Arrest Imran, present him on Oct 26, ECP orders SSP

ISLAMABAD: A day after the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan decided to voluntarily appear before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the electoral body on Tuesday sent the non-bailable arrest warrant for him to SSP Operations, Islamabad.

Through the warrant, the ECP has directed the SSP to arrest Imran and produce him before the commission on October 26 at 10:00am.

The warrant, which mentions his Banigala and the PTI’s Central Secretariat addresses, states that the PTI chairman is charged with contempt of the Election Commission of Pakistan under Section 103-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. It says that Imran had failed to appear before the commission on several hearings, therefore, the ECP had ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest for him.

The situation, after the sending of the warrant to the senior police officer, can take a dramatic turn, if Imran resisted the police bid to arrest him. The decision to appear before the commission was taken during the core group meeting of the PTI on Monday here, which had yet again slammed the constitutional body for its failure to discharge its duties. 

The ECP on October 12 issued Imran’s non-bailable arrest warrant in relation to the contempt of court case against him, filed by one of the key former leaders of the party Akbar S Babar. The PTI had announced that it would challenge the decision in the Islamabad High Court. This is not the first time the ECP has issued warrants for the PTI chairman. On September 14, the ECP had issued bailable warrants for Imran to ensure his presence in the case.

Imran was asked by the ECP to submit a surety bond of Rs100,000 by September 25 and nominate two persons who would ensure payment of the amount and be held responsible, otherwise. Imran was also ordered to appear on that day in the commission in person.

On its part, the PTI approached the Islamabad High Court which on September 20, suspended the bailable arrest warrants. Hearing the case, Justice Aamer Farooq, who headed a three-member larger bench, directed the PTI chief to reply to the ECP's show-cause notice.

Imran’s lawyer Babar Awan assured the court that the PTI chairman would reply to the ECP's show-cause notice with regards to contempt proceedings against him. The ECP had issued the contempt notice to Imran on January 24 over his accusations against the electoral body, calling it biased.

Babar, the petitioner who had filed the foreign funding case against the PTI leadership way back in November 2014, had informed the ECP that the PTI chief had accused it of being biased in the foreign funding case following which his counsel tendered an apology with the commission. Imran has on different occasions accused the ECP of being compromised and working for the benefit of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and PML-N.

Meanwhile, the ECP reserved its decision in the reference against the ‘rebel’ PTI member and MNA Ayesha Gulalai, seeking to de-notify her from the National Assembly (reserved) seat.

The five-member bench under the chief election commissioner heard the case, filed by the PTI against her for defying its orders and not voting for the party’s candidate Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad during the prime minister's election which saw Shahid Khaqan Abbasi being elected the premier after the disqualification of Nawaz in the Panama Papers case by the Supreme Court.

Imran’s lawyer Sikander Mohmand reiterated before the ECP that Gulalai announced to leave the party and then backtracked from her statement during a news conference. He explained to the ECP that she did not need to present a written resignation to quit the party, when asked about the procedure for leaving the party. He added according to the party constitution, no fixed method is present for resigning and added that the party chairman could expel a member.

“Gulalai is leaving the party but not leaving the assembly membership, which is not possible in accordance with the party constitution,” he maintained. After the declaration by Imran, Gulalai’s assembly membership should be cancelled, he emphasised.

On the other hand, Gulalai’s lawyer Barrister Masroor rejected the PTI accusations and said that expressing the desire to leave the party and actually resigning were not the same thing. He recalled that the PTI had also announced to resign from parliament in 2014 but still continues to be part of it. Gulalai, he claimed, has never tendered her resignation to the party and said that she was not leaving the PTI in the National Assembly.

It is pertinent that the PTI chairman had sent a notice to Gulalai stating that she has defected from the party in terms of Article 63-A (1) of the constitution and he sought her disqualification.