PTI counsel admits ‘omission’ on part of Imran
The party again challenges ECP jurisdiction and its May 8 order in a foreign funding case
PTI Chief Imran Khan. PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan has admitted before the Supreme Court that it is an omission on the part of his client that he did not disclose his offshore company in his asset details submitted before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
When the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench on Wednesday resumed hearing of a petition seeking the PTI chief’s disqualification, counsel Naeem Bukhari contended that if the apex court declares that Imran was obliged to declare his offshore company then it should be considered an ‘omission’ not ‘dishonesty’.
The counsel argued that Imran disclosed assets of offshore company – Niazi Service Company –in 2000 through tax amnesty scheme when his London flat was sold. Later, there was no need to disclose the offshore company, whose total assets were nine ponds. Imran was also advised to do so, he said.
Bukhari said the court should also take into account that only one million people are paying taxes in the country. “The court should, therefore, not prejudice the FBR’s jurisdiction as Imran has received a notice by the board [in this regard],” he argued.
Imran files reply to ECP’s contempt notices
On the bench’s query, he admitted that in most of the cases, the court disqualified parliamentarians for not disclosing assets in nomination papers.
The chief justice wondered why the offshore company existed after sale of the London flat. Bukhari replied that the offshore company could not be shut down due to litigation – on rent issue – which continued till 2005.
The bench also observed that there was nothing on record to establish that the five transactions had been made by Jamima Goldsmith, Imran’s former wife, for the purchase of land for Imran’s Bani Gala residence.
"You have to satisfy us that five transactions have been made by Jamima,” Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, who heads the bench, told Bukhari. The counsel told the bench that Jamima had assured that she would be able to track down her banking transaction record soon.
Another member of the bench, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, asked whether Article 62 was attracted only on the basis of nomination papers.
The bench also asked the ECP if it could once again review accounts of a political party many years after granting it election symbol and allowing it to participate in the general election.
It also inquired whether the polls supervisory body “which is neither the court nor the tribunal” could probe into foreign funding to a party and who had the local standi to ask the ECP to probe the foreign funding. It also questioned on whose application the ECP could exercise this power.
PTI given a week to submit reply over ‘ghost donors’
The chief justice also asked the ECP if the Supreme Court under Article 6(3) of the Political Parties Order of 2002 (PPO) could settle the issue while it was pending before the ECP and what was mechanism of its jurisdiction. The ECP has engaged Ibrahim Satti as its counsel in this case. The hearing of case is adjourned till today (Thursday).
PTI again challenges ECP jurisdiction
Meanwhile, the PTI has once again challenged, in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the jurisdiction of the ECP as well as its order of May 8 in a foreign funding case.
The PTI chairman challenged the May 8 decision of the ECP, stating that the electoral body did not have any jurisdiction under the PPO of 2002 to adjudicate on complaints filed by citizens.
He said the PPO did not provide a framework for a tribunal to adjudicate on complaints and scrutinise accounts, and that accounts submitted by the petitioner were closed transactions.
The application nominated the ECP and Akbar S Babar, a founding member of the PTI, as respondents. Babar, in his application before the ECP, had questioned the PTI’s sources of foreign funds.
The PTI chief, through his counsel, stated that the ECP had been constituted for the purpose of elections, and regulating political party was not an electoral process as envisaged under Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution.
The counsel submitted that the ECP would be acting in excess of its authority, by assuming jurisdiction under the Political Parties Order to entertain complaint or petition or assuming the powers of a tribunal, which was contrary to law and legal norms set forth by superior courts.
He said Babar had filed the complaint before the ECP with mala fide intention, seeking personal vendetta, adding that Babar had been removed from the party because of misconduct.
“The complaint is tainted with mala fide and is based on incorrect facts. There is no concept of scrutiny by the public and there is no concept of the public filing complaint based on their scrutiny,” he stated, adding that Babar could not have approached the ECP with the complaint under the PPO.
Earlier, the PTI had filed a petition with similar contentions, stating that they had raised the question of maintainability before the ECP, but the commission did not clearly decide on either the maintainability or its jurisdiction.
