The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed it has to figure out what is distinguishable between assets and liability declaration in Panama Papers case and Imran Khan disqualification case.
A three-member bench led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed while resuming the hearing of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi's plea seeking disqualification of the PTI Chairman Imran Khan and party General Secretary Jehangir Khan Tareen over alleged non-disclosure of assets and receiving foreign funding for the party.
During the course of proceedings, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar in a lighter mood, while giving a glimpse to court reporters, said that there are news reports about number of hearings in the current matter, adding nobody talked about the caution and calm with which these hearings have been conducted.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar remarked that parliamentarians are equally respectable for the court but at the same time the court would have to examine if there is any unworthiness or an element of corruption or deception in the representatives of the people, adding that it is one of the major reasons to hear the matter in hand profoundly.
A member of the bench Justice Umar Atta Bandial said while addressing Sikandar Bashir, counsel for Tareen, that he should apprise the court what distinguishes Panama papers case and the matter in hand. Commencing his arguments on behalf of Secretary General of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Jehangir Tareen, Advocate Sikandar Bashir contended that instant petition has been filed under the political motive instead of larger interest of the public.
Responding to Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar's query, Bashir submitted that he has no objection over maintainability of the plea of Hanif Abbasi and accountability of his client, saying the court has to examine whether the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the apex court with clean hands.
Tareen's counsel termed Abbasi's petition as counter blast on behalf of PML-N to which the Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed what difference does it make, saying if it is not true that Imran Khan is rival of Nawaz Sharif who filed plea against him and consequently he faced disqualification.
Sikandar Bashir said the petitioner had sought disqualification of his client on four grounds including, written-off loan and discrepancy in declarations before Federal Board of Revenue and Election Commission of Pakistan, inside trading and ownership of offshore company. Sikandar Bashir informed the bench that his client was not the beneficial owner of any off-shore company.
He argued that Tareen cannot be disqualified for all the four allegations under Article 62(1) f, adding that nothing has been produced before the court to substantiate accusation of loan defaulter against his client.
Responding to the court's query, Sikandar Bashir made it clear that a loan of Farooqi Pulp Mills was written off in 2007 while his client became director of the Mill in 2010. To which counsel for Hanif Abbasi informed the court that the Pulp Mills was owned by son-in-law of Tareen, saying Tareen was federal minister for industries and production when loan of the mill was written off.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that no documentary evidence about written-off loan is before the court, saying the matter in hand is about honesty of elected representative so the court would have to examine whether or not those who are in government committed any corruption in addition to know about any out of the way benefit which they may secured from their counterparts.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said while addressing Tareen's counsel that as to why there is discrepancy in the income tax returns and declaration before the Election Commission of his client of 2010-11.
The Counsel for Hanif Abbasi has apprised the bench that Tareen declared income of Rs 542 million in tax return of 2010 whereas Rs 120 million in declaration of assets before Election Commission of Pakistan. Similarly, Tareen declared income from agriculture land as Rs 700 million in tax returns of 2011 whereas his assets of Rs 160 million were declared before the ECP during the same period.
Responding to an observation of Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar that the court should have heard the case against Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen along with the Panama Papers case, Sikandar Bashir submitted that his client's name had not appeared in the Panama Papers list. Later, the bench adjourned hearing of the matter till October 05 (today).