- PTI asks IHC to nullify ECP ruling and show-cause notice sent to Imran Khan.
- Party demands to declare fact-finding report “perverse, incorrect”.
- ECP has said it found that PTI had received prohibited funding.
ISLAMABAD: The PTI challenged on Wednesday the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) ruling in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), seeking annulment of the order in the prohibited funding case.
In his petition filed with the IHC, PTI Additional Secretary-General Omar Ayub asked the court to not only nullify the August 2 ruling, but also revoke the ECP’s show-cause notice sent to PTI Chairperson Imran Khan.
The petitioner said he was “grossly aggrieved” by the fact-finding report — which revealed that the PTI had obtained funds from foreign sources — and demanded that it be declared “perverse, incorrect and in excess of authority and jurisdiction”.
In his petition, he also asked the court to “declare that any action suggested by the ECP is beyond its authority and that no action can be taken on the basis of a fact-finding report”.
The PTI also made the ECP a party in the case.
In a unanimous ruling, the election commission’s three-member bench had said earlier this month it found that the PTI received prohibited funding.
The case was earlier referred to as the “foreign funding” case, but later the election commission accepted the PTI’s plea to refer to it as the “prohibited funding” case.
As per the 68-page order, the commission states that the Imran Khan-led PTI did indeed receive funding from foreign companies and individuals, which it hid.
The ECP verdict states that the PTI received funds from 34 individuals and 351 businesses, including companies.
Thirteen unknown accounts have also come to light, said the commission in the verdict, adding that hiding accounts are a “violation” of Article 17 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the ECP found that the PTI chairperson submitted a false Nomination Form I and that the affidavit provided regarding party accounts was false.
For now, the ECP has issued a show-cause notice to the party to explain why the prohibited funds should not be confiscated.
