There were 17 petitions decided in the month of June 2014 – sixteen by election tribunals and one by the ECP. However, given the backlog of pending petitions and the expiry of the tribunals’ tenure, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has extended the tenure of tribunals following their failure to resolve all post-election disputes within the legally-stipulated deadline.

Overall, as many as 318 (78%) out of the 410 cases have so far been decided by the tribunals and the ECP (292 out of 384 by tribunals and 26 by ECP) while 92 (22%) petitions are still awaiting decisions.

The ECP constituted 14 tribunals across the country following the 2013 elections to redress election-related complaints of contesting candidates. The tribunals were legally bound to decide each case within 120 days of its receipt.

However, at the end of June 2014, the ECP extended the tribunals’ tenures by three to six months in light of pending cases despite the passage of deadline. Meanwhile, the presiding officers of Loralai, Sukkur and Dera Ismail Khan tribunals did not accept the extension, bringing the number of tribunals working across the country to eleven.

The four cases pending with the Loralai tribunal have been transferred to the Quetta tribunal, while six cases of Sukkur and one of Dera Ismail Khan have been given to Karachi and Peshawar tribunals respectively.

This update is based on the direct observation of tribunals’ proceedings till June 30, 2014 as part of FAFEN’s legal study being commissioned with the assistance of 18 trained lawyers.

The election results were officially notified on May 22, 2013, following which the candidates were given until July 6 (45 days) to submit their petitions. The ECP received a total of 409 petitions, while one petition was filed directly with the Lahore tribunal.

As many as 292 out of 384 petitions have so far been decided or disposed of by the tribunals. Twenty-four petitions were accepted; 22 dismissed due to non-prosecution; 28 dismissed as withdrawn; 62 dismissed after complete trial whereas 126 were dismissed on technical grounds making the petitions not-maintainable. The reasons for dismissal of 30 petitions are not known to FAFEN due to non-availability of their copies of orders despite continuous efforts to obtain these by the lawyers.

Of the 24 petitions accepted, eight were filed by independent candidates, six by PPPP members and four by PML-N candidates. None of the petitions filed by PTI have been accepted so far.

On the other hand, 10 petitions accepted are against PML-N – the party with the highest number of seats in the National Assembly. Eight petitions cite independent candidates as respondents, while two cite returned candidates of PTI as defendants.

Region-wise, the tribunals in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are far ahead of other provinces in the disposal of cases. As of June 30, 2014, the tribunals in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa disposed of 91% (63 out of 69) of the cases referred by the ECP, followed by Balochistan (85%, or 51 out of 60), Sindh (79%, or 72 out of 91) and Punjab (65%, or 106 out of 164).

However, the current pace at which the tribunals are operating has delayed the decisions of 92 petitions. Meanwhile, FAFEN observers have recorded 2,393 adjournments of over seven days in the tribunals, in violation of election laws and ECP’s directions which urge the tribunals to hear the petitions on a day-to-day basis and do not allow an adjournment of more than seven days1.

It is important to note that 19 petitions are pending due to stay orders issued by high courts, whereas five are awaiting verification reports from the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA).

Most of the referred petitions were moved by contesting candidates, while three petitions were filed by voters. The ECP received 409 petitions, out of which 25 were dismissed by the ECP itself during scrutiny. FAFEN’s data suggests that the ECP referred 384 petitions to the tribunals. One petition was sent back by the Rawalpindi Tribunal and dismissed by ECP itself due to non-prosecution, bringing the number of cases dismissed by the ECP to 26. Meanwhile, one petition was filed directly with the tribunal in Lahore, bypassing the legal mechanism which resulted in its dismissal at the initial stage.

Most of the petitions (98) were filed by independent candidates, followed by PML-N members who filed 66 petitions. PTI members filed 58 petitions, while PPPP member filed 50 petitions. Meanwhile, PML-N – the party with the highest number of seats in the National Assembly – also had the highest number of petitions citing the party as the respondent. According to FAFEN’s data, over one-third (137 or 35%) of the 384 petitions were filed against the party’s winning candidates, while PPPP’s returned candidates were nominated in 50 petitions.

The Lahore tribunal, being the busiest, received 56 petitions, of which three were later transferred to the Faisalabad tribunal. The Peshawar tribunal received 40 petitions, out of which seven were later transferred to the Abbottabad tribunal while four were transferred to the tribunal in Dera Ismail Khan. However, one pending case was re-transferred to Peshawar following the presiding officer in Dera Ismail Khan’s refusal to accept the extension in deadline. The Faisalabad tribunal initially received 39 petitions. However, three more petitions were handed over to the tribunal by the Lahore tribunal.

The ECP can accept petitions within 45 days of the gazette notification of returned candidates and can either dismiss or forward a petition to the respective tribunal at a time it may deem fit after initial scrutiny. The tribunals are legally bound to decide a case within 120 days of its receipt. The ECP started referring the petitions to the tribunals in June 2013. Since no time limit is stipulated for the ECP to forward or dismiss the petitions, some cases remain pending with the commission for more than 120 days.

According to FAFEN’s data, the Lahore Tribunal received at least two petitions on January 29, 2014.

The petitions are moved on single or multiple grounds and seek single or multiple reliefs. A majority of the petitions challenged the nomination or qualification of returned candidates with the additional ground of use of corrupt practices to sway the elections. There were 38 petitions challenging the nomination process and another 91 challenging the qualification of returned candidates. More than half (212 or 55%) of the petitions, among other grounds, made allegations of corrupt practices employed by returned candidates, while almost three-fourth (277 or 72%) of the petitions accused other personnel, including election officials, of malpractice.

Petitioners in 248 cases sought declaration to the effect that the election of the winning candidate be declared void and the petitioner be declared returned candidate instead. Among other reliefs, 122 petitions sought disqualification of the returned candidates and re-polling in the constituency. Another 89 petitions sought recounting of ballots for the entire or parts of the constituencies, 43 demanded re-examination of excluded ballots while 57 sought re-polling at certain polling stations besides 70 petitions seeking other reliefs.

1It was specifically mentioned in the “HANDBOOK ON ELECTION TRIBUNAL PETITION PROCESS” published by the ECP in 2013: “In 2009, an amendment to ROPA was adopted stating that “no adjournment shall be granted to any party for more than seven days and that too on payment of costs as the Tribunal may determine”.

To download complete report, click here