ISLAMABAD: In another rejoinder filed before the Supreme Court, Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Hanif Abbasi on Saturday alleged that Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan believed that matters of veracity and integrity were like a cricket ball that could be swung in any direction of his choice, including a U-turn.

Mr Khan had adopted an extremely unusual attitude towards the requirements of stating the truth but all his earlier assertions supported by his sworn affidavits could not be twisted “in dimensions and directions different from his earlier pleadