The President’s House, in a letter, sought the opinion of the Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice on the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) response to the letter of President Dr Arif Alvi.
In his letter to the Ministry of Law and Justice, President Alvi sought clarification on the Election Commission’s assertion that it was solely responsible for fixing election dates.
This development follows President Alvi’s initial endeavor to arrange a meeting with the Election Commission aimed at determining the election date. However, his request faced rejection by the Chief Election Commissioner, who firmly asserted that the Election Commission has the responsibility for establishing election dates, as prescribed by the revised Election Act of 2017.
Sources privy to the situation revealed that in the meeting, the Election Commission’s legal team underlined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, there ‘existed no legal obligation to seek the President’s counsel’ concerning the scheduling of elections.
On Wednesday, the President had wrote a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), expressing his intent to arrange a meeting to “determine a suitable date” for the general elections.
In response, the CEC cited Section 57 of the Elections Act, which had undergone an amendment through a parliamentary act.
This amendment bestowed upon the Election Commission (ECP) the authority to declare dates for general elections.
According to the CEC’s response, if the National Assembly is dissolved at the President’s discretion, as outlined in Article 58(2) in conjunction with Article 48(5) of the Constitution, the President assumes the responsibility of appointing a date for the general elections.
However, in cases where the assembly is dissolved on the advice of the prime minister or due to the passage of time, as specified in Article 58(1) of the Constitution, the Commission firmly asserts that the authority to designate election dates rests exclusively with the ECP.
Furthermore, the CEC, Mr. Raja, articulated that the constitutional provisions cited in the President’s invitation letter do not apply in the present context.
In light of this, the Commission has concluded that participation in a meeting with the President would hold “limited significance.”