The Supreme Court on Thursday sought record of litigation from Islamabad High Court (IHC) and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) over foreign funding adjudication about Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) by May 30. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar issued directives while hearing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi's plea, seeking disqualification of Chairman PTI Imran Khan and PTI General Secretary Jahangir Tareen from the Parliament for non-declaration of their offshore companies in their tax returns.
In pursuant to the court's earlier directives in the matter, an official of the Election Commission appeared before the bench and submitted that in response to an application of Akbar S Babar, the commission ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case of foreign funding of political parties.
The official further submitted that the PTI had challenged the jurisdiction of the commission before the IHC, where the matter is still pending. To which the Chief Justice issued directives to the ECP official to submit details of the cases pending with the ECP under Article 3(6) of Political Parties Order.
During the course of proceedings, counsel for Chairman PTI Imran Khan, Naeem Bukhari said that since 1981 his client has been filing tax returns. He requested the bench to summon Imran Khan's tax returns filed since 1981 in sealed envelope. Khan's lawyer apprised the bench that there is no mention of London flat in Imran Khan's tax returns in 1983, as at that time the financial experts told him it was not mandatory to declare the flat in tax return and he purchased it with the earnings of cricket played in Britain and Australia.
Bukhari pleaded that in September 2000, his client under tax amnesty scheme had declared the flat and also paid its tax; however, he said that Imran Khan was for the first time elected a member of the Parliament in 2002, adding at that time he had declared his London flat in the nomination papers.
To which, counsel for the petitioner Hanif Abbasi, Akram Sheikh apprised the bench that Imran Khan contested election in 1997 for the first time but could not win. He requested the court to allow him examine Imran Khan's nomination papers of 1997. While addressing Akram Sheikh, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said that his client's case is that Imran Khan had not declared his offshore company and flat in his nomination papers for elections 2002. The Chief Justice observed the court will summon the record if required.
A member of the bench Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that the petitioner is changing the goal-post, adding that Justice Bandial asked Imran Khan's counsel to produce documentary evidence that Niazi Services Limited did not own any other property except flat.
Bukhari submitted that Imran Khan has stated in his affidavit that he has no offshore company other than Niazi Services, adding the purpose of it was tax exemption. "I am giving this statement after getting instructions from Imran Khan," Bukhari said.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that contention of Akram Sheikh's client is that Imran Khan had not declared Niazi Services Company in his tax returns and nomination papers of 2002, so Khan is no more Sadiq (truthful) and Ameen (trustworthy). Naeem Bukhari pleaded that at time it was not requirement to declare assets purchased through foreign earning, saying if it had been the case then there is a mistake. Bukhari also said that on the basis of that, it cannot be declared that Khan is not Sadiq (truthful) and Ameen (trustworthy).
Khan's counsel apprised the bench that money for Banigala land was paid in six installments, while the last installment was paid on January 23, 2003. Justice Faisal Arab observed that according to documents for the purchase of the land, Jemima Khan on July 2003 transferred money in the account of Rashid Khan. Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar asked the counsel that according to Khan's stance, Rashid Khan's role was of postman and he did not pay amount from his own pocket. He observed that the last installment of Banigala land was paid in January but Jemima Khan transferred money in Rashid account in July 2003 and he had paid the money to the land owner.
Responding to a query of the Chief Justice, Bukhari informed that the marriage contract was revoked in June 2004. Bukhari further informed that there was no conflict between Jemima and Imran, saying Jemima was a rich lady but Khan was not interested in her property. Justice Umar Atta Bandial asked the counsel why he did not say that Imran took money from his wife, which he returned. Bukhari said that the relationship of husband and wife is covered under privileged communication which should not be highlighted in the court. The court asked Naeem Bukhari to provide assistance on how offshore companies are being formed and what is the motive behind establishing such companies.
Later, hearing of the case was adjourned till May 30.
Comments
Comments are closed.