The controversy stemming from an internal dispute within a political party has escalated to the country’s highest court. At the center of the issue is the alleged case of impersonation, where an individual not endorsed by the party managed to secure a parliamentary seat. The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F) has taken the matter to the Supreme Court following a ruling by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and subsequent actions by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The petitioner, represented by senior counsel Kamran Murtaza, contends that the JUI-F had submitted separate candidate lists to the ECP, including one for reserved seats for women. However, discrepancies arose when the purported winner, Sadaf Ihsan, was accused of impersonating another candidate, Sadaf Yasmin, who was originally endorsed by the party.
The petition argues that the ECP should have either rejected Sadaf Yasmin’s candidacy or sought clarification from the party regarding Sadaf Ihsan’s identity before issuing the notification. It further alleges collusion within the party, as Sadaf Ihsan, aware of Sadaf Yasmin’s decision not to pursue her nomination, assumed her identity.
The ECP’s subsequent actions, including the suspension of the notification and the initiation of an inquiry, led to legal challenges before the PHC. Despite the JUI-F’s objection to Sadaf Ihsan’s claim, the PHC ruled in her favor on April 2.
The JUI-F underscores its authority under relevant constitutional and electoral provisions to determine candidature for reserved seats and criticizes the ECP’s handling of the situation. It contends that Sadaf Ihsan’s claim to the seat is unjustified, given her party’s stance on her impersonation.
In essence, the petition argues that party decisions regarding candidate selection for reserved seats should be respected, and individuals not endorsed by the party should not be allowed to claim those seats through impersonation.