In the order passed on May 8, the ECP had dismissed objections to its jurisdiction and held that it had all and plenary jurisdiction to scrutinise the accounts of a political party at any time.
The counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan has admitted before the Supreme Court that it is an omission on the part of his client that he did not disclose his offshore company in his asset details submitted before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
When the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench on Wednesday resumed hearing of a petition seeking the PTI chief’s disqualification, counsel Naeem Bukhari contended that if the apex court declares that Imran was obliged to declare his offshore company then it should be considered an ‘omission’ not ‘dishonesty’.
The counsel argued that Imran disclosed assets of offshore company – Niazi Service Company –in 2000 through tax amnesty scheme when his London flat was sold. Later, there was no need to disclose the offshore company, whose total assets were nine ponds. Imran was also advised to do so, he said.
Bukhari said the court should also take into account that only one million people are paying taxes in the country. “The court should, therefore, not prejudice the FBR’s jurisdiction as Imran has received a notice by the board [in this regard],” he argued.
Imran files reply to ECP’s contempt notices
On the bench’s query, he admitted that in most of the cases, the court disqualified parliamentarians for not disclosing assets in nomination papers.
The chief justice wondered why the offshore company existed after sale of the London flat. Bukhari replied that the offshore company could not be shut down due to litigation – on rent issue – which continued till 2005.
The bench also observed that there was nothing on record to establish that the five transactions had been made by Jamima Goldsmith, Imran’s former wife, for the purchase of land for Imran’s Bani Gala residence.
"You have to satisfy us that five transactions have been made by Jamima,” Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, who heads the bench, told Bukhari. The counsel told the bench that Jamima had assured that she would be able to track down her banking transaction record soon.
Another member of the bench, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, asked whether Article 62 was attracted only on the basis of nomination papers.
The bench also asked the ECP if it could once again review accounts of a political party many years after granting it election symbol and allowing it to participate in the general election.
It also inquired whether the polls supervisory body “which is neither the court nor the tribunal” could probe into foreign funding to a party and who had the local standi to ask the ECP to probe the foreign funding. It also questioned on whose application the ECP could exercise this power.
PTI given a week to submit reply over ‘ghost donors’
The chief justice also asked the ECP if the Supreme Court under Article 6(3) of the Political Parties Order of 2002 (PPO) could settle the issue while it was pending before the ECP and what was mechanism of its jurisdiction. The ECP has engaged Ibrahim Satti as its counsel in this case. The hearing of case is adjourned till today (Thursday).
PTI again challenges ECP jurisdiction
Meanwhile, the PTI has once again challenged, in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the jurisdiction of the ECP as well as its order of May 8 in a foreign funding case.
The PTI chairman challenged the May 8 decision of the ECP, stating that the electoral body did not have any jurisdiction under the PPO of 2002 to adjudicate on complaints filed by citizens.
He said the PPO did not provide a framework for a tribunal to adjudicate on complaints and scrutinise accounts, and that accounts submitted by the petitioner were closed transactions.
The application nominated the ECP and Akbar S Babar, a founding member of the PTI, as respondents. Babar, in his application before the ECP, had questioned the PTI’s sources of foreign funds.
The PTI chief, through his counsel, stated that the ECP had been constituted for the purpose of elections, and regulating political party was not an electoral process as envisaged under Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution.
The counsel submitted that the ECP would be acting in excess of its authority, by assuming jurisdiction under the Political Parties Order to entertain complaint or petition or assuming the powers of a tribunal, which was contrary to law and legal norms set forth by superior courts.
He said Babar had filed the complaint before the ECP with mala fide intention, seeking personal vendetta, adding that Babar had been removed from the party because of misconduct.
“The complaint is tainted with mala fide and is based on incorrect facts. There is no concept of scrutiny by the public and there is no concept of the public filing complaint based on their scrutiny,” he stated, adding that Babar could not have approached the ECP with the complaint under the PPO.
Earlier, the PTI had filed a petition with similar contentions, stating that they had raised the question of maintainability before the ECP, but the commission did not clearly decide on either the maintainability or its jurisdiction.
In the order passed on May 8, the ECP had dismissed objections to its jurisdiction and held that it had all and plenary jurisdiction to scrutinise the accounts of a political party at any time.