Islamabad (October 03, 2017): The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it still remains to be seen where money for Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s London flat came from.
“We will have to see where the [money for the] London flat came from,” Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, heading a three-judge bench of the apex court, remarked after hearing the rebuttal presented by the counsel for PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi.
He gave the remarks during the hearing of a petition seeking the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan for non-disclosure of assets, ownership of offshore companies and party foreign funding.
Click Play Button To Watch This Video
The Supreme Court’s three-member bench, headed by the chief justice and including Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, is hearing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz member Hanif Abbasi’s petition.
At the start of the hearing, the bench inquired about the absence of Imran’s counsel Naeem Bukhari, to which PTI lawyer Anwar Mansoor replied that Bukhari was submitting documents at the time.
During the hearing, Abbasi’s counsel Akram Sheikh said the documents submitted by the PTI are suspicious, adding that the signatures on the two letters submitted also do not match.
Justice Nisar observed that the bench noted this observation at the last hearing. “There are other mistakes along with the tax number and signature,” he remarked.
During the hearing, the chief justice remarked that even if the Bani Gala estate is benami [not in actual owner’s name], the actual owner was Jemima, Imran’s ex-wife.
He observed further that the trail of only 6.5 per cent of the funds has not been proved.
“It was said that Niazi Services Limited was formed to avoid the taxes on the London flats and Imran’s personal funds were also deposited in the Niazi Services Limited’s account,” he remarked further.
He added that the details of the account from 2003 onwards have also not provided, and, according to the petitioner, the 99,000 pounds present in the account should have been declared as well.
Bukhari argued before the court that the amount was an asset of Niazi Services Limited, to which the chief justice remarked that evidence needs to be provided that the funds were used in legal action.
Sheikh said that while he had not raised the question in the court, the petitioner had wondered why the sum had been transferred to Jemima through Imran’s cousin, Rashid Khan. He pointed out that Khan had accepted that he had taken a loan from his former wife but had not made this apparent before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
As the bench mulled over how transactions between a husband and a wife should be treated, Sheikh maintained that the court had already set a precedent by dismissing the review petitions of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Panamagate case.
“Whether it is a father and his son or a husband and his wife, the court has established a precedent,” Sheikh said. The former premier was ousted by the SC for not having declared an iqama and a salary that he had received from his son’s company.
“If it is proven that Jemima’s name was written on the documents regarding the Bani Gala property, I will leave this court room,” Sheikh said. “What statement of Imran Khan’s should we accept?”
Bani Gala money trail
“Whether Imran returned a loan to his wife or a gift will have to be made apparent,” Sheikh said.
“The first thing is where did the money for the Bani Gala property come from?”Justice Bandial asked.
Bokhari, stepping in, told the bench that a few days back, the PTI chief had received the confirmation from the bank, that the SC had sought, verifying that the sum had been transferred to Jemima’s account.
The chief justice pointed out that Imran had not declared the Bani Gala property in his nomination papers. “Was it required of him to declare the gift given to him by his wife?” asked the bench.
The chief justice, then, inquired after the details regarding the remaining £99,000 in the bank account of Niazi Services Ltd.
He said that details of the company’s bank account provided by the defence earlier had shown the balance to be zero. Later, however, the £99,000 were shown. “We will have to see details regarding the sum,” said the chief justice. ‘We are reviewing the integrity of a person.”
Shiekh argued that if a loan was pending [on Imran] in 2002, it was necessary for him to declare it.
Maintaining that if Imran had taken a loan from his wife, he should have declared it in his nomination papers, the counsel read out a paragraph from the SC’s Panamagate verdict.
The paragraph pertained to Capital FZE, the Dubai-based company owned by Nawaz’s son Hussain, for which the former premier served as a chairman. The salary from his position had not been declared in Nawaz’s nomination papers and therefore, he was disqualified.
“To say that Imran Khan is an angel is not true,” Sheikh said.
At the end of the hearing, the chief justice clarified that a verdict had not been reserved in the case and that further documents are to be presented before the court.
Related News:
SC Adjourns Hearing of Imran Disqualification Case till Sept 28
