Pakistan's main opposition leaders ‘booted' from parliament
ISLAMABAD – Following their conviction by an anti-terrorism court in May 9 cases, the Election Commission of Pakistan on Tuesday disqualified nine lawmakers, including opposition leaders in the National Assembly and the Senate.
This latest move, described by a PTI leader as a 'disqualification spree' by the commission, takes the number of lawmakers ousted in less than two weeks to over a dozen.
Those sent home on Tuesday included NA Opposition Leader Omar Ayub, Senate Opposition leader Shibli Faraz, MNAs Zartaj Gul, Rai Haider Ali Khan, and Rai Hassan Nawaz Khan. Sunni Ittehad Council chief Hamid Raza — a key PTI ally — was also disqualified, besides three Punjab MPAs Muhammad Ansar Iqbal, Junaid Afzal Sahi, and Rai Muhammad Murtaza Iqbal.
One-third of the nine lawmakers disqualified by the ECP hail from Faisalabad.
A notification issued by the commission confirmed their disqualification and declared their seats vacant, on which by-elections will likely be held.
Last week, an anti-terrorism court in Faisalabad sentenced 108 individuals to 10 years of imprisonment for their involvement in the May 9 riots sparked by the arrest of Imran Khan in a corruption case.
On the other hand, PTI parliamentary leader in the Senate Barrister Syed Ali Zafar slammed what he called a 'disqualification spree' and said the recent wave of 'illegal moves' targeting specific PTI lawmakers was without any procedural consistency or final judicial determination.
'This raises the spectre of selective accountability and institutional overreach by the ECP, whose constitutional role is to be an impartial arbiter in electoral matters — not a substitute trial or appellate court,' he said, claiming such actions were 'politically motivated and legally unsustainable'.
He was of the opinion that the ECP had violated due process and fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution. According to Senator Zafar, disqualification under Article 63(1)(h) takes place if a person has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to more than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since release.
'Clearly, the conviction must be final and not sub judice. A mere trial court conviction does not attain finality if an appeal is pending before a higher court,' he said. He recalled that the Supreme Court in the Mohammad Nawaz Sharif v. ECP case (2018) held that disqualification under Article 63(1)(h) required that the conviction must have attained finality.
'Unless a conviction is upheld by the highest appellate forum, the ECP cannot assume the disqualification has materialised. In addition, Article 10A guarantees fair trial — the essential ingredient of which is that a person retains the presumption of innocence until all remedies are exhausted.'
If the ECP begins to disqualify persons based on non-final convictions or FIRs/investigations, it amounts to pre-judging guilt, which is unconstitutional, he said, adding that the election watchdog had no original jurisdiction to determine disqualification. He said the ECP was an administrative/quasi-judicial body under Article 218(3) and relevant statutes and could act only after a final conviction or declaration was passed by a competent court.
Barrister Zafar said the 'use of ECP to target politicians before their legal process was complete undermines the democratic order and judicial independence' and puts at risk public confidence in constitutional institutions.
According to the senator, 'The legal framework, constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court, and principles of natural justice all require that convictions must be final (i.e., all appeals decided) and disqualifications under Article 62(1)(f) must be based on a judicial declaration.'
It may be noted that before these nine lawmakers, Punjab Assembly Opposition Leader Malik Ahmad Bhachar, MNA Abdul Latif from Chitral, Senator Ejaz Chaudhry, and MNA Mohammad Ahmed Chattha had already been disqualified in the last week of July.
On July 15, Jamshed Dasti was also disqualified over 'fake academic credentials'.
The commission had also announced a schedule for a by-election on the seat it had declared vacant following his disqualification, which it had to reverse on Tuesday in light of a Lahore High Court order.
