Imran’s omissions make him dishonest, says PML-N reply
Hanif Abbasi asks SC to disqualify PTI chief for failure to disclose unclaimed money in foreign account
PTI chairman Imran Khan. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The ruling party has claimed before the Supreme Court that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan did not disclose the accurate bank account details in his annual return for 2003-04 before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
Akram Sheikh, counsel for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi, has filed a reply to Khan’s revised statement regarding the £100,000 available in the accounts of his offshore company, Niazi Service Limited (NSL).
The PML-N leader contends that Khan has repeatedly accused others over transparency and ethics while his own conduct shows that he has been most casual about these values and is neither righteous nor sagacious in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and section 231 of the Elections Act 2017.
Double whammy for Imran Khan as both ECP and ATC order his arrest
The reply says that Khan has adopted the position that the ECP was correctly informed about his assets and liabilities as on 30th June of each year, but that is clearly a false assertion.
“The London flats were declared as an asset of the applicant as on 30.6.2002 as per the nomination form filed for elections in 2002 from NA-71 Mianwali. With regard to the flat, Khan has clearly admitted that he was always the beneficial owner. Since this flat was admittedly an asset of the applicant, it is evident that, after conversion of this asset into cash after its sale, the cash equivalent would also be an asset of the applicant.”
However, it is submitted that the NSL’s statement of accounts attached with the proposed Revised Concise Statement show that as on June 30, 2003, NSL held £99,702.28 in an account, and £33,412.50 in the same account on June 30, 2004. These details were not disclosed in the sworn statement filed before the ECP for the periods ending June 30, 2003, and June 30, 2004.
The reply states that the shifting stances adopted by Imran, as being adopted now in the proposed concise statement, and also relating to the acquisition of the Bani Gala property are reckless as regards a commitment to veracity and truthfulness, especially when appearing before a court of law.
It is further submitted that the excuse presented for the submission of the revised concise statement is that the bench had observed that it was holding inquisitorial proceedings and, therefore, Khan was entitled to depart from his past pleadings.
“This is an absolutely unsustainable plea. Inquisitorial proceedings do not mean that the litigants are free to move in a casual manner and shift from stances in the pleadings to suit their convenience. The litigants remain bound by their pleadings,” the reply says.
The PML-N leader states that the major difference involved in inquisitorial proceedings is that the court conducting the proceedings is not supposed to be an indifferent uninvolved umpire, rather, inquiries into facts may be conducted by the judges themselves. The judges, he added, may investigate by collecting and examining the evidence rather than leaving these matters entirely in the hands of the prosecution or defence, as is the usual practice in adversarial proceedings.
ECP directs Islamabad police to arrest PTI chief
It is further stated that reliance on faulty advice is never an acceptable excuse. The remedy lies in proceedings against the adviser rather than seeking to escape liability before a court of law.
Memory and lack of due diligence are absolutely false pleas which are not tenable before a court of law, the reply says.
It adds that Khan had been making categorical assertions regarding the matter, supported by sworn affidavits, and it is a clear case of misstatement which falls within the domain of Article 62 cases.
The PML-N leader has also raised legal objections to Khan’s filing of a revised statement. “It is neither necessary nor reasonable, nor would it be in the interest of justice that the application be allowed. In fact, the applicant is abusing the processes of the court,” says the reply.
The ruling party has claimed before the Supreme Court that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan did not disclose the accurate bank account details in his annual return for 2003-04 before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
Akram Sheikh, counsel for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi, has filed a reply to Khan’s revised statement regarding the £100,000 available in the accounts of his offshore company, Niazi Service Limited (NSL).
The PML-N leader contends that Khan has repeatedly accused others over transparency and ethics while his own conduct shows that he has been most casual about these values and is neither righteous nor sagacious in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and section 231 of the Elections Act 2017.
Double whammy for Imran Khan as both ECP and ATC order his arrest
The reply says that Khan has adopted the position that the ECP was correctly informed about his assets and liabilities as on 30th June of each year, but that is clearly a false assertion.
“The London flats were declared as an asset of the applicant as on 30.6.2002 as per the nomination form filed for elections in 2002 from NA-71 Mianwali. With regard to the flat, Khan has clearly admitted that he was always the beneficial owner. Since this flat was admittedly an asset of the applicant, it is evident that, after conversion of this asset into cash after its sale, the cash equivalent would also be an asset of the applicant.”
However, it is submitted that the NSL’s statement of accounts attached with the proposed Revised Concise Statement show that as on June 30, 2003, NSL held £99,702.28 in an account, and £33,412.50 in the same account on June 30, 2004. These details were not disclosed in the sworn statement filed before the ECP for the periods ending June 30, 2003, and June 30, 2004.
The reply states that the shifting stances adopted by Imran, as being adopted now in the proposed concise statement, and also relating to the acquisition of the Bani Gala property are reckless as regards a commitment to veracity and truthfulness, especially when appearing before a court of law.
It is further submitted that the excuse presented for the submission of the revised concise statement is that the bench had observed that it was holding inquisitorial proceedings and, therefore, Khan was entitled to depart from his past pleadings.
“This is an absolutely unsustainable plea. Inquisitorial proceedings do not mean that the litigants are free to move in a casual manner and shift from stances in the pleadings to suit their convenience. The litigants remain bound by their pleadings,” the reply says.
The PML-N leader states that the major difference involved in inquisitorial proceedings is that the court conducting the proceedings is not supposed to be an indifferent uninvolved umpire, rather, inquiries into facts may be conducted by the judges themselves. The judges, he added, may investigate by collecting and examining the evidence rather than leaving these matters entirely in the hands of the prosecution or defence, as is the usual practice in adversarial proceedings.
ECP directs Islamabad police to arrest PTI chief
It is further stated that reliance on faulty advice is never an acceptable excuse. The remedy lies in proceedings against the adviser rather than seeking to escape liability before a court of law.
Memory and lack of due diligence are absolutely false pleas which are not tenable before a court of law, the reply says.
It adds that Khan had been making categorical assertions regarding the matter, supported by sworn affidavits, and it is a clear case of misstatement which falls within the domain of Article 62 cases.
The PML-N leader has also raised legal objections to Khan’s filing of a revised statement. “It is neither necessary nor reasonable, nor would it be in the interest of justice that the application be allowed. In fact, the applicant is abusing the processes of the court,” says the reply.