LAHORE - PTI Chairman Imran Khan concealed facts about the money and assets he owned and the land he purchased in Bani Gala, PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi says in the rejoinder he recently submitted to the Supreme Court.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar is seized with petitions seeking disqualification of the PTI chief and others for allegedly not disclosing assets and ownership of offshore companies and the PTI being a foreign-funded party.

Through his counsel Akram Sheikh, Abbasi said that Khan’s claim that he had nothing to gain by not disclosing GBP 100,000 was not legally sustainable. He said in his nomination papers for Mianwali seat in elections of 2002 that he had declared his London flat as his asset. And once the London flat was sold, the nature of this asset changed from immovable property to liquidated cash, Abbasi said. This converted form continued to be an asset of Khan and funds available in the NSL account, but he did not declare his assts in his 2003 declaration, Abbasi said in the rejoinder.

Abbasi said Khan made false declarations, but falling short of the criteria laid out in Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan does not depend upon whether the candidate in question gained anything as a result of the false declaration or not. According to statement of accounts attached with the Revised Concise Statement, Khan owned GBP 99,702.78 on the period ending June 30, 2003. Similarly, on June 30, 2004, he owned GBP 33,412.50, said Abbasi. However, these facts were not disclosed by Khan in his statement filed before the ECP during the said periods.

He said that in the Nawaz Sharif case non-declaration before the ECP was treated as a matter of strict liability and no excuses or explanations were sought or accepted. Therefore, the petitioner said that Khan’s excuses regarding utilisation of the retained funds in various paragraphs of the Revised Concise Statement were untenable.

He said Khan was a liar as on the one hand he stated he had been informed that nothing in the retained funds was receivable by him and on the other the letter dated April 18, 2003, addressed to the manager of Barclays Bank disclosed that retention of funds was not imposed upon him, but was an arrangement conveniently agreed to by himself. Even otherwise, funds retained for a specific application did not cease to be beneficially owned by Khan merely because they had been retained to meet certain contingencies, he said.

Abbasi said there was a contradiction in the statement of Khan about GBP 562,415.54 given to Jemima on April 18, 2003 as refund of money sent by her to Rashid Ali Khan and payment to the architect.

He said now Khan claims that he has bank accounts in Al-Falah Bank and Allied Bank, which were local and foreign currency accounts. However, this vague and generalised statement does not absolve him of his liability for failure to disclose his Account No. 02870474 in his wealth statement as well as his nomination forms for the years 2002-2003, which came to light inadvertently when Khan sought to prove the source of a remittance of GBP 79,000.

Moreover, he said, Khan shifted his stance even regarding the outcome of the litigation undertaken by NSL against its defaulting tenant in UK. Previously, in his sworn affidavit Khan claimed that the UK courts made an award in favour of NSL and against the tenant, however, it could not be recovered from the tenant. He alleged that Khan did not file his statement of assets and liabilities for the year ending June 2007, which constitutes a violation of Section 42-A, read with Section 78 and Section 82 of the Representation of People's Act, 1976.

About purchase of Bani Gala land, Abbasi said Khan claimed that he bought it for himself and Jemima Khan remitted funds for the land as a loan. He has made no reference that any land was being purchased for the benefit of Jemima Khan, he said, adding that the entire tenor was that Khan was purchasing land for himself but in the name of his wife.

Therefore, he modified his earlier stance that he purchased the property for Jemima and their children. The petitioner prayed the court to disqualify him over his contradictory and false statements and also due to conducting himself in a dishonest, non-sagacious and profligate manner, even before the court, besides willfully concealing and camouflaging his assets and wealth.