'Pursuant to the order dated 30th July, 2025, passed by the Honourable Lahore High Court…the election programme for the conduct of by-election in NA-175 Muzaffargarh-l…is hereby suspended till further order of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in the above titled case,' a notification issued by the ECP read.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
International Business Times
9 hours ago
- International Business Times
Anti-LGBTQ Utah Lawmaker Changed Age of Consent Laws to Help Relative Accused of Raping 13-Year-Old
State Sen. J. Stuart Adams, Republican leader of the Utah Senate, who once said that transgender athletes put biological women at risk, has drawn criticism after he changed state laws to keep his relative out of jail. Adams helped change a state law to give his 18-year-old accused relative a lighter sentence after the teen was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. Adams claims he neither requested nor helped draft the 2024 law that aided his relative, but he did ask for the relative's rape charges to be reconsidered in light of the new law. New Utah Law Allows Rapists Aged 18 and Younger to Receive Reduced Charges Utah state law says that people under the age of 14 can never consent to sex, and the old state statute required that 18-year-olds receive a first-degree child rape felony charge for having sex with anyone 13 years old or younger. The felony charge required the rapist to also register as a sex offender. However, the new law allows accused rapists 18 years old and younger to receive a reduced third-degree felony charge of unlawful sexual activity (and avoid jail time and registration as a sex offender) if they're enrolled in high school. Adams' Relative Faced 25 Years in Prison Before the New Law Came into Effect, Now He Has Avoided Jail Time Before the new law passed, Adams' relative was charged with two counts of child rape and two counts of child sodomy (all first-degree felonies), and faced up to 25 years to life in prison as well as a lifetime on the sex offender registry. The relative's plea deal with state prosecutors had reportedly reached an impasse, according to The Salt Lake Tribune . The new law was drafted by the relative's defense attorney, Cara Tangaro, and sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore (R) after Adams reportedly confided in him about his relative's legal charges. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed S.B. 213 into law on March 19, 2024. Two months later, Tangaro informed Judge Michael DiReda, the judge who was then presiding over the case, that the accused rapist's plea deal would be changed in light of the new law. As a result, the accused rapist avoided jail time and a lifetime on the sexual offender registry. "While the sponsor of [the bill] was aware of the case, I did not request the legislation and did not intervene or give input on the drafting of the bill," Adams told The Salt Lake Tribune . According to the state's legislative database, Adams voted for S.B. 213, which passed almost entirely on party lines: all state senate Republicans voted for it along with one Democrat, while the rest of the Democrats who were present voted against it. One Democrat and four Republicans were absent from that vote. The accused rapist will serve four years' probation, complete sex offender treatment, pay a $1,500 fine, and perform 120 hours of community service. Victim's Family Says They were 'Failed' by the Legal Process The unnamed victim's mother says she feels that the legal process "has failed them," the victim's attorney Tamara Basquez said. The mother said the sexual abuse has made her child, an 8th-grade student, more withdrawn and careful, and less interested in being around her friend. "[The mother and child] feel really defeated through this entire process," Basquez told the judge presiding over the case, following the lighter sentencing for the accused child rapist. "She just feels like there's no protection for the innocence of her [child] and that there's a disregard for how it really has affected them. They feel that there hasn't been adequate consequences for the underlying conduct." The child's mother said, "[The legal sentencing change] was out of nowhere. I felt like I was punched in the gut.... I feel like a law is the law, regardless of who you are, but that wasn't what was going on here. I feel like [the 18-year-old] just got special treatment... and nobody was going to say anything about it." Adams Raised Concerns About Transgender Athletes Participating in Sports Months After Voting for the New Law Several months after voting for the law, Adams and other Utah state Republican leaders issued a statement claiming that they were very concerned about the safety of girls and women in the context of transgender people participating in sports. "Female athletes deserve the right to a safe playing field, fair competition, and equal opportunities," the statement said. "Institutions across the nation have failed to take action [to ban trans athletes], thereby undermining vital protections and putting female athletes at risk."
Asia News Network
9 hours ago
- Asia News Network
Suspended Thai PM submits defence to Constitutional Court over leaked audio clip
August 5, 2025 BANGKOK – Dr Prommin Lertsuridej, Secretary-General to the Prime Minister, confirmed that Prime Minister and Minister of Culture Paetongtarn Shinawatra has formally submitted her written defence to the Constitutional Court in response to allegations related to an audio clip of a phone conversation with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen. Speaking to reporters ahead of the deadline for the second extension, which ends on August 4, Dr Prommin said all supporting documents have been completed. He signed the documents after the Prime Minister had endorsed them, and her representatives have already delivered them to the court. 'I have full confidence in the Prime Minister's good faith and her sincere intention to steer the country away from violence,' he said. 'That has always been her primary motivation.' He explained that the phone conversation in question was not with an official representative but rather part of an effort to find a way to de-escalate the border conflict and minimise loss of life and destruction. He noted that the talks managed to delay the outbreak of violence for a time, but ultimately, Thailand's sovereignty was violated. 'In response, the military had to act decisively to defend our sovereignty and territory with honour,' he said. 'Efforts were then made to secure a ceasefire and minimise hardship for civilians. Throughout this process, the Prime Minister's guiding principle was to work closely with the military to protect the nation.' Addressing the Prime Minister's current status, Prommin said, 'Now that the court has ordered her to temporarily step down from her duties, she respects the decision and is awaiting the ruling. We hope the verdict will reflect her sincere efforts to bring peace and stability to the country.'
Asia News Network
10 hours ago
- Asia News Network
Is August the turning point for the fate of Thailand's ‘Shinawatra father and daughter'?
