SC hearing plea against Imran ‘with open mind’

Hanif Abbasi’s plea seeks to disqualify Imran Khan

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court is hearing the PML-N leader’s plea calling for disqualifying Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf chief Imran Khan with an ‘open mind’, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar observed on Thursday.

“We are hearing this case with an open mind. We are examining (all documents) of the case late at nights. We (judges) all sat till 11:30pm (on Wednesday) night because every point needs to be considered due to the nature and scope of case,” the CJP said as he adjourned the case till next month.

The three-judge bench, headed by CJP himself, conducted more than 30 hearings in connection with Hanif Abbasi’s plea seeking to disqualify PTI chief Imran Khan.

Interestingly, legal experts are unable to predict the outcome of this case for a variety of reasons. In May, the same bench had insisted on the production of the money trail to the Bani Gala property, as serious discrepancies were highlighted in property purchase documents.

Similarly, the same bench on August 1 had observed that no political party’s head could be disqualified on the basis of collecting party funds through prohibited sources and submitting a false certificate before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) under the Political Parties Order of 2002.



A senior lawyer says comparatively, approaches of both benches – in Panamagate case and the foreign funding case – are very different, adding that this bench “is very careful in its observations”.

On Thursday, Hanif Abbasi’s counsel Akram Sheikh said Niazi Services Limited (NSL), an offshore firm founded by the PTI chairman in 1983, was an asset and Imran was bound to declare it in his tax returns.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked Sheikh to provide evidence that the PTI chief’s offshore company still had assets after the sale of his London flat in 2003. The SC judge, however, agreed with the counsel’s line of questioning: Why was NSL kept alive even after it had no assets.

Sheikh contended that Imran had misstated for availing the benefit of the Tax Amnesty Scheme in 2002 as the PTI leader did not disclose the fact that his London flat was ‘owned’ by an offshore company.

The CJP, however, questioned the ownership of the NSL. “Who is the real beneficial owner of NSL … Imran claims that he is neither a shareholder nor plays any part in its management?”

Sheikh said that the company was created by Imran three decades ago and he could have winded it up after the sale of his London apartment but it was kept alive until 2015.

He argued that running an offshore company even without assets required nearly £6,000 in annual expenses, and the PTI leader did not inform the court who paid this amount for over a decade.



Sheikh told the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday that he could not produce any evidence to establish that the PTI chief laundered money from Pakistan.

According to him, Imran had four different versions regarding the purchase of the Bani Gala land, adding that he did not disclose Rs14.5 million, which he had borrowed from his wife, in nomination papers in 2002.

Justice Faisal Arab questioned that even if a person got a loan of Rs2 million from his brother, but he did not disclose, Article 62 (1) (f) would apply.

The counsel, while referring to the July 28 judgment, replied that if someone who did not get Rs10,000 from his son is disqualified then the one who did not disclose debt, he was liable to be disqualified too. But Justice Bandial asked Sheikh not to refer to this judgment. He also urged the counsel not to discuss Imran’s personal life in court.

Sheikh said that NSL was an asset, distinct and independent of the flat. Moreover, the value of the said asset (NSL) was not merely the paid-up capital of the company, rather the consideration for which the whole corporate structure of NSL could be sold off.

“Had Imran Khan decided to sell NSL as a corporate body to any person, the sale price would have belonged to Imran Khan, and not to the shareholders of the company. The formal shareholders were acting as trustees for Imran Khan and they did not hold the corporate structure for their own beneficial interest.”



Such a declaration of assets and liabilities was also required to be made in a person's wealth statement filed under Wealth Tax Act 1963 (repealed in 2003), Income Tax Ordinance 2001, but he failed to disclose NSL and funds held by it in these statements.

Sheikh states that he has failed to disclose NSL even when it owned the London flat in his wealth statement under Wealth Tax Act 1963. Under Section 36 (b) of the said Act, 1963 where any person conceals his assets or deliberately furnishes inaccurate particulars he is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or both.

The case was later adjourned until next month.