Numerous candidates, primarily from the PTI but also from other parties and independents, have contested the ECP’s results in multiple forums, citing significant irregularities that cast doubt on the exercise’s legitimacy. The majority of the time, it appears that the main focus of the complaints is Form 45, which is the polling station-level tabulation of votes given to competing candidates. This form was either not provided in every instance, making it impossible to properly oversee the tabulation process, or it contains votes that differ from the declared final results. The petitioners have claimed that result rigging occurred as a result of the disparities. Hafiz Naeemur Rahman of the JI said on Monday that he would not accept a “stolen mandate” for the seat he was declared the winner of, citing Form 45s made available to the candidates indicating that his PTI opponent had prevailed. The courts have also taken notice of the numerous appeals that have been brought before them and have postponed the release of the results in some constituencies until further notice.
The petitioners’ arguments may be supported by sufficient evidence, and if the cases hold up to scrutiny, some of the findings could be altered, changing the total for each side. In the interim, the ECP shouldn’t exacerbate the disputes around its findings by declaring any victory too soon, especially in cases where the losing candidates appear to have a compelling case. These issues were brought about by the commission’s appalling mishandling of the result compilation process, and before it begins notifying the public, it must now make sure that the public mandate was not tampered with. Last but not least, the PTI and those who support it need to lower their hopes for the restoration of their purportedly “stolen” mandate. should be realistic in their aspirations for the return of their purportedly “stolen” mandate. It will be difficult to have the ROs’ conclusions overturned given the issues at hand and the possible repercussions for those who are allegedly implicated. They should also keep in mind that, in the past, it has occasionally taken years to settle these kinds of disputes or they have gone unanswered. A good example of this was Qasim Suri, the deputy speaker of the PTI in the last National Assembly, whose election was successfully contested by Nawabzada Lashkari Raisani. However, the Supreme Court delayed the election tribunal’s verdict, which was never revisited. In this kind of situation, contestants shouldn’t allow impatience win.