ISLAMABAD – July 30, 2025:
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is facing mounting criticism from legal experts and opposition voices over what many are calling a sweeping and constitutionally questionable campaign of disqualifications, most of which have targeted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmakers.
In recent weeks, disqualifications linked to convictions in the aftermath of the May 9 riots have raised red flags about due process and legal overreach. So far, four PTI lawmakers — including two MNAs, one senator, and one MPA — have been unseated. PTI founder Imran Khan remains sidelined from the electoral process following convictions in three separate cases ahead of the 2024 elections.
Party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan has warned that up to 39 additional lawmakers could soon face similar fates. Legal observers are now raising serious concerns about the constitutional legitimacy of the ECP’s role in this unfolding episode.
Bypassing Constitutional Protocols?
Legal minds argue that the current spate of disqualifications may be bypassing Article 225 of the Constitution, which stipulates that challenges to an elected member’s seat must go through an election tribunal via an election petition — not through unilateral action by the ECP.
“This is not just a legal technicality — it’s the backbone of electoral justice,” said former Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana. “Disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) requires a conviction upheld by the highest court, and only then can the speaker forward a reference to the ECP.”
He questioned the logic of preemptive disqualifications: “If a conviction is later overturned on appeal, what becomes of the disqualification? The ECP seems to be assuming these convictions will stand — and that’s a dangerous precedent.”
Rana likened the situation to the 1975 case of Indira Gandhi, whose disqualification was suspended on appeal by India’s Supreme Court, allowing her to continue in office. “That’s how constitutional democracies protect rights — through restraint, not assumption,” he added.
ECP’s Expanding Role Draws Fire
Critics argue that the ECP’s actions now resemble the past overreaches by Pakistan’s superior courts, particularly under former chief justices Iftikhar Chaudhry and Saqib Nisar. Back then, lawmakers from the PPP and PML-N were disqualified for offenses ranging from contempt of court to dual nationality and fake degrees. Among the most high-profile disqualifications were former Prime Ministers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Nawaz Sharif.
Now, the tide has turned on PTI. The ECP recently disqualified PTI’s Jamshed Dasti for failing to declare assets — a move legal experts argue required a more thorough judicial process. The Commission is also examining the eligibility of Leader of the Opposition Omar Ayub.
According to PTI legal counsel Abuzar Salman Niazi, many of the recent disqualifications stem from first-instance judgments, such as those issued by the Anti-Terrorism Court in Sargodha. “These are not final convictions,” he emphasized. “Until all appeals are exhausted, the trial court’s decision cannot be treated as conclusive.”
He cited the 1975 Supreme Court ruling in Federation of Pakistan v. Gul Hameed Khan, which reinforced the principle that the appellate process is integral to justice, and no disqualification should proceed while appeals are pending.
Due Process in Jeopardy
Another major concern is procedural fairness — or lack thereof. “Issuing disqualification notifications without giving lawmakers the right to be heard is a blatant violation of Article 10A of the Constitution,” said Niazi. He referred to the landmark Asad Ali Khan v. Province of Punjab ruling, which held that denying someone the chance to be heard nullifies any adverse order passed against them.
“The ECP’s failure to follow this fundamental principle of natural justice — ‘audi alteram partem’ — makes its actions legally questionable and morally indefensible,” he added.
Selective Accountability and Institutional Credibility
Observers also point to selective enforcement as a worrying trend. While the ECP has moved swiftly against PTI lawmakers, it has failed to implement a binding Supreme Court ruling on reserved seats for over a year — a delay critics say exposes institutional bias.
“This kind of pick-and-choose accountability violates Article 25’s guarantee of equality before the law,” Niazi noted. “If the ECP wants to be seen as a neutral arbiter, it must act consistently, not politically.”
He also referenced the Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. Federation of Pakistan judgment, where the Supreme Court emphasized that the integrity of constitutional bodies rests on their neutrality, fairness, and strict adherence to the law. “Right now, the ECP’s conduct falls short on all three counts,” he said.
What’s Next?
The Lahore High Court is set to hear Jamshed Dasti’s disqualification case today. Meanwhile, May 9-related trials are being fast-tracked under a Supreme Court directive mandating that all such proceedings be concluded within four months — a timeline legal analysts view as unusually aggressive.
They draw parallels with the past, when the courts accelerated NAB cases against the Sharif family during the Panama Papers fallout. Today, under Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, the same urgency is being applied to the PTI’s May 9 cases.
While accountability is a cornerstone of democracy, legal scholars warn that bypassing established procedures could lead to long-term damage to both judicial integrity and public trust.
