![](https://i0.wp.com/dailyuniversal.digital/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/sheik-eashedd.jpg?fit=640%2C480&ssl=1)
In Islamabad, the Election Tribunal judges have accepted nomination papers from numerous candidates while expressing their frustration towards the Returning Officers (ROs).
Today marks the deadline for filing appeals against rejected nomination papers. Candidates have until 4 pm to file their appeals. Among them, former Chief Minister Pervez Elahi and several others have lodged appeals against the rejection of their papers.
The process of deciding these appeals has commenced, with Election Tribunal judges set to conclude their decisions on all filed appeals by January 10. The judges are currently reviewing these appeals, and decisions have started to roll in. All appeals are expected to have verdicts announced by January 10.
One such decision was the acceptance of documents from Umair Khan Niazi, an advocate from N 89 and 90 Mianwali, by Justice Chaudhary Abdul Aziz. The decision nullified the RO’s rejection and added Umir Niazi’s name to the list of candidates, allocating an election symbol accordingly.
Several judges expressed their dismay at the ROs’ refusal to provide certified copies of the decisions to reject nomination papers. They criticized this deviation from legal procedures and constitutional obligations, questioning why rejected papers weren’t provided as per the stipulated norms.
Justice Mirza Waqas Rauf, an Election Tribunal High Court Judge, also voiced dissatisfaction at the non-appearance of the RO and their denial to furnish a copy of the decision to former provincial minister Raja Basharat.
In another development at the Islamabad High Court, Election Tribunal Judge Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir instructed the Election Commission to respond to all petitions by consolidating them by Friday. These petitions include those from Shoaib Shaheen, Niazullah Niazi, and Syed Zafar Ali Shah.
The court highlighted that the RO had the authority to grant time for payments in cases where bills or dues were outstanding. The judges questioned why the RO didn’t exercise this authority to address objections instead of outright rejection.