ISLAMABAD: The counsel representing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that his client’s petition seeking disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan and the July 28 Panama Papers case verdict disqualifying Nawaz Sharif as prime minister were identical and, therefore, there could not be two judgements.

Counsel Mohammad Akram Sheikh contended that the five-judge SC bench had disqualified the former prime minister for non-disclosure of un-withdrawn receivables described as asset.

In the same fashion, he said, Mr Khan was also guilty of concealing his offshore company Niazi Services Limited (NSL) in his nomination papers for 2002 and 2013 elections, as well as not declaring 100,000 pounds retained in the NSL accounts that was also an asset. He argued that the present smaller bench could not overrule the principles laid down by the five-judge larger bench in the Panama Papers case.

“This petition [of Hanif Abbasi] is between the same parties which were involved in the Panama Papers case,” the counsel said, adding that the scale was in the hands of the court and everybody was waiting for the famous ‘Jahangiri justice’ that ensured equality of all before the law.

The three-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar closed the hearing with an observation that the ruling was not being reserved because the court might seek answer to any question that came to the mind of the judges at a later stage.

The court will take up Mr Abbasi’s petition seeking disqualification of PTI secretary general Jahangir Tareen on Wednesday (today).

PML-N leader’s lawyer argues Imran also guilty of concealing assets

On Tuesday, Naeem Bokhari, the counsel for the PTI chief, submitted to the Supreme Court a single-page document of Anglo Irish Bank showing the transfer of 562,000 pounds into the accounts of Mr Khan’s ex-wife Jemima and said he would file the same in a proper form later.

Meanwhile, Akram Sheikh cited the July 28 Panama Papers case judgement which stated: “Having failed to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from Capital FZE Jebel Ali, UAE, in his nomination papers for 2013 in terms of section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act 1976 (RoPA) and having furnished a false declaration under solemn affirmation, Nawaz Sharif was not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of RoPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and, therefore, he was disqualified to be a member of the parliament.”

He said the verdict had discarded the concept of even “noblest of all intentions” of someone or the “state of mind”, rather declared non-disclosure of assets as dishonesty, adding that the judgement had established that financial matters either between father and son or husband and wife had to be declared.

“Why not you start with the judgement of Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who was the senior judge, if you really want to rely upon the Panama [Papers case] judgement which was a unanimous but with five different opinions,” asked Justice Umar Ata Bandial, a member of the bench.

But the counsel said those were five different opinions and that he was quoting the order of the court under which Mr Sharif had been disqualified. None of the allegations of corruption levelled in the Panama Papers case helped disqualification of Sharif, rather these were being heard in the accountability court, he said.

The chief justice observed that the court still needed to discover the element of cheat, fraud or malpractice on part of Mr Khan.

Akram Sheikh regretted that the court had provided Mr Khan’s lawyer 18 opportunities to furnish documents to fill the deficiency. He asked the court to carefully scrutinise the documents furnished by Mr Khan so that no document, not above suspicion, was relied upon for rendering the final verdict.

The counsel argued that NSL was a corporate entity created not only for the purpose of buying Draycott London flat but also other earnings of Mr Khan like book royalties, and the earnings from cricket matches also came into the accounts of NSL which remained alive till 2015.

He said Mr Khan admitted that the fund remitted by Jemima was a loan but it was not mentioned in the section of liabilities in the nomination form of 2002 submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan. Since a loan once obtained became the property of the borrower, using it for the purchase of Banigala land entailed that it belonged to Mr Khan, the counsel said, adding that Mr Khan had falsely declared that it “belongs to wife” in his nomination form for 2003 elections.

Mr Khan subsequently took the stance that he had purchased the property for Jemima and, therefore, it had been transferred in her name, the counsel said, adding that it constituted a gift to Jemima and should have been declared in column 2(j)(i) of the nomination papers as an asset, the failure of which amounted to misdeclaration.

He argued that Mr Khan’s statement fell within the mischief of Section 12(2)(f) of RoPA and, therefore, he was not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of the same law and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, adding that shifting stances of Mr Khan starkly belied his own claim that the fund coming from Jemima was only a “short-term loan” or “bridge finance” to purchase the Banigala properties.

Published in Dawn, October 4th, 2017