Poll candidates' nominations challenged in Pakistan
Poll candidates' nominations challenged in Pakistan
The nomination papers of several high-profile candidates like Pervez Musharraf and Imran Khan were challenged.

Islamabad: The nomination papers of several high-profile candidates in the fray for Pakistan's general election, including Pervez Musharraf and Imran Khan, were on Saturday challenged by their opponents in different parts of the country. Jamaat-e-Islami leader Niyamatullah Khan, who intends to contest parliamentary polls in Karachi from the same constituency as Musharraf, objected to the former military ruler's candidature on the ground that he had twice violated and subverted the Constitution.

Khan filed an objection against Musharraf's nomination papers for parliamentary constituency number 250 with election authorities in Karachi. Another man has challenged Musharraf's nomination papers for a constituency in Islamabad on the ground that the former President does not meet the standards of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, which states that a candidate should have a "good character" and be "sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen (faithful)".

Imran Khan's nomination papers for a parliamentary seat in Rawalpindi were challenged on Friday by a local resident, Mohammad Hafeez Abbasi, who pointed out that the former cricketer had written in his memoir "Me And My Pakistan" about "consuming liquor". Abbasi contended in a written objection submitted to election authorities that this was "a clear violation of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution" and that Khan was ineligible to contest the polls.

The Returning Officer has asked Khan to clarify his position. In Lahore, a Returning Officer rejected objections to Imran Khan's nomination papers for another parliamentary seat and accepted them this afternoon. A local resident, Muhammad Aslam, had objected to Khan's candidature on the ground that the former cricketer had allegedly fathered a child out of wedlock with Sita White. Aslam contended that this was a violation of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution.

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://rawisda.com/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!