A three-member bench led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar was hearing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi's plea seeking disqualification of Imran Khan and party's General Secretary Jehangir Khan Tareen over alleged tax evasion and receiving foreign funding for the party.
Resuming arguments before the bench, the counsel for Khan, Syed Naeem Bokhari, contended that the court has sought response over the consequences about non-declaration of an amount of GBP 75,000 in Barkley Bank as an asset by Imran Khan before Election Commission of Pakistan, amid verification of transaction of the amount from one bank account to another.
Bokhari submitted that it is only the jurisdiction of the Federal Board of Revenue to examine the issue of non-declaration of assets instead of the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Responding to the query of Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar about status of an amount of GBP 75,000 as an asset of Imran Khan, Bokhari said the amount was not an asset of his client.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar remarked that without mentioning any gift amount Imran Khan had submitted a written reply in the current matter that he himself paid an amount of Rs 6.5 million as first installment to purchase the Banigala land.
Submitting in response to Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar's query what made Imran Khan to announce gift money from his former wife, Bokhari reiterated that any amount transaction between husband and wife falls under privileged communication which is totally different from a bank transaction.
To which, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar asked Bokhari to let the court know just about channel of transferring amount from one bank account to another.
One of the a members of the bench, Justice Umar Atta Bandial, observed that the court just intended to examine the channel of the transaction and made it clear that the matter in hand has nothing to do with the tax or accounting issue, adding that the current case is not against Imran Khan for utilizing amount from national kitty.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar remarked that the court has no parameter to examine intentions of anybody but it is obvious that an action interprets what the intention behind was, adding that the court would have to get assistance of a lawyer to examine the petitioners' allegation that Imran Khan purchased the Benami property with an intent to evade tax.
However, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar plainly observed that Imran Khan would have to prove the channel for transaction of money from bank account of Jemima Goldsmith to his account, saying three bank transactions have been provided so far whereas Imran Khan is supposed to provide verified copies of all rest of the bank transactions.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar further remarked that Imran Khan would have to satisfy the court by providing documents to substantiate through which channel the amount was transferred from Niazi Services Limited to the Irish account of Jemima Goldsmith.
Bokhari pleaded that actually the amount which his client had not declared as an asset before the Election Commission was an asset of the Niazi Service Limited, saying Jemima Goldsmith has verified the receipt of the amount in her account about which she will provide a bank statement.
Bokhari apprised the bench of two letters of Imran Khan to Jemima Goldsmith relating to transaction of the amount, to which the counsel for Hanif Abbasi raised objection saying that the respondent's counsel is producing letters of 2003 after completion of arguments in the current case.
However, Bokhari immediately said that he had replaced another lawyer in the matter; otherwise, he would have produced all the documents well in time.
Bokhari submitted the copies of emails of Jemima Goldsmith about verification of the account transactions, to which Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar returned the papers to Bokhari, saying the court will not retain the same.
Syed Naeem Bokhari sought time from the court in order to establish contact with his client's former wife Jemima Goldsmith for verification of transactions.
Later, granting another opportunity to Bokhari for provision of verified copies of transactions, the court adjourned the case till October 03.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017