The Lahore High Court (LHC) dismisses Imran Khan’s appeals challenging the rejection of his nomination papers for the February 8 elections. Following the hearing of the ex-premier’s petitions, a bigger LHC bench led by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi rendered a decision.
Imran was effectively barred from the next general elections when the court rejected his nomination papers and maintained the rulings of the appeal tribunals.
Imran was found guilty in the Toshakhana case and given a three-year prison sentence; this was the main reason why his nomination papers were denied. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) brought the lawsuit, alleging Imran neglected to disclose certain state gifts in his tax returns.
Subsequently, the Islamabad High Court ruled to overturn the punishment and granted his liberty. He was on trial in the cypher case, thus he was not released.
Imran’s NA-122 candidature papers were likewise rejected since the proposer did not qualify to vote in the constituency.
Additionally, the appellate tribunals affirmed the decisions made by the corresponding returning officers (ROs), noting that conviction and sentence are two distinct concepts, with conviction referring to a guilty verdict and sentence denoting the consequences of that conviction.
The tribunals had observed that a conviction indicated a court’s declaration of guilt about the delinquency ascribed to the accused, while a sentence indicated the extent of punishment.
Imran then filed two petitions at the LHC, requesting that the high court reverse the decisions made by the ROs and the appeal tribunals, which had rejected the petitioner’s nomination papers from both National Assembly constituencies.
Advocate Uzair Bhandari had argued on Imran’s side during the prior hearing, claiming that the conviction on the moral turpitude charge did not qualify as disqualification. He asserted that the petitioner’s conviction could not be compared to a conviction for corruption or acquiring illicit property.
Additionally, he brought up the fact that an Indian court had placed a lower priority on the crime of moral turpitude than it did on financial corruption. Nonetheless, the panel noted that Pakistan’s moral standards differed from other regions. The court then stated that it will reserve its decision regarding the petitions.
