In its decision announced today (Wednesday), the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has rejected the references against 20 defecting Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) MNAs, filed by their party, and said that they would not lose their seats.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja had reserved its verdict earlier in the day, after hearing arguments from both sides.
Previously in March, it was found that several PTI lawmakers had been staying at the Sindh House in Islamabad, days before the vote of no confidence against former prime minister Imran Khan. This caused members of PTI to level accusations of treason on said lawmakers.
The lawmakers denied allegations of having been offered money in exchange for their votes ahead of the no-confidence motion, but said that they would be voting with their ‘conscience’. This led to PTI filing references against them, seeking their disqualification under Article 63-A of the Constitution.
The PTI had filed references against MNAs Noor Alam Khan, Dr Mohammad Afzal Khan Dhandla, Nawab Sher Waseer, Raja Riaz Ahmad, Ahmed Hussain Deharr, Rana Mohammad Qasim Noon, Asim Nazeer, Amjad Farooq Khosa, Aamir Liaquat Hussain, Chaudhry Farrukh Altaf, Syed Mobeen Ahmed, Sayed Sami-ul-Hassan Gillani, Mohammad Abdul Ghaffar Wattoo, Sayed Basit Ahmad Sultan, Aamir Talal Gopang, Sardar Riaz Mehmood Khan Mazari, Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, Wajiha Qamar, Nuzhat Pathan and Javeria Zafar.
The dissident lawmakers votes were ultimately not needed, as the then-opposition managed to scrape together enough votes to remove Imran Khan.
During the hearings, the 20 dissident MNAs argued that they had neither resigned from PTI, nor had they joined any other party, and that accusations of treason were ‘baseless and vague’.
“It has been actuated by bad faith in order to suppress a voice of dissent within the party lines. Such actions are tantamount to converting the party into an authoritarian group commanded in a dictatorial mindset of one individual,” the reply said.
They also said that the reference and the declaration did not fulfil the mandatory requirements under Article 63-A.
