Bars vs the ECP

Controversy refuses to leave Election 2024, even before the process has properly started. In the latest twist in the tale, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) have expressed distrust in Chief Election Commissioner Sikander Sultan Raja's ability to hold free and transparent elections in February 2024.

 The PBC has said it is seriously concerned over the conduct of the CEC regarding election procedures, delimitation, and seat allocations while highlighting the “growing perception that in the presence of the incumbent CEC, elections cannot be conducted freely and transparently”. Interestingly, the PBC has cited a “glaring example” of the allocation of two National Assembly seats to the CEC’s native district of Jhelum, with a population of 1,382,000 approximately while district Hafizabad, with a population of around 132,000 is allocated only one seat; the council adds that: “A similar imbalance is observed in the allocation of seats for District Rawalpindi.

Despite its lower population compared to Gujranwala Division, an additional seat has been allocated, raising questions about the transparency of the electoral process.” The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has denied these allegations and said that CEC Raja’s home constituency is in Sargodha and the ECP will not “bow to any pressure or blackmailing”.

Questions have naturally been raised over why these top lawyers’ bodies are demanding this when they are not even involved in contesting the elections -- what exactly is their locus standi in this matter? It would be understandable for contestants who are affected by the delimitation exercise to raise concerns but do these lawyers’ bodies even have a direct stake in the elections? The answer to that, some say, is that -- whatever be their standing in the matter -- seat allocation in some districts is different than other districts and since the ECP was supposed to apply the same principle in allocating seats, such discrepancy raises serious concerns.

The upcoming general election is already standing at a precarious position, with one party alleging it is being targeted unfairly. Now these statements from top lawyers’ bodies only add to the concern over transparency in elections. While the Supreme Court has already ruled that no objections can be raised on the delimitation process after the announcement of the schedule for the upcoming general elections, the ECP should in the fairness of things take into account these discrepancies and try to address this issue in detail in order to satisfy those raising these concerns. It may be virtually impossible, however, for the ECP to satisfy all contenders and one party or the other will have issues with the electoral nitty-gritty but the ECP needs to address any legitimate concerns with facts. If justice lies in being seen to have been done, so does the ECP's duty to hold free, fair and transparent elections. In a country where elections are almost always controversial, the electoral body must not give any more fodder to its critics and opponents. While asking for the resignation of the CEC is an overkill, and will cause even more hiccups in the election process, perhaps the CEC and ECP can give a logical explanation regarding any real or perceived discrepancies between different districts and constituencies. Election 2024 is already a melting pot of controversies. Do we really need more?