ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court has sought the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) foreign funding record from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) by May 30.
In pursuant to the direction, an official of the ECP appeared before the three-member bench and said that on the application of Akbar S Babar, the ECP has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case of political parties pertaining to foreign funding. He, however, said that the PTI has challenged the jurisdiction in the IHC and it is still pending there.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar directed the ECP official to file details of the cases pending in ECP under Article 3(6) of Political Parties Order.
The bench was hearing the application of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML) leader Hanif Abbasi PTI chief Imran Khan and General Secretary Jehangir Tareen for having offshore companies and not declared them in their tax returns.
Naeem Bukhari, appearing on behalf of Imran, told the court that since 1981 his client had been filing tax returns. He prayed to the court to summon his client’s tax returns filed since 1981 in sealed envelope.
The counsel said that there was no mention of London flat in Imran Khan’s tax return of 1983 as at that time the financial experts told him it was not mandatory to declare the foreign assets in tax returns, which was purchased with the earnings of the cricket played in Britain and Australia.
Bukhari said that in September 2000, Imran under a tax amnesty scheme declared the flat and also paid its tax. He said that Imran was elected member Parliament in 2002 for the first time and at that time, he had declared his London flat in the nomination papers. Upon this, Akram Sheikh, representing Hanif Abbasi, got up from his seat and said that Imran Khan first time contested the election in 1997 but could not win. He said that he would like to see Imran’s nomination papers of 1997. The chief justice told Shiekh that “your case is that Imran Khan had not declared his offshore company and flat in his nomination papers for elections 2002”. He, however, said if needed then they would summon the record.
Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that the petitioner is changing the goal post. He asked the PTI chief counsel to provide documentary evidence that Niazi Services Limited did not own any other property except the flat. The counsel replied that Imran in his affidavit has stated that he has no offshore company other than Niazi Services Limited, adding the purpose of it was tax exemption because he was not the citizen of the UK.
The chief justice said that Sheikh’s case is that Imran had not declared the Niazi Services Company in his tax returns and nomination papers in 2002, therefore, he is no more Sadiq and Ameen. Bukhari argued at that time it was not a requirement to declare assets purchased through foreign earnings. “If that had been the case, then there is a mistake,” he said. He contended that on the basis of that it could not be declared that Imran is not Sadiq and Ameen.
Bukhari said that the money for the Bani Gala land was paid in six instalments, while the last instalment was paid on January 23, 2003. However, Justice Faisal Arab said: “But according to your documents for the purchase of the land, Jemima Khan transferred money in the account of Rashid Khan in July 2003”. The chief justice asked the counsel that “according to you, Rashid Khan’s role was of a postman and he did not pay the amount from his own pocket”. The chief justice observed that the last instalment of the Bani Gala land was paid in January but Jemima Khan transferred the money in Rashid’s account in July 2003 and he had paid the money to the land owner.
The chief justice asked when the divorce took place between Imran and Jemima. The counsel replied in June 2004. He said there was no conflict between Jemima and Imran, adding Jemima was a rich lady but Imran was not interested in her property.
Justice Umar Atta Bandial asked the counsel why did he not say that Imran took money from his wife, which he returned. Bukhari said that the relationship between the two was such that they considered this issue serious. “It was the matter between a husband and a wife and should not land in the court.” Justice Bandial said that if all the documents have been provided then they would examine them. Bukhari said that it would be established through the revenue record.
The case is adjourned till May 30.