ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rejected on Tuesday the nomination papers of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leaders Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Sardar Mehtab Abbasi, along with Ayesha Gulalai, who had been affiliated with the PTI in the past, for the NA-53 constituency of Islamabad.

The nominations of the politicians were rejected over violation of Section N of the affidavit, which relates to the contribution of a candidate in his or her own constituency.

According to the returning officer, the candidates failed to fill the affidavit as per the requirements.

The candidates have vowed to challenge the decision in the election tribunal tomorrow (Wednesday).

Objections against Imran’s candidacy

Alongside, the RO also dismissed the objections raised against Imran’s candidacy for being ‘incomplete’.

Imran’s nomination papers for NA-53 constituency in Islamabad were challenged earlier this month by Pakistan Justice and Democratic Party candidate Abdul Wahab Baloch, who contended that the PTI chief did not fulfill the criterion under articles 62 and 63 on the issue of Sita White and her daughter Tyrian.

Imran’s legal counsel Babar Awan appeared before the returning officer today and presented his arguments over the objections to the PTI chief’s candidacy.

Awan remarked that they rejected the objections against Imran seven times in the written reply submitted to the ECP a day ago, adding that all the objections were based on falsehood.

He said that the photocopies used to ‘incriminate’ Imran fell under the ambit of forgery. The petitioner was referring to a decision by a United States court, but where is the name of the child’s father, Awan questioned.

The returning officer observed that the papers have not been rejected outright, to which Awan replied that they have rejected the papers in their reply submitted earlier. Moreover, the Supreme Court has declared Imran ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’, the counsel added.

Following this, Baloch’s counsel also presented his arguments before the returning officer.

The returning officer, after listening to the arguments presented by both the parties, reserved his verdict on the matter.