Big Divide - what constitutes planned rigging in favour of one party



  • Big Divide between PTI and PML N positions as to what constitutes planned rigging in favour of one party or against another.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/1130061/negotiations-explained-what-pti-wants-and-what-pml-n-says

    Section 3.1.11

    Investigate not more than 30 NA constituencies chosen by us, PTI says

    The complaints and allegations of pervasive and widespread rigging and manipulation shall be deemed to be ipso facto "proven" (with consequences as set forth below to follow) in the event the JC after examining in 'summan; proceedings', a sample of not more than thirty (30) constituencies of the National Assembly to be selected by the PTI (being the complainant) is prima facie satisfied of any of the following:

    (i) any evidence of the occurrence of (or prima facie intent or conspiracy to aid, abet or commit):'pre-poll rigging', 'rigging on polling day' or 'post poll rigging' in a systematic manner or under a concerted plan or otherwise, which in the opinion of the JC would prima fade have an affect on the transparency, integrity, creditability, legality, validity, or fairness of the election in the relevant constituency. By way of illustration only, matters which shall be examined by the JC in this context shall include, but not be limited to:

    (a) legality and procedural propriety of the manner in which the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and members ECP were appointed; and

    (b) allegations of bias or impropriety or other unlawful or improper conduct against any member of the ECP or any other officers or employees of the ECP in relation to the 2013 Elections; and

    (c) allegations regarding printing of additional ballot papers through unauthorised printers or in any unlawful or improper manner and dissemination thereof; and

    (d) allegations of bias or impropriety or other unlawful or improper conduct, act or omission or malpractices by the District Returning Officer, Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, Presiding Officers (and their subordinates at polling stations) of the selected 'sample' constituencies; and

    (e) suspicious or otherwise unwarranted or unauthorised transfers or positing of officials; and

    (f) changes in location of polling stations or changes in appointments at polling stations; and

    (g) suspicious delays in consolidation and or notification results of the selected constituencies; and

    (h) allegations of 'stuffing of ballot boxes' and or 'replacement of ballot boxes' in the selected 'sample' constituencies; and

    (i) suspicious or 'eleventh-hour' changes in the original polling scheme (which lists all polling stations and number of registered voters) in respect of the selected 'sample' constituencies; or

    (ii) significant violations of the requirements of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (1976 Act) or the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 (1977 Rules) or other applicable laws or juridical pronouncements relating to conduct of election; or

    (iii) absence, in material numbers, of the photo electoral rolls in the polling record maintained by the Election Commission; or

    (iv) absence, in material numbers, of duly filled, signed and stamped counterfoils of ballot papers; or

    (v) absence of ballot paper account (Form XIV to XVIT) of a material number of polling stations or absence in the polling record of any other prescribed instrument or Form under the 1976 Act or the 1977 Rules; or

    (vi) inability of the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) to verify a material number of thumb impressions on account of failure to utilise the required "magnetised ink" or on account of any manufacturing defect in the "magnetised ink" or on account of absence of photo electoral roll or counterfoils or for any other reason based on absence of required documents in the polling record of the relevant constituency; or

    (vii) NADRA analysis report which indicates significant voter fraud or illegal or bogus casting of votes in the relevant constituency; or

    (viii) unusually high number of rejected votes or unusually high voter turnout or discrepancies in the number of votes reported to have been cast on: (a) in a national assembly constituency; vis-a-vis (b) the related provincial assembly constituencies.

    30 constituency sample cannot determine election outcome, PML-N says

    The proposed "test”, as mentioned in para 3.1.11 read with sub-paras (i) [(a) to (i)] and (ii) to (viii), is unacceptable, as explained below:

    As mentioned in para 3.1.3, important and complicated issues before the JC having serious constitutional, legal and political implications cannot be determined in summary proceedings.

    A sample of 30 out of 272 NA constituencies i.e. 11% cannot be extrapolated to determine the final outcome of the GE, 2013.

    The JC’s functions/powers should not empower it to act as a super Election Tribunal in violation of the letter and spirit of Article 225. Its function should be confined to determination of the TOR.

    The JC’s conclusions and findings regarding the TOR have to be based on the evidence on record. No conclusion or finding can be drawn/given on "prima facie" satisfaction or on the basis of “any evidence”. Sufficient and credible evidence has to be produced before the JC to prove the allegations as reflected in the TOR beyond reasonable doubt.

    "Rigging" has not been defined in the Representation of the People Act (RoPA), 1976. The term is generally taken to mean extensive corrupt and illegal practices [as defined in sections 78 and 83 of RoPA, 1976] which have materially affected the result of an election. "Rigging" cannot be redefined retrospectively, as PTI is attempting to do through its proposal, in order to facilitate proving of its allegations.

    In so far as sub-para (vi) is concerned, it may be noted that the non-utilisation or defective manufacture of magnetic ink, even if established, resulting in inability of NADRA to verify thumb impressions, cannot ipso facto lead to the presumption that these have resulted in corrupt or illegal practices in the elections. It may also be noted that PML(N) had no concern whatsoever with the manufacture, supply or use of the magnetic ink.



  • Breaking News:

    Ch. Shujaat Husain holds Gen. Kayani also responsible for Rigging the 2013 Elections.

    ISPR must clarify the position.



  • Thanks for Breaking Tripe Javed Sheikh



  • Ch. Shujaat Husain holds Gen. Kayani also responsible for Rigging the 2013 Elections.

    Is this Plan B?



  • یہ کتنی بوگس دلیل ہے کہ نواز شریف کے دور وزارت میں کوئی عدالت انصاف نہیں کر سکتی

    کیا سارے ادارے بکاؤ ہیں ؟

    بحریہ ٹاؤن کے ریاض ملک تو وزارت کے بغیر بھی بعض اداروں کو خرید لیتے ہیں

    تو کیا نواز شریف وزارت سے الگ ہونے کے بعد مفلس ہو جائے گا ؟

    کوئی عقل کی بات کرو



  • I don't think the differences between PTI and PML N positions as to what constitutes planned rigging in favour of one party or against another will be resolved soon.

    Also, how to determine whether rigging measures to the criteria.

    This thing is going to go ON & ON.



  • @Respected Javes Shiekh Sahab,

    Breaking News:

    Ch. Shujaat Husain holds Gen. Kayani also responsible for Rigging the 2013 Elections.

    ISPR must clarify the position.

    .

    If ISPR starts giving clarification for Rtrd Generals, then I am afraid they will start tweeting for Musharraf for his trial or perhaps they come on PTV to give long long clarification -:)



  • Musharraf and his stooges, Chaudhries, Sheeda Tully, Imran and Qadri included, specialize in twisting the situation.

    Remember the 'twist doctrine' of Mush times.



  • There is big divide between the two.

    If a thumb impression is unverifiable, PTI considers all those votes as fake while government does not.