ECP has no authority to reopen its foreign funding case, argues PTI

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf argued before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Tuesday that Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has no authority to reopen its foreign funding case; however, the apex court may constitute a commission to probe the matter.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar resumed the hearing of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi's plea, seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and party General Secretary Jahangir Khan from the Parliament for non-disclosure of their assets and offshore companies, and prohibited sources of funding to the party.
Advancing his arguments on behalf of the PTI before the bench, Advocate Anwar Mansoor contended that procedure to probe the foreign funding has been described in Political Parties Order (PPO) 2002, to which the Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said while addressing Mansoor whether he is saying that the court cannot adjudicate the matter in hand under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Responding to the court' observation, Anwar Mansoor submitted that according to the provisions of the PPO, the government after conducting inquiry could file reference in the apex court, saying under Section 15 of the PPO the political party can't take foreign funding to compromise the national sovereignty.
Anwar Mansoor added if it is established that a political party is receiving funds from foreign country or multi-national company then the federal government will send a reference to the apex court within 15 days. Anwar Mansoor requested the bench to form a commission to probe the foreign funding matter to which Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said in his remarks why not the court should refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), saying the counsel should get instructions from his client in this regard.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar further observed if the court declares the ECP as a commission into the current matter, there would be any objection. During the course of proceedings, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that question of review or reopen the case in hand would arise when the ECP had already decided this matter, whereas a member of the bench Justice Umar Atta Bandial questioned which provision of law curtails the ECP's right of investigation.
The Chief Justice questioned whether the ECP has jurisdiction to probe the foreign funding issue, adding if the ECP could probe into the funding of a party after the elections are over He observed that the general elections are held after every five years but if after four-and-a-half-year a complaint is filed before the ECP against a party that it was taking funds from prohibited sources, then whether it would have no jurisdiction.
Anwar Mansoor pleaded that every year the political parties file tax returns and account details in the ECP, to which the Chief Justice questioned whether the ECP could not hold inquiry of the last years accounts of that party. Justice Umar Atta Bandial inquired if the ECP could hold elections then it has authority to probe the parties' accounts as well, whereas Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that a party which says it did not receive funds from prohibited sources is raising objection on the jurisdiction of the Election Commission.
However, the PTI counsel pleaded if no question is raised on the wealth tax returns of past years then it should be considered past and closed transaction. Hearing of the matter was adjourned till Wednesday (today). Filing an affidavit through a civil miscellaneous application on behalf of Imran Khan in the matter, Advocate Naeem Bokhari submitted that his client earned money by playing cricket from 1971 and 1992.
The affidavit said that Imran Khan bought one-bedroom flat in London for 117,000 pounds, disclosing that the flat was purchased against a mortgage amount which was paid off in next six years.
According to the affidavit when the flat was bought in London, an offshore resident did not have to pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) over a property's sale. "In 1983, the deponent (Imran Khan) did not know whether he would be a resident in the UK at the time of its sale," stated in the affidavit. The affidavit further said that due to the reason Imran Khan was advised that the flat be placed under an offshore company which would not have to pay any CGT.
"The deponent was the sole owner of the flat and no other asset was placed under Niazi Services Limited," stated in the affidavit. It further said that the London flat had been rented out to a person called Van Der Loo who occupied the flat but did not pay the rent whereas he also damaged the property which had to be repaired before sale of the property, adding that no rent was received after October 2001.
Imran Khan apprised the court that keeping Niazi Services alive was a fruitless exercise after the sale of the flat, saying after retiring from cricket in 1992, his source of income was cricket commentary, lectures and royalty from books, which he wrote. "The deponent married Jemima Goldsmith in 1995 in the UK and upon divorce under the UK law would have been entitled to fifty percent of their joint total assets, under Sharia law an ex-husband cannot lay claims on the ex-wives inherited/personal assets. When the marriage ended in divorce, the deponent refused, despite advice to lay any claim to her assets and she returned Bani Gala property which had been bought for her and our children," Imran Khan declared in affidavit. Later, hearing of the matter was adjourned till May 24 (today).