Disqualification case: PML-N counsel questions Imran’s loyalty to state

PTI legal team wants Abbasi’s petition dismissed on technical grounds

ISLAMABAD: It was a relatively good day for the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) in Courtroom No 1 of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as counsel for the ruling party raised three crucial issues in a bid to send the PTI’s chief packing from parliament.

Akram Sheikh, appearing on behalf of PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, questioned Imran Khan’s loyalty to the state. On the other hand, the PTI’s legal team led by Naeem Bukhari and Anwar Mansoor Khan requested the Supreme Court to dismiss Abbasi’s petition, citing non-maintainability on technical grounds.

PTI spokesperson Fawad Chaudhry, who was seen penning down arguments by the petitioner’s counsel, believes that the PTI has enough defence to rebut his contentions “as there is nothing new in the PML-N petition”.

When the three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, resumed hearing of the PML-N leader’s plea on Wednesday, his counsel Akram Sheikh sought Khan’s disqualification on three grounds.

First, the counsel raised the issue of PTI acquiring funds from what he called prohibited sources. He stated that between 2010 and 2013, the PTI had received $2.3 million through foreign funds. “This is prohibited under the Political Parties Order 2002 and Article 17 of the Constitution.”

The PML-N counsel contended: “Not only is Imran not ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’, but his loyalty to the state is also compromised as he gave a statement before the ECP that the PTI did not get funds from prohibited sources.”



He requested the bench to disqualify the respondent under Articles 62(1) (g) and Article 63(1)(p). The chief justice, however, observed that donors might be of Pakistani origins.

Second, Sheikh raised the issue of an offshore company owned by Khan in the past. He stated that the PTI chief had formed an offshore company called Niazi Service Limited (NSL) in 1982 but he did not disclose it in his nomination papers or tax documents.

“[The] NSL was alive till 01.10.2015 but Respondent No1 (Imran) failed to disclose his ownership interest in the said company and this fact was later on admitted by him publicly (upon it being made public by the media) that he incorporated an offshore company to avoid UK taxes.”

The bench, however, observed that if the purchase of any property was made through lawful means then there would be no illegality. The chief justice said: “If someone lives abroad and purchases property there, then it will be examined whether he is bound to declare that asset in Pakistan under the law.”

Third, the PML-N counsel sought Khan’s disqualification on the basis of his contradictory statements regarding the purchase of Bani Gala land. He added the PTI chief gave four versions regarding purchase of the 300-kanal land in Bani Gala where his house now stands, and each one was different from the other.

“Imran has been repeatedly shifting his position/statement regarding the ownership of the said land. [The] Respondent No1 has declared in many TV interviews/talks shows that he purchased this land from the sale proceeds of his flat situated in London. This is incorrect, patently false as the said land was purchased in 2002 whereas the flat in question was sold later in the year 2006.”



Sheikh added that Khan had also declared that the said land was a gift by his former wife. “This is also incorrect, being contrary to the statement of his ex-wife Jemima Khan. These contradictory statements amount to manifest falsehoods spoken with the intent to conceal his assets which is indicative of a weak moral character.

“This in turn is proof of the respondent No 1 being unqualified under Article 62 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the 1976 Act from being elected to the National Assembly. This concealment of assets and misstatement is a serious offence under various laws of Pakistan,” the counsel said.

Sheikh will continue his arguments on Thursday.

From the onset of the hearing, the chief justice asked leaders of both the PTI and the PML-N not to give any comments regarding the bench proceedings outside the court. “This tradition should be curtailed. However, counsel(s) for parties could address the media to explain the case.”

The chief justice made it clear that if their verbal direction was not followed then they would issue a written order. He also rejected the PML-N leader’s plea to form a larger bench for hearing the case for the disqualification of Khan and Jahangir Tareen, a senior PTI leader.

“There is no need to form a larger bench in this case,” said Justice Nisar, adding, “We don’t want to affect ordinary litigants’ cases by forming a larger bench.”

Sheikh, however, stated that they had no objection to it. Answering a bench’s query, he stated that the case against the PTI chief was quo warranto in nature.