FAFEN says judiciary must not administer elections

Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) on Saturday said that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) request to the judiciary to supervise the upcoming general elections is contrary to the constitution and election law.
The network urged the National Judicial Policy-Making Committee (NJPMC) to honor its 2009 decision that the judiciary will not be involved in administering electoral processes.
The constitution provides for executive officials to assist the ECP in administering elections. Article 220 states, “it shall be the duty of all executive authorities in the federation and in the provinces to assist the Commissioner and the Election Commission in the discharge of his or their functions”. The judiciary is a separate constitutional institution and is not part of the executive.
Article 218 (3), which may be used to justify judiciary’s involvement in the election administration, however, restricts the Election Commission to “make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, FAFEN said.
FAFEN urged the ECP to retain its authority and accountability for managing election operations independently.
FAFEN said sharing constitutionally-defined responsibilities with the judiciary creates a conflict of interest for the judiciary and significantly undermines the credibility of both the ECP and the judiciary.
In 2009, the NJPMC appropriately withdrew all judicial officials from election administration duties and restricted the judiciary to its proper role of adjudicating electoral disputes that come to the courts, FAFEN said. Since that time, the ECP has managed more than 50 by-elections successfully without judicial involvement.
Since the last general elections in 2008, FAFEN said it has repeatedly advocated that Returning Officers (ROs) and District Returning Officers (DROs) should not be judicial officials.
FAFEN noted that backward-looking measures such as the ECP’s request to the judiciary may raise doubts about the ECP’s competence and its commitment to electoral reform. Such initiatives may compromise public trust in electoral processes, which is the opposite of the ECP’s purpose and intention.