35 punctures, Jang, Geo don’t figure in PTI’s official demand
ISLAMABAD: The PTI’s proposed ToRs for the have no mention of much-discussed “35 punctures” or the alleged involvement of ex-CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice (retd) Khalilur Rehman Ramday, the Geo-Jang Group and Nawaz Sharif, writes Ansar Abbasi.
The PTI proposals, as provided to the government, also do not talk of the “systematic institutionalised rigging” to prove that the mandate of the PTI was stolen in favour of the PML-N to enable the latter to win the elections and form its government.
In public the PTI accuses Geo-Jang Group of playing a role in poll rigging by airing Nawaz Sharif’s speech at 11:23 pm on May 11, 2013 when only 18% polling was complete. There is no mention of this point in the proposed ToRs.
The PTI has been alleging that former Chief Justice Iftikhat Chaudhry, Justice (R) Ramday, Najam Sethi and member ECP Justice (R) Riaz Kiani used their influence to rig polls. However, in the proposed 8-page paper, this point is also missing.
The PTI has been alleging that the then caretaker chief minister Punjab Najam Sethi had informed Nawaz Sharif on phone that he had managed to fix 35 punctures, a reference to rigged polls in 35 constituencies to ensure PML-N win. This point is also not mentioned in the ToR.
The PTI allegation that after Nawaz Sharif speech at 11:23 pm on May 11, 2013 in which he asked people to give him complete victory, the UNDP computers saving election data were removed from RO offices and ROs changed the whole results for win, is also missing from the PTI recommended ToRs.
The PTI alleges that its mandate was stolen in a systematic election rigging that involved Nawaz Sharif, ECP, ex-CJ Supreme Court, caretaker government and others.
Contrary to its public stance the PTI has recommended such ToRs that are general in nature and do not focus on the fundamental question if the PTI mandate was stolen in a systematic rigging to benefit the PML-N. The PTI wants the JC to examine the sample of its choice 30 constituencies.
PTI’s recommended ToRs for the Judicial Commission are:
– Legality and procedural propriety of the manner in which the ECP and members ECP were appointed.
– Allegation of bias or impropriety or other unlawful or improper conduct against any member of the ECP or any other officer or employee of the ECP in relation to the 2013 elections.
– Allegations regarding printing of additional ballot papers through unauthorised printers or in any unlawful or improper manner and dissemination thereof.
– Allegation of bias or impropriety or other unlawful or improper conduct, act or omission or malpractices by the District Returning Officers, Returning Officers, Assistant Returning Officers, Presiding Officers of the selected ‘sample’ constituencies.
– Suspicious or otherwise unwarranted or unauthorised transfers or posting of officials.
– Changes in location of polling stations or changes in appointments at polling stations.
– Suspicious delays in consolidation and or notification of results of the selected constituencies.
– Allegations of ‘stuffing of ballot boxes’ and or ‘replacement of ballot boxes’ in the selected “sample” constituencies.
– Suspicious or ‘eleventh hour’ changes in the original polling scheme in respect of the selected ‘sample’ constituencies.
– Significant violations of the requirement of the provision of election laws.
– Absence, in material numbers, of the photo electoral rolls in the polling record maintained by the ECP.
– Absence, in material numbers, of duly filled, signed and stamped counterfoils of ballot papers.
– Absence of ballot paper account of a material number of polling stations or absence in the polling record of any other prescribed instrument or form under the election laws and rules.
– Inability of NADRA to verify a material number of thumb impressions on account of failure to utilise the required magnetised ink or on account of any manufacturing defect in the magnetised ink or on account of absence of photo electoral roll or counterfoils or for any other reason based on absence of required documents in the polling record of the relevant constituency.
– NADRA analysis report, which indicates significant voter fraud or illegal or bogus casting of votes in the relevant constituency.
– Usually high number of rejected votes or unusually high voter turnout or discrepancies in the number of votes reported to have been cast (a) in a national assembly constituency vis-à-vis (b) the related provincial assembly constituencies.