ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif solely for not declaring assets (receivables) and not on the grounds of misapprehension and absence of intention to deceive.

Akram Sheikh, counsel for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi, stated this in an application, filed before the apex court on Monday, highlighting discrepancies in various pleadings of Imran Khan.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, will resume the hearing of Hanif Abbasi’s petition against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan and General Secretary Jehangir Tareen on Tuesday (today).

The non-declaration by Imran Khan in the present case has 100 percent resemblance with the grounds on which Nawaz Sharif was disqualified in the Panama Papers case, Sheikh said.

In Hanif Abbasi’s petition against Imran Khan, the court thinks Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is applicable only if it is proven that the PTI chief had received corruption money. “This is not an acceptable plea in view of the Panamagate judgment,” contended Sheikh.

He said the former prime minister was disqualified only for not declaring his salary from his son’s company.

“The mere fact of non-declaration of an asset was held to be proof of dishonesty to justify removal of Nawaz Sharif from the National Assembly under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution,” Sheikh said.

He said Imran’s stance was that he was justified in not declaring in his returns before the Election Commission of Pakistan for the years ending 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2003 the funds beneficially held in bank accounts of NSL, as 100,000 pounds were being earmarked for litigation expenses relating to the London flats.

Sheikh said earmarking any funds to meet a future contingency does not mean that such funds cease to be the asset of their beneficial owner.

He argued that in CMA No 7012/2017 (Imran’s petition) paragraph 7(b) it had been stated that only 25,000 pounds had actually been paid to the solicitors representing the NSL.

The PTI chief’s plea that since the declarations had been filed before the ECP for the years ending June 30, 2002, and June 30, 2003, relating to an old election could not be the basis for his de-seating does not assert a correct legal position because in 2013 SCMR 1655, an MNA was disqualified for the elections held in the year 2013 although the declaration pertained to the elections held in 2008.

He said Imran’s defence that failure to make correct declaration before the ECP was due to bona fide mistakes, lack of proper advice and that he had nothing to gain from his non-declaration is not available in the five-member final judgment given in the Panama Papers case disqualifying ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, Sheikh said. In that case, he was disqualified only because of his failure to make the required declaration, the PML-N leader’s lawyer said. No plea of mistake, misapprehension, absence of intention to deceive and that the declarant had nothing to gain from non-declaration could be considered as an excuse, Sheikh said.