Imran Khan announces Compromise Solution to resolve this rigging issue.

[VCheng]

law is supposed to achieve justice not restrict it. If there is no legal mechanism to adjudicate on the validity of the election (in Whole) then it is better to create one rather than hide behind the inadequacy of law.

what you are saying is more suited for the other side. One does systematic rigging and then hide behind the inadequacy of the law since none exists to look into it.

Sir, there is a whole section of the Constitution of Pakistan that covers elections and all matters related thereto, and it remains a perfectly adequate and valid cover.

 

[asquare]

law is supposed to achieve justice not restrict it. If there is no legal mechanism to adjudicate on the validity of the election (in Whole) then it is better to create one rather than hide behind the inadequacy of law.

This is an argument that only the 'functional' role of legal system is valuable. The assumption here is that law and due process has no intrinsic value- it can modified as ad hoc needs arise. Unfortunately, this argument is a slippery slope, if applied extensively it leads to the collapse of a legal order. In this case, once precedent is established for the role of intelligence agencies in investigating electoral disputes, there is no telling how it will be misused in the future. Protecting institutions, even when they might be an impediment to meeting immediate needs, has great intrinsic value.

 

[ajpirzada]

Sir, there is a whole section of the Constitution of Pakistan that covers elections and all matters related thereto, and it remains a perfectly adequate and valid cover.

So why is everyone crying about the lack of legal cover for the SC to undertake this task? Because no one other than the tribunals have the legal right to open the constituencies for vote verification. And validity of the whole election is beyond the mandate of the tribunals which are only responsible for individual constituencies.

 

[VCheng]

So why is everyone crying about the lack of legal cover for the SC to undertake this task? Because no one other than the tribunals have the legal right to open the constituencies for vote verification. And validity of the whole election is beyond the mandate of the tribunals which are only responsible for individual constituencies.

Because the authority is vested in the ECP, not the SC for matters related to the elections, including any tribunals. Any attempt to sidestep or preempt the authority of the ECP would be unconstitutional.

 

[ajpirzada]

This is an argument that only the 'functional' role of legal system is valuable. The assumption here is that law and due process has no intrinsic value- it can modified as ad hoc needs arise. Unfortunately, this argument is a slippery slope, if applied extensively it leads to the collapse of a legal order. In this case, once precedent is established for the role of intelligence agencies in investigating electoral disputes, there is no telling how it will be misused in the future. Protecting institutions, even when they might be an impediment to meeting immediate needs, has great intrinsic value.

investigating agencies are merely assisting the Judicial Commission as per the TORs. It would only set a wrong precedent if such agencies are given the right to adjudicate which is not the case here.

Legal cover is for the Judicial Commission not for the Joint Investigation Team (which includes member os investigating agencies). Such legal cover is needed since currently there is no framework under which the overall validity of the whole election could be determined.

 

[VCheng]

Such legal cover is needed since currently there is no framework under which the overall validity of the whole election could be determined.

Incorrect Sir. The Constitution already provides such a framework via the ECP.

 

[ajpirzada]

Because the authority is vested in the ECP, not the SC for matters related to the elections, including any tribunals. Any attempt to sidestep or preempt the authority of the ECP would be unconstitutional.

And its is beyond ECP to open up the constituencies unless decided by the tribunals which are only responsible for individual constituencies. It then follows that overall validity of the election cannot be determined under the current framework.

 

[ajpirzada]

Incorrect Sir. The Constitution already provides such a framework via the ECP.

Ok. Show me where the ECP has the mandate to open up a set of constituencies (independent of the tribunals) to investigate the overall validity of the elections.

 

[asquare]

investigating agencies are merely assisting the Judicial Commission as per the TORs. It would only set a wrong precedent if such agencies are given the right to adjudicate which is not the case here.

Legal cover is for the Judicial Commission not for the Joint Investigation Team (which includes member os investigating agencies). Such legal cover is needed since currently there is no framework under which the overall validity of the whole election could be determined.

If no legal cover is needed for the intelligence agencies, such investigation must already be part of their mandate. Is this the case with reference to the ISI?

 

[mr.robot]

Because the authority is vested in the ECP, not the SC for matters related to the elections, including any tribunals. Any attempt to sidestep or preempt the authority of the ECP would be unconstitutional.

How come high courts give stay order when ECP's tribunal give order of re count or vote verification? Isn't that sidestepping or unconstitutional. Prime examples are NA122 and NA154. In NA154 case, eventually supreme court over ruled high court's stay order against vote audit.

 

[ajpirzada]

If no legal cover is needed for the intelligence agencies, such investigation must already be part of their mandate. Is this the case with reference to the ISI?

