Offshore assets: Conjecture not enough to disqualify MPs: Supreme Court

Apex court seeks details about PTI leader Jahangir Tareen’s offshore company

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court cannot disqualify any parliamentarian on mere presumptions, Chief Justice of Supreme Court Mian Saqib Nisar observed on Wednesday.

The three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by the chief justice himself, took up PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi’s case, seeking disqualification of PTI’s general secretary Jahangir Khan Tareen.

The bench also directed Tareen’s counsel to supply details regarding his client’s offshore company, including details regarding creation and interest in the Trust, any receipt transmitted by the Trust, creation of the offshore company, names of the owners of the company or owners of the title of the company, legal and beneficial owner of the company, the quantum of assets the company created abroad and how much amount was sent from Pakistan for creating the company.



However, the court observed that the money was transferred via banking channels and Tareen paid taxes. It also questioned how it could be established that Jehangir Tareen is the beneficial owner of the company.

Hanif Abbasi’s lawyer Azid Nafees argued that Jehangir Tareen had admitted in an interview that he had offshore assets, but did not declare them in his nomination papers.

In response, the bench said Jehangir Tareen might have accepted that there was an offshore company, but it was in the name of his children and he had nothing to do with it and “he is just the settler of Trust”.

The counsel said Tareen admitted that his company was named Shinny Limited and owned a flat in London which he acquired after selling his property in Canada.

However, Tareen’s lawyer Sikandar Bashir told the bench that the petitioner, instead of raising such questions, should himself prove the veracity of his allegations because he had levelled them in the first place. He also contended that the petitioner had no legal cause to file the case against his client and that they were ready to reply all queries on the question of the offshore company.

Azid Nafees maintained that Tareen’s children were acting as his proxy.



The counsel said Jehangir Tareen also gave and received huge amounts as ‘gift’ from his children.

In response, the bench remarked there was nothing illegal if the father was giving or receiving funds from his children.

It also pointed out that Tareen received Rs87,500,000 in 2010 and Rs69,750,000 in 2015 from his children, while gifted Rs1.4 billion to his children from 2010 to 2015 according to his income tax and wealth tax returns.

Azid also argued that in the Panama case this was the manner of the acquisition of property which was the main issue and the source of the money and for this, the Joint Investigation Team had been constituted to probe it. Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that in that case, the existence of foreign assets was admitted.



Azid said in this case Jehangir also admitted that he had an offshore company and owned assets and he had sent money abroad to his children and they invested the same in the company.

He alleged that Tareen’s investment had come from children in the shape of ‘gift’. He said Jehangir became the public officeholder in 2002 and has since been giving ‘gift’ to his children.

Regarding commission of offence in the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, the counsel contended that by depositing gains and fine Tareen had accepted his culpability in the offence and he should be disqualified.

He said under Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, the accused returned the money in plea bargain. He said that the Supreme Court in Dr Mubashir Hassan case declared that even if the accused returned the money in such a plea bargain, he or she would still be considered an accused.

However, the bench observed that every member of Parliament who was served a notice by the SECP could not be disqualified just because he or she had been served a notice. It also wondered if all parliamentarians could be directly disqualified under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. It also wondered if the SC could adjudicate such matters in the presence of other forums.

The case was later adjourned until today (Thursday).