UK envoy’s remarks on Pakistan’s general elections ‘unfounded’, says SC

A larger seven-member bench overruled the earlier decision, it said, holding that it did not conform to the Constitution and the law.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has lambasted the recent speech of British High Commissioner to Pakistan Jane Marriot where the latter targeted the country’s general election held in February 2024.

Speaking at the Asma Jahangir conference last month, Marriot expressed concern about Pakistan’s elections on Feb 8, citing British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.

“…not all parties were formally permitted to contest the elections and that legal processes were used to prevent some political leaders from participation, and to prevent the use of recognisable party symbols,” the top diplomat from Britain had stated.

She continued by saying that as “open societies” are transparent, Pakistan’s government, civil society, and international stakeholders should endeavor to foster “open societies” and “vibrant democracies.”

In a letter to the envoy, the registrar of the apex court stated that her criticism of a certain political party being marginalized by having its electoral symbol removed was baseless since it did not adhere to the law.

The letter, drawing attention to the court’s role, said elections were required to be held within 90 days of the completion of the tenure of the national and provincial assemblies.

However, they did not take place because then-president Arif Alvi and the (ECP) were at odds regarding who was empowered to announce the election date.

“The matter was resolved in just 12 days by the Supreme Court, and general elections were held throughout Pakistan on 8 February 2024,” the registrar said.

Previously, it mentioned, that many wanting to contest elections in Pakistan faced a lifetime ban because they were not considered honest and trustworthy (Sadiq and Ameen) by the Supreme Court.

Read more:Petition filed in Supreme Court regarding IHC judges letter to SJC

However, a larger seven-member bench overruled the earlier decision, it said, holding that it did not conform to the Constitution and the law.