Sadiq and Ameen: SC verdict in Imran disqualification case challenged

Hanif Abbasi files review against dismissal of his plea against Imran Khan

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Tuesday filed a review petition, challenging the Supreme Court’s judgment to dismiss his petition regarding disqualification of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan.

The review petition has been filed through Akram Sheikh advocate against the Supreme Court’s last month judgment, wherein Khan has been found as honest.

The PML-N leader said that the court did not give due weight to the conduct of the PTI chief during solemn proceedings before it.



About limiting the timeframe to probe the five years PTI’s fund, the review petition states that the ruling goes beyond the interpretive authority of the apex court and impinges upon the powers of the legislature, as it amounts to inserting a specific term into the law.

“In this regard, this court has consistently refrained from, and cautioned against adding or subtracting anything into a provision of the law, while exercising the powers of interpretation.

“The said insertion is further unwarranted in view of the settled principle laid down by this Honorable Court that where a statute does not provide a time limit for exercise of power by an executive authority, such as the ECP in this case, the principle of ‘reasonable time’ is applicable; however, the Court has deliberately refrained from stipulating any definite timeframe in such situations.”

It is further stated that in paragraph 108 of the judgment, the court has dismissed the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding non-declaration of the London Flat by the Respondent No 1 in his Nomination Papers filed for the 1997 Election, on the grounds that: 1) The contention was not part of the pleadings and was only oral plea was raised at a belated stage; 2) he did not produce any evidence thereof; 3) the learned counsel was merely speculating without certainty.

In this regard, the PML-N leader submitted that, the aforesaid submission by the counsel for the petitioner was not an 'uncertain speculation' and also did not require evidence, because, Imran Khan has categorically admitted that he did not declare his ownership of the London Flat, nor the Niazi Services Limited (NSL) up until he availed the Amnesty Scheme in 2000; therefore, it logically follows that the said assets were not declared in the Nomination Forms filed by the Respondent No. 1 in 1997.



It is stated that though the court has further ruled that as the Nomination Form of the Respondent No 1 was accepted without any objections in 1997, and he lost the election, hence, it was a past and closed transaction. It is most respectfully submitted, that the principle of past and closed transaction cannot be extended to the matter at hand in view of the principles earlier laid down by this Honorable Court in the case of Allah Dina Bhayio Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1655).

The review petition states that the NSL was admittedly not a trading or manufacturing company sponsored by some investors to undertake some commercial activity.

“The Respondent No 1 (Imran Khan) conceived this company in order to hold his London flat. The corporate structure was arranged for by the service providers, who were charging a management fee for their services. The shares were held by the three corporate entities that were managing NSL.

“A corporate entity can always be sold as a going concern or even as a shell company. In case of such sale, the proceeds of the transaction would be payable to the owner of the company and not any persons holding the company in trust for the actual sponsor.

“Had the NSL been sold or liquidated at any stage, the sale proceeds would have been paid to Mr. Imran Khan and not the shareholders of record. The shareholders were only trustees could, under no circumstances, derive any benefit for their own consumption. NSL, as an entity, was therefore, owned by Mr. Imran Khan and not the trustees. Any ownership of the trustees was therefore only nominal/benami in nature. The beneficial owner of NSL was therefore Mr. Niazi and he should have disclosed this asset in the declarations filed with the ECP.”

The review petition states that in the case of a shell company being used as a trust vehicle to hold property, unlike in the case of an ordinary company, the beneficial owner, as opposed to the shareholders, who are the residuary claimants of the company and all its assets upon dissolution.

Likewise, in the case at hand, it was Imran Khan who was the recipient of all the assets held or generated by NSL, even the funds recovered by NSL through litigation done in its own name. Moreover, it is not conceivable by any stretch of imagination, that has the NSL been dissolved while it still held the London flat, the three trustee companies would have received and kept the funds recovered from such dissolution while the Respondent No 1 (Imran) would have had no say or interest in the matter.

The review petition contends that Imran Khan has changed his stance on the purchase of Bani Gala land.

“The affairs relating to the Bani Gala property clearly disclosed that the property was owned benami by Ms Jemima Khan, benami for Niazi.



“Niazi should have declared this property in the sworn declarations filed with the ECP. It is clearly on record that Niazi had taken elaborate measures to conceal his actual link with the property so that there should be no public records to show his link with the property.

“Money was borrowed in the name of his friend and not in his own name, payments were made by this friend and transfers of property were procured in the name of his wife. As far as public record is concerned, he became the owner through a gift.

“As a matter of record, the entire sale price was paid by him (partly by borrowing), Jemima Khan was never in possession of the property, it was clearly admitted in the power of attorney that the property had been purchased by Mr. Niazi and was being held by her benami, the agreement to sell was in the name of Imran Khan himself, and Imran Khan had been consistently changing his stance regarding the property.”

It is submitted that as per the record with the Revenue Authorities, the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Federal Board of Revenue, the name of Imran does not appear anywhere during the purchase of the land, until it is transferred to him by his former wife.

“Hence, the record prima facie and clearly belies the stance being taken by him, and irrespective of its truth, constitutes a default on the mandate of the law. Hence, it is respectfully submitted, the honourable court by sanctioning such a transaction through the impugned judgment has allowed others to flagrantly disregard the mandate of the relevant laws of the country, and record their financial transactions in a casual and misleading manner, without attracting any consequences.”