On Dec 7, New Delhi, a report circulated that the European Commission has again refused to release the Election Expert Mission (EEM) assessment of Pakistan’s 2024 elections. The decision has sparked sharp criticism, as it appears to let the EU set aside its own commitments to democracy and openness. It comes at a critical moment: an EU delegation is currently in Pakistan evaluating whether the country still meets the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), a trade package that ties preferential treatment to strict observances of 27 international conventions on human‑rights, labour and governance.
In the midst of growing concerns about the safety and conditions of former Prime Minister Imran Khan while in detention, the EU’s reluctance to publish the report seems to prioritize diplomatic ties with Islamabad over accountability. A Geopolitico article suggests the silence effectively signals at least tacit support for the present regime.
Unlike earlier missions—such as the 2018 observers who released critical findings—the EEAS sent the EEM to oversee February’s general election and has never published its report. Numerous Freedom‑of‑Information requests, many made through the platform AsktheEU.org, were denied. The EEAS justified this by claiming that any disclosure, “undermine the public interest as regards international relations,” and would strain ties with Pakistan.
The European Ombudsman subsequently examined a request for the “Election Expert Mission report for Pakistan 2024” and confirmed the EEAS’s hard‑line stance. That stance echoes the broader EU institutional transparency issues highlighted in recent Ombudsman findings, which noted the Commission’s opaque handling of urgent proposals.
Compounding the matter, the Commonwealth of Nations also chose not to publish its own observer group report. This created a rare situation where both major international monitoring bodies withheld findings on the same elections. Leaked excerpts from the Commonwealth document point to election irregularities—communication blackouts, vote‑tally discrepancies, and measures that disproportionately harmed Imran Khan‑led Pakistan Tehreek‑e‑Insaf (PTI). Allegations even suggest that certain candidates may have been “unlawfully returned.”
The EU’s decision to keep the EEM report sealed aligns with external pressures on PTI, which faced bans on party symbols, mandatory independent candidacy, and reported arrests that narrowed the playing field. EU diplomats have long voiced unease about Khan, particularly his neutral stance on the Ukraine war, which may help explain the reluctance to spotlight election flaws that could bolster his narrative.
As the EU delegation engages Pakistani officials, civil‑society actors, and other stakeholders to complete the delayed GSP+ review—postponed from June due to regional tensions—the timing of the EEM suppression raises profound questions. GSP+ gives Pakistan duty‑free access to two‑thirds of its exports, valued at billions annually, but only if it can demonstrate real progress on fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, and protection from arbitrary detention.
EU Ambassador to Pakistan Raimundas Karoblis recently stressed that Pakistan must “do more” on enforcement of disappearances, minority protections, blasphemy laws, and women’s rights, and that the mission will deliver a detailed report to Brussels. By concealing the EEM findings, the EU risks appearing inconsistent—asserting it can evaluate Islamabad’s democratic compliance while hiding its own assessment of the election process.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