August 7, 2025 BANGKOK – August marks a pivotal moment in Thai politics, as a variety of hot cases remain unresolved in the investigation process. One such case involves the audio clip of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, which reached its deadline on August 4. This was the date the Constitutional Court allowed the Prime Minister to submit a defence in response to allegations stemming from a conversation with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen, following the second extension. According to the timeline, once the Prime Minister submits her explanation, the Constitutional Court will send the defence documents to the 36 senators who filed the petition. These senators will have 15 days to submit their rebuttal. Following this, the Constitutional Court will send the rebuttal back to Paetongtarn, who still has the right to submit further responses. Afterwards, the Court will need to wait for 15 days before issuing its ruling. The entire process is expected to 'determine' the Prime Minister's fate by September. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's legal team remains hopeful that the Constitutional Court's ruling will be in their favour. They argue that the Prime Minister acted with good intentions in seeking to resolve conflicts through peaceful means, and that in her capacity as leader of the government, she consulted closely with the military, relevant agencies, and foreign affairs. They contend that the individual Paetongtarn contacted was not a government representative but rather someone she reached out to in hopes of peacefully ending the conflict. However, in the realm of politics, anything can happen. As a result, the political landscape remains uncertain. Paetongtarn's future is now on a precarious path, with the current situation resembling a 'crossroads' for her political journey. This scenario aligns with comments made by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra during an interview on July 9, 2025, for '55 Years of The Nation – Breaking Thailand's deadlock.' Thaksin outlined three political scenarios he believes will prevent the country from reaching a deadlock. The First Scenario: If the ruling is 'positive,' Paetongtarn will retain her position as Prime Minister. The government, with 260 votes in Parliament, will continue to manage the country despite facing numerous major challenges, including economic issues both domestically and internationally. The Second Scenario: If the ruling is 'negative,' the court decides that Paetongtarn must step down as Prime Minister, triggering a significant political shift. This would lead to a new process for selecting a new Prime Minister. Currently, the list of potential candidates includes Chaikasem Nitisiri from the Pheu Thai Party, Anutin Charnvirakul from the Bhumjaithai Party, Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha and Pirapan Salirathavibhaga from the United Thai Nation Party, and Jurin Laksanawisit from the Democrat Party. The Third Scenario: The dissolution of Parliament. Under this scenario, the government would continue in a caretaker capacity for at least 60 days, as stipulated by law. This was previously discussed when the government consulted with relevant agencies regarding the powers of a caretaker Prime Minister to dissolve the Parliament, reaffirming that dissolution remains a viable option. Beyond these scenarios, attention must be paid to the 'big boss' behind the scenes, who seems unlikely to relinquish power easily. Should the ruling be negative, it will be crucial to see which 'hidden card' is played next. Meanwhile, the strategic planning by Pheu Thai's key advisors, especially Dr Prommin Lertsuridej, the Secretary-General of the Prime Minister, is worth noting. Dr Prommin recently refuted rumours that the Prime Minister might resign before the court's ruling, stating that these claims were 'not true.' This reinforces the notion that the option for the Prime Minister to 'resign preemptively,' similar to the case of 'Pichit Chuenban,' the former Minister to the Prime Minister's Office, is not necessarily the final solution. In Pichit's case, the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition because 'there was no minister named Pichit anymore.' However, in the case of the Prime Minister, it may not be the final answer. It's important to note that the case of 'Prime Minister Paetongtarn' differs from Pichit's, as there is still an ongoing investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) related to the audio recording involving 'Uncle Hun Sen,' which is still under review. Even if the Prime Minister were to resign preemptively, this would not mean escaping the 'Uncle Hun Sen audio' case, as the NACC's investigation is ongoing and has not been halted. Moreover, with the government losing confidence due to the ongoing Thai-Cambodian border issues, which show no signs of resolution, the situation may only worsen for the government. Having only Phumtham Wechayachai as the acting Prime Minister would create a power vacuum and further destabilise the government. Another key development to watch is the criminal case under Section 112 of the Penal Code (Lese majeste law), where Thaksin Shinawatra is the defendant. The case stems from an interview he gave to foreign media in South Korea in 2015, allegedly defaming the monarchy. The court is set to issue a ruling on August 22. Additionally, Thaksin is also facing legal battles related to his sentence for a health-related transfer from prison to the Police General Hospital's 14th floor. The Supreme Court will conduct the final witness hearings on July 30, with a verdict expected between mid and late August. With external pressures mounting and internal conflicts closing in, including the 'Shinawatra father-and-daughter' duo, all eyes are on August as the critical juncture that will determine the government's future.
