PML-N challenges Imran’s stance on London flat

PTI denies receiving funds from prohibited sources

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has claimed before the Supreme Court that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s stance on the purchase of London flat was ‘self-contradictory’.

Petitioner Hanif Abbasi through his counsel Akram Sheikh on Monday submitted a response in reply to the PTI chief’s money trail presented in the Supreme Court about the purchase of London flat in 1984.

The PML-N leader in his response stated that “In his initial concise statement filed on November 29, 2016, as well in his affidavit filed on May 23, 2017 as CMA 3657/2017 and in his speech before the National Assembly and during various press conferences, Imran has claimed that the London flat was purchased by him in 1983.

“However, now, after almost a year later, he claims for the first time that the flat was purchased in 1984. The transfer deed attached on page 12 of the CMA at hand also reflects that the land was purchased on April 2, 1984.”

The reply stated that the PTI chairman has claimed that the flat was purchased by him through his earnings from playing cricket. However, on May 23, 2017, he deviated from his previous stance for the first time to state that the flat was purchased through mortgage.

“Therefore, his initial concise statement titled CMA 7925.16 stands belied by the subsequent claim regarding mortgage and the documents presented in the new CMA.”

“There seems to be a consistent contradiction regarding the price paid for the London flat.

“In initial concise statement, as well as in his affidavit, the respondent has stated the price of the London flat to be £117,000 whereas the transfer deed attached on page 12 of the new CMA reflects the price paid to be £117,500,” the reply added.

It is also submitted that Imran had categorically claimed that the money for Bani Gala property was periodically transmitted to Rashid Ali Khan, which was subsequently converted and encashed and paid to the seller.

“In support of this, he (Imran) has attached the certificate on page 64 of CMA 7925/16. However, later on, when he was questioned regarding each amount transmitted to Rashid Ali Khan, the respondent (Imran) withdrew his claim that the first [remittance amounting to] $700 was not for the purposes of the Bani Gala land, but was remitted by some other source.



“Moreover, the statement of accounts of Rashid Ali Khan attached in CMA 4217/2017 shows money being transmitted after the payments for Bani Gala had been made. Therefore, the respondent had misrepresented the fact that the loan was obtained to pay for the land,” it stated.

The reply says that the nomination form filed by Imran for contesting the general election to the constituency NA-71 (Mianwali-1) as on June 30, 2002 mentions advance of Rs6.7 million (in relation to the Bani gala land).

“It does not mention advance of Rs14.5 million paid on April 11, 2002, towards this land mentioned in the Acknowledgement Receipt on page 75 in CMA 7925/2016.”

The reply says that according to the respondent he was taking loan from Mrs. Jemima Khan for payment of Bani Gala land. “On April 11, 2002 a sum of Rs14.5 million was paid, as stated in the Acknowledgment Receipt, from the loan received on the same date, into the account of Rashid Ali Khan equivalent to Rs15,422,810 ($258,000).

“In the declaration he was required to mention ‘other debts/unsecured loans’ as liabilities on page 5 of the declaration.” This amount is not mentioned.

The petitioner also contested the three letters submitted by the respondent, saying: “The concise statement pertains only to the period ranging from 1977 to 1988. Whereas, no record or proof of earnings for the years 1971 till 1977 has been brought forth.”

It is submitted that the validity and therefore, reliability of the attached letters is highly questionable.



Meanwhile, the PTI on Monday once again denied receiving funds from prohibited sources, claiming the party was being targeted as it had continuously been challenging the ruling PML-N on political front.

The PTI submitted with the Supreme Court on Monday a concise statement in a case filed by a former MNA of the PML-N from Rawalpindi, Hanif Abbasi.

Through the petition, Abbasi has sought disqualification of PTI chairman Imran Khan, who defeated Abbasi in 2013 general elections, and party secretary-general Jahangir Tareen over concealment of assets and receiving foreign funding through prohibited sources.

The PTI’s counsel contended that the PML-N and the PPP had never disclosed before the Election Commission of Pakistan the details of funds received from abroad.

“The funds received from abroad have never been disclosed contrary to the fact it (PML-N) has a fund raising company in England,” the statement reads.

It adds that even the PPP has not disclosed their source abroad when they received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government of Pakistan in London.

“The PTI is being discriminated against. As it has challenged the PML-N on political front,” it said.

The party argued that Abbasi’s claim about receiving funds from prohibited sources lacks any conclusive proof and evidence, and “to accuse the PTI being a foreign-aided party he merely relied on names of some Pakistanis living abroad and hail from respected minority communities of Pakistan”.

The PTI claimed that Abbasi mentioned names like ‘Yadav’ and built up a false case claiming that funding coming from ‘non-Muslim’ individuals is actually from foreign prohibited sources.

“It is submitted that such names exist in this wonderful country and they are Pakistani citizens also. The Constitution of Pakistan does not distinguish between a Muslim, a Christian, or a Hindu when the word ‘citizen’ is defined,” the statement reads.

Vehemently rejecting the allegation of receiving funds from ‘prohibited sources’ the PTI contended that it is indeed a simple case of receiving funds from dual nationals or foreign funding through legitimate sources, which every other party receives, and the SC lacks the jurisdiction is this regard under Article 15 of the Political Parties Order 2002.