, NA-123,

21- Aliya Naeem W/O Naeem Ch, 35201-4131750-0, NA-130,

22- Ambar Saleem W/O Muhammad Saleem, 35201-1247077-2, NA-124,

23- Sher Bahadar Khan S/O Abdul Aziz, 35200-1560714-5, NA-33,

24- Iqrar Saleem S/O Muhammad Saleem, 35201-2557107-6, NA-124,

25- Muhammad Atique Butt S/O Abdul Majeed Butt, 35201-9421436-5, NA--125,

26- Kousar Perveen W/O Muhammad Yameen, 35201-8768566-2, IN NA-149 (In the case, interestingly, the copy of CNIC annexed with the affidavit, bears her hand-written statement that she hasn’t cast her voted in 2013 general elections in NA-122 and only wants her vote to be registered in NA-122 but the affidavit bearing a different statement. Affidavits’ body is same, a computer print statement and the words used are the same without any discrimination between women and men. She was only made to sign on the affidavit.)

27- Muhammad Adrees S/o Muhammad Yameen, 35201-7616852-5, NA-149,

28- Hassan Ali S/o Riaz Ahmad, 35201-7413597-9, NA-124,

29- Ijaz Ahmad Insari S/o Arshad Ahmad Ansari, 35202-3009697-9, NA-124,

30- Shabana Athar W/o Athar Ahmad Ansari, 35201-1413178-8, NA-124,

31- Muhammad Hamid Rafique S/o Muhammad Rafique, 35202-7488882-5, NA-124,

32- Shahrukh Baig S/o Ashar Baig, 35200-4590324-5, NA-253,

33- Hamid Jilal S/o Jalal Din, 35202-8968660-7, NA-119,

34- Rukhsana Sohail W/o Sohail Feeroz, 35202-9668901-, NA-121,

35- Aliya W/o Abdul Ghani, 35202-8926160-6, NA-124,

36- Sohail Feroz S/o Feroz Din, 35202-1155274-7, NA-121,

37- Kousar Perveen W/o Abdul Ghani, 35202-3034707-4, NA-124,

38- Musarat Hamid W/o Hamid, 35202-4879536-6, NA-119,

39- Ashar Baig S/o Aman Ullah  Baig, 35200-1461273-7, NA-253,

40- Mozam Ali S/o Miraaj Din, 35202-2209812-1, NA-128,

41- Ahmad Saleem Qurashi S/o Muhammad Akram Quraishi, 35202-6272608-9, NA-120,

42- Robeena Tanveer W/o Tanveer Ahmad, 35202-3229921-8, NA-119,

43- Muhammad Amin Qadir S/o Qadir Muhammad, 35202-1844386-1, NA-121,

44- Shah Zaib Raza S/o Shahid Hussain, 35202-9744754-7, NA-121,

45- Zahida Perveen W/o Shahid Hussain, 35202-6546295-2, NA-121,

46- Syed Muhammad Abdul Rehman S/o Shahid Ali, 35202-2489195-1, NA-120,

47- Waqar Ali S/o Zulifqar Ali, 35202-0478366-9, NA-121,

48- Muhammad Akram S/o Sae’aab Ali, 35200-1545668-9, He is not a registered voter of Pakistan even today.

49- Mirza Asif Baig S/o Mirza Tufail Baig, 35201-6948758-5.

While talking to The News, Asif Baig (Serial No-49) said that he never cast vote during 2013 elections and only came to know that his vote was not registered in NA-122. Asif Baig said that he signed an affidavit given to him by people representing Aleem Khan without reading it. According to Asif Baig, he was told by Aleem Khan’s people that they wanted to get his vote transferred to NA-122 and obtained his signatures on the affidavit for this purpose. According to ECP record, his vote was registered in Silsala Number-187, Block Code-186280305, Ward-6, Takia Sahwarri, Union Council/Committee: 153 Angori Bagh Scheme, Metropolitan Corporation, Polling Station: Jinnah Model High School Main Bazaar, Sahwarri, Lahore.

One Mr Amir Javaid (Serial No 5) told The News that he was a die hard PTI worker. He said that he remembered casting a vote in NA-122 somewhere in the past but hadn’t cast his vote in 2013 elections in NA-122. “When I checked my vote in 2015, I came to know it was transferred to my native city Gujrat and that is done without my consent,” Amir said. However his affidavit shows he is making a statement on oath that he cast his vote in NA-122 during 2013 general elections. It is a well known fact that during 2010 to 2012, after computerisation of voting lists and removal of all duplicate votes, in compliance with Supreme Court orders passed in different petition including one that of PTI chief Imran Khan, many voters who could not be approached by the ECP staff during door-to-door visits were registered on their permanent addresses after giving them an opportunity through advertisements in national media. However, it remains a fact, that after 2013 elections no vote was transferred without the consent of the voter as is also reflected by the statement of Amir Javed that he never voted in NA-122 during 2013 general elections but he was made to sign on a wrong affidavit. It is also a fact that is proved by analysis of so far allegations and scrutiny of ECP record that even if some vote was transferred after 2013 general elections that was transferred with the consent of the voter and on his/her proper application filed in the relevant election office.

In case of another 8 affidavits submitted along with Aleem Khan’ petitions stating that certain number of votes were registered against their addresses while they did not know any of such voters, the ECP record proved that they themselves applied for registration of those votes on such addresses owned by them. On this question, Shoaib Siddiqui maintained that these individuals had submitted affidavits on oath and had stated facts in their statements.

Senior legal and constitutional expert Azhar Siddique while talking to The News said that he was unaware where these 57 documents and affidavits were annexed with PTI petitions and were fake or not. “But, if they are fake, I don’t recall any single case where such a huge number of allegedly fake documents were submitted,” Azhar said. If proved fake, those submitted can be tried under sections 420, 468, 471 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and relevant provisions of Representation of People Act, 1976 (ROPA). He added that court could order a separate proceeding under section 476 of PPC. He said if documents were bogus and the case had landed in apex court, it would become a very such serious matter. Syed Tayyab Advocate while talking to The News said if affidavits were bogus, he did not recall any single case in which such a big number of fake documents were submitted. He said if such documents were submitted in any court of law, it could invoke sections 420, 468 and 472 of PPC and under which seven years imprisonment could awarded by a court of law.

Fake degrees are submitted in government department to get jobs. In most of the cases Higher Education Commission (HEC) also used to verify such fake degrees. Fake documents are used as guarantee after bail is granted. According to legal experts, in recent years, the case of Bank of Punjab is an example of use of fake documents where some 8 to 9 fake CNICs and collaterals were used in the bank to acquire a financial facility of more than Rs8 billion.