Abbasi sought disqualification of both the PTI leaders from the membership of National Assembly on the grounds of alleged tax-evasion and offshore companies. Commencing arguments before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on behalf of PML-N leader, Advocate Muhammad Akram Sheikh contended that his client is intended to make Chief Election Commissioner and the federation through Ministry of Interior as respondents in the case. Sheikh alleged that the PTI is a foreign funded party and only the Ministry of Interior could do the investigation outside the country, adding that instead of the ECP he mistakenly wrote 'Commissioner Islamabad' in his petition and requested the bench for correction.
To which the bench granted permission to make the ECP as respondent but dismissed the request to make Ministry of Interior as the respondent and dispose of Abbasi's application to this extent. At this point Naeem Bukhari, PTI counsel raised to speak but the Chief Justice asked him to wait for his turn. Akram Sheikh said in his arguments that the PTI is foreign-funded party and its chairman Imran Khan has applied for the registration of Liability Limited Company (LLC), Texas, and requested the US relevant department to consider it as an agent of PTI Pakistan for the transfer of funds.
To which Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar asked the counsel whether he wanted to say that the individuals can fund but not the companies. Responding to the Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, the PML-N leader's counsel submitted that petition under Article 184(3) of Constitution is in the nature of quo warranto and he urged the court to deal the petition in hand like the Panama papers case as it was filed at the same time with other petitions.
He argued that section 6 of Political Parties Order 2002 puts complete prohibition, while Section 2(c) defines what a foreign funded party is. He said over $ 2.3 million were collected by the PTI. Sheikh alleged that Imran Khan has filed false statement and affidavit before the Election Commission of Pakistan that the party is not foreign-funded and does not take money from prohibited sources.
Therefore he has not acted as truthful and trustworthy. He has entered into dangerous arena of loyalty and patriotism, Sheikh added. He said Khan is hit by Article 17(3) of Constitution read with the section 6(3) of Political Parties Order therefore he should be disqualified as Article 63(1)(p) applies on him. Akram Sheikh argued those who sent funds to PTI include two Pakistanis and five foreign nationals, to which Chief Justice observed those who sent money may be Pakistanis but could have the citizenship of other country.
Abbasi' counsel contended that question is of the loyalty which has been discussed in the dual nationality case, adding after obtaining the US citizenship, one does not remain Pakistani. He argued that Imran Khan claimed himself to be substantial owner of the offshore company Niazi Services Limited, while Niazi Services Limited is owned for another three offshore companies.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said that the bench will examine its effect at later stage and questioned as to whether it is an admitted fact. The Chief Justice inquired if there is any bar in Pakistani law that a Pakistani could not purchase property abroad, adding whether there is any bar in the foreign law that Pakistani can't obtain property in that country.
Akram Sheikh said, "Our laws are extra-territorial. We may acquire the property but under the law we are bound to declare them in tax returns, wealth tax and the nomination papers." He said if a person obtains property but does not declare it then there are consequences of it. He said Imran Khan became tax return filer in 1982. He created the Niazi Service Company in 1982 but did not disclose it in 1983 and afterwards in the tax returns and nomination papers.
Responding to the bench query, the counsel submitted that Imran Khan entered into an agreement of purchasing 305 kanals of land in village Mohra Noor, Islamabad. He submitted that Khan has to explain as the agreement was signed on March 13, 2002 between Muhammad Ayub and Imran Khan, adding the PTI chief has given three versions about this issue.
Sheikh further pleaded that Khan said before the ECP that Banigala property was gifted to him by his ex-wife. During the course of hearing, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar warned the people discussing the case in media, saying if the verbal order will be disregarded then consequences would follow. Later, hearing of the matter was adjourned till May 04.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017