Currently no one has the mandate to open up constituencies (or set of constituencies) on their own to investigate the validity of the votes cast. The only legal way available is if an election tribunal decides so. However, Election tribunal only has the mandate with regards to the single constituency it is being asked to enquire about by the either of the contesting parties.

The political crisis, currently, is centered around the overall validity of the elections which requires (other than pre and post election investigation) a subset of total constituencies to be opened up for getting an idea about the magnitude of inconsistencies in the votes cast. Neither the Supreme Court nor the EPC (including tribunals) can undertake this task. The legal cover will fill this gap and give a Judicial Commission (formed of SC judges) such mandate. JIT is merely assisting the Judicial Commission (JC) just how NADRA or any other institution has assisted the election tribunals so far. Neither NADRA had any mandate of its own nor anyone in the JIT will have the mandate. The mandate will belong to the JC which can direct the JIT as it deems fit.

I dont see any wrong precident being set here unless someone argues that investigating the overall validity of the elections is undesirable.

 

[asquare]

Currently no one has the mandate to open up constituencies (or set of constituencies) on their own to investigate the validity of the votes cast. The only legal way available is if an election tribunal decides so. However, Election tribunal only has the mandate with regards to the single constituency it is being asked to enquire about by the either of the contesting parties.

The political crisis, currently, is centered around the overall validity of the elections which requires (other than pre and post election investigation) a subset of total constituencies to be opened up for getting an idea about the magnitude of inconsistencies in the votes cast. Neither the Supreme Court nor the EPC (including tribunals) can undertake this task. The legal cover will fill this gap and give a Judicial Commission (formed of SC judges) such mandate. JIT is merely assisting the Judicial Commission (JC) just how NADRA or any other institution has assisted the election tribunals so far. Neither NADRA had any mandate of its own nor anyone in the JIT will have the mandate. The mandate will belong to the JC which can direct the JIT as it deems fit.

I dont see any wrong precident being set here unless someone argues that investigating the overall validity of the elections is undesirable.

Intelligence agencies investigating elections isn't par for the course. ISI shouldn't be clubbed with other 'investigative' agencies.

In India's case for instance, the JIT (usually called S (Special) IT in India) would rely on the CBI and maybe on the IB (which handles internal intelligence) for investigation. R&AW could not and would not investigate such a case.

Why is there a preference for ISI involvement? Is the ISI seen as more credible or capable than internal intelligence/investigative agencies? The danger here is mandate 'creep'- an agency is allowed where it doesn't belong and over time it uses this to, de facto, expand it's mandate to increase its power and reach.

 

[ajpirzada]

Intelligence agencies investigating elections isn't par for the course. ISI shouldn't be clubbed with other 'investigative' agencies.

In India's case for instance, the JIT (usually called S (Special) IT in India) would rely on the CBI and maybe on the IB (which handles internal intelligence) for investigation. R&AW could not and would not investigate such a case.

Why is there a preference for ISI involvement? Is the ISI seen as more credible or capable than internal intelligence/investigative agencies? The danger here is mandate 'creep'- an agency is allowed where it doesn't belong and over time it uses this to, de facto, expand it's mandate to increase its power and reach.

that is a valid point from an outsider's perspective. But its done in Pakistan, nonetheless. Example of this is the JIT constituted by the govt herself few months back which included members of ISI and MI. So atleast this argument doesnt hold ground from people who didnt criticise the govt for the very same behavior.

Coming to your question, the reason for this behavior is the absence of trust in the civilian institutions due to their lack of autonomy. Open to strong govts influence, an obvious mistrust appears when the accusation which is to be investigated involves the govts as one of the parties.

 

[jha]

Now why would NS agree to even one demand of IK..? Dont think Dharna/ Juloos is causing hindrance any more.

 

[mr.robot]

that is a valid point from an outsider's perspective. But its done in Pakistan, nonetheless. Example of this is the JIT constituted by the govt herself few months back which included members of ISI and MI. So atleast this argument doesnt hold ground from people who didnt criticise the govt for the very same behavior.

Coming to your question, the reason for this behavior is the absence of trust in the civilian institutions due to their lack of autonomy. Open to strong govts influence, an obvious mistrust appears when the accusation which is to be investigated involves the govts as one of the parties.

Exactly. They aren't easily influenced by unjust demands of government. In NA-149 by election where Hashmi lost, govt. wanted to postpone it due to "security" situation. IB and police affirmed govt's point while ISI and MI gave a dissenting note to EC. Eventually election was conducted peacefully.