ISLAMABAD - PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi has challenged that PTI chief Imran Khan has failed to prove and establish that 79,000 pounds were remitted by his former wife Jemima Khan.
Abbassi on Thursday filed a reply in response to the PTI chief’s civil miscellaneous application detailing bank transactions regarding the transfer of funds by Jemima.
On October 6, Imran submitted the CMA with the Supreme Court.
Abbasi urged the apex court to dismiss the documents, which Khan had submitted last week regarding the 79,000 pounds remitted by Jemima. He said that “debit advice’ and credit advice statements of Khan do not establish that incoming funds to Khan’s accounts are being remitted by Jemima”. The statements merely show that 79,000 pounds were lying in Khan’s account on May 26, 2003, he said.
Abassi filed reply through his counsel Muhammad Akram Sheikh contending that Khan in his letter dated April 18, 2003, addressed to Barclay Bank Private Limited instructed the bank to retain a sum of 100,000 pounds for the reasons best known to him.
He said Khan has not shown that there was any compulsion on him from any side. “If Khan had allocated 100,000 pounds to meet certain contingencies and the same had been retained for that purpose and utilized across a period of time, it does not mean that the 100,000 pounds had ceased to be an asset of Khan,” the reply said.
He contended that the flat had been declared to be an asset of Khan in nomination papers filed before the Election Commission of Pakistan for the year ending 30-6-2002. “Once the flat, which was an asset of Khan, was sold, its proceeds also continued to be an asset of Khan as he was the beneficial owner of the immovable property,” Sheikh submitted.
He submitted that Khan has attached excerpt of Jemima Khan's bank statement of Anglo Irish Bank to show receipt of GBP 562,415.
“The said bank statement, just like all other bank statements of foreign banks attached by the respondent No 1 during the course of the proceedings, fails to comply with the attestation and certification requirements laid down in Article 89 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 read with Section 4 of The Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1981,” the reply said.
Sheikh contended that the documents purported to be emails from Jemima and Taher Nawaz to Ashley Cox also bear no proof of authentication, and hence, could not be relied upon.
“In view of the foregoing discussion, it is patently obvious that the contents of the CMA in question, along with the documents appended to it, are baseless, unsubstantiated, and only a fabrication by Imran to fill the lacunas in his pleadings made before this court and financial transactions in question,” he submitted.
He said the documents neither stand on their own nor do they adequately substantiate the corresponding claims made by Khan in the enclosing CMA.
He prayed to the court that the CMA (6799/2017) along with the documents appended therein should be dismissed, disregarded and removed from the docket of this court on account of being unverified and unreliable.