PML-Q tight-lipped as ROs trash allegations

Islamabad
The testimonies of seven Returning Officers (ROs) left the PML-Q tight-lipped when they apprised the Inquiry Commission that the certified results were not only dispatched to respective candidates, but also a copy was pasted outside the courts.
Though the seven ROs were present in the court room No.1, the PTI did not cross-examine them, thus practically retreating from its major allegation that the ROs had rigged the general elections 2013.
When the commission proceedings started on Wednesday, seven ROs from different districts of the Punjab appeared before it to record their statements.
However, they were testified only on the one-point agenda of consolidation of results and non-issuance of their notification.
Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk told the PTI counsel Abdul Hafeez Pirzada that if he wanted to cross-examine the ROs, he should confine it to the issuance of consolidation of results and their notification.
Pirzada informed the commission that he would not testify the ROs. Pirzada said he was very much clear from the day one that he was not in favor of testifying the ROs and that only Form-15 and result notification could serve the purpose.
The PTI counsel knew that calling the ROs to testify would further complicate the issue and he did not want to make the commission’s task more complicated.
The seven ROs, who supervised the general elections 2013 in various constituencies of the Punjab including NA-164, NA-140, NA-142, PP-66, PP-109 and PP-212, were testified on the request of PML-N counsel Dr Khalid Ranjha.
The mandate of the PML-Q counsel to testify the ROs was defined and limited to just one point that the ROs had not issued result notification to the candidates of PML-Q and that they were not called at the time of consolidation of result.
However, all of the ROs who appeared before the commission testified that they had not only summoned all the candidates contesting the elections in their respective constituencies, but also issued notifications as per rules.
When the PML-Q counsel tried to deviate from the mandate, the chief justice asked him to restrict his question to the prescribed mandate.
The ROs submitted the copies of notification which they had issued after the consolidation of results.
Recording their statements, the ROs informed the commission that their role after the general elections 2013 was consolidation of results by the time the rejected votes had also been packed in the bags.
They only counted the postal ballots, consolidated the results and issued the notification.
However, the counsel for PML-Q insisted on testifying the ROs, as according to him his clients were not even served the result notification issued by the ROs.