SC seeks money trail of Imran’s London flat

ECP says no objection to formation of a commission to probe the foreign funding case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought money trail from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan regarding purchase of his London flat in 1983.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, was hearing a petition filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, who sought disqualification of the PTI chief, as well as Secretary General Jahangir Tareen, alleging non-disclosure of assets, ownership of offshore companies and receipt of foreign funds for the party.

As the proceedings started, Naeem Bukhari appeared before the bench, informing the honourable judges that Anwar Mansoor, PTI’s lawyer in the case, was on general adjournment.

This infuriated the bench which expressed its astonishment over the lawyer’s “long” adjournment.



“If the PTI’s counsel is not available, then Imran Khan may be summoned to explain the party’s position on foreign funding,” observed the bench. “We cannot adjourn hearing in the case for weeks just because the lawyer is not present.”

The court also expressed its displeasure on the way the counsel went abroad leaving the matter part heard. It wondered why Imran was not providing documents related to the flat purchased in 1983, despite repeated queries.

“Imran Khan, who is claiming to expose corruption, should also present himself for accountability,” remarked the chief justice.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, another judge on the bench, remarked that there were areas that require response so that they could draw assumptions.

Bukhari contended before the bench that his client had been playing cricket since the 1970s and at that time he was not a public figure.

The chief justice told him that the respondent i.e. Imran might not be a public figure at that time “but now he is”.

Justice Bandial also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment in Abdul Aziz Memon case, wherein it was held that any person, whose assets are beyond his known sources, would be found guilty.

The bench also questioned the introduction of tax amnesty schemes and said it was strange that non-filers were getting away and taxpayers were being penalised.

Counsel for the petitioner Akram Sheikh stated that the respondent did not file replies over some of his applications. Upon this, the bench also expressed wonder over delay in filing of pleas by the PTI’s legal team.

Justice Bandial asked the counsels for both the sides to assist on the applicability of articles 62 and 63 of the constitution.



Ibrahim Satti, counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan, while resuming his arguments, stated that the commission had no objection to the formation of a commission to probe the foreign funding issue. He assured that if a commission was constituted, the election body would cooperate with it.

The counsel submitted that if the petitioner proved his contentions, then the accounts of the PTI would be confiscated in favour of the national exchequer.

Satti said that was the first time a political party's foreign funding was being investigated, adding that political parties had not even deemed it necessary to submit information relating to domestic funding.

He further contended that the election commission could take cognisance against a party if so notified. The party involved in such a fraud can be “banned or stopped from working”, he said.

The hearing of the case was adjourned till Thursday (tomorrow).