Commencing his arguments on behalf of Hanif Abbasi in the matter, Advocate Muhammad Akram Sheikh raised a number of questions for court's decision. He argued that Imran Khan has made false declaration under provisions of the Political Parties Order 2002 that no funds from any source prohibited under the law were received by the party.
Sheikh argued that Imran Khan has failed to disclose assets and he concealed an offshore company while submitting his statements of assets and liabilities, therefore he is liable to be declared disqualified from being elected or remain member of the Parliament by the apex court under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
Abbasi' counsel pleaded that Imran Khan is guilty of offences of 'corrupt practice' and 'tax evasion' by declaring that Banigala property is a gift from his former wife in his 'statements of assets and liabilities' whereas, admittedly she was only a benamidar of the said property. He requested the court to decide whether mis-declarations, misstatements and contradictory regarding Banigala property provide grounds for Imran Khan's disqualification from the Parliament under Article 62(1)(f) of Constitution and whether Imran Khan misused the tax amnesty scheme and played a fraud on public exchequer.
Sheikh alleged that Imran Khan, as chairman of the PTI, had appointed PTI USA Liability Limited Company (LLC) as its agent under Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) for collection of foreign funds not only from individuals but also from corporate entities.
He said that the LLC has seven directors and out of them two are Pakistanis whereas five are US nationals who had collected funds from US citizens and companies in violation of Article 6(3) of PPO therefore he is liable to be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) and 63(1)(p) of Constitution for intentionally making a false declaration.
Sheikh said that Imran Khan cannot claim to be ignorant of the activities of PTI USA LLC, adding that Sheikh argued that Niazi Services Limited (NSL) was incorporated and registered on May 10, 1983 under the law of Jersey Island. The counsel apprised the bench that Imran Khan has admitted that the NSL was incorporated to purchase a flat in London, saying on the other hand the NSL is not mentioned in Imran Khan's asset and liabilities statement before the ECP.
Sheikh alleged that Imran Khan gave contradictory statements regarding the ownership of the flat in London, adding that at one point he called himself the absolute owner of the flat but another point of time he called himself the beneficial owner of the flat.
The counsel said that during the year 2000, Imran Khan as an individual availed tax amnesty scheme regarding the flat, adding how the PTI chairman could avail the amnesty scheme as an individual if the offshore companies owned the flat in UK.
Sheikh further raised question as to why Imran Khan paid tax on a property, which was owned by the three offshore companies, saying as per claim of Imran Khan he bought the flat to save tax then why did he later 'voluntarily' declared the same flat and paid tax on it.
He argued that about Banigala land, Imran Khan has made five divergent mis-declarations because Khan in his 'Statements of Assets and Liabilities' from 2014 to 2015 before the ECP stated that the land was gifted to him by his wife. However, his former wife Jemima Khan stated in a power of attorney of April 12, 2005 that Imran Khan purchased the property in her name and it was a 'benami transaction.
Responding to a member of the bench Justice Faisal Arab' query that as to why the petitioner approached the apex court for Imran Khan's disqualification from the Parliament, Sheikh submitted that PTI was receiving funds from the prohibited sources.
Justice Umar Atta Bandial observed that allegation of funding from the prohibited sources would have to be proved, to which the counsel submitted that he can produce written agreement of Imran Khan in this regard. Sheikh pleaded that through the PTI USA LLC, an amount of $ 90,000 was remitted to Pakistan on October 30, 2015 and submitted that those who funded were not Pakistanis.
Responding to another query of the bench that no documents show that PTI has been funded by foreigners, the petitioner's counsel submitted that due to limited sources, his clients has furnished the material as evidence which is available on the internet. Sheikh informed the court that matter relating to foreign funding to the PTI is adjudication before the ECP, to which the PTI counsel Anwar Mansoor apprised the bench that Islamabad High Court has issued directives to the Commission for a speaking order in the matter.
Justice Umar Atta Bandial raised a question whether the current matter could be filed before an election tribunal, to which Sheikh submitted that the government can file a reference before the apex court.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar asked the counsel for the PML-N leader that under which law it is mandatory to show the details of properties or foreign assets for non-residents.
Sheikh said that Imran Khan was no more non-resident after filing tax return in Pakistan, to which Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that the petitioner's counsel has not cited any law to substantiate his argument. However, Sheikh submitted that he is not proficient in tax matters, saying after consulting a tax lawyer he can submit response of the query to the court. Justice Faisal Arab said while addressing the PML-N counsel that he would also have to submit the law under which it was mandatory to declare foreign assets while Imran Khan had filed declaration before the ECP.
Later, hearing of the matter was adjourned till May 8.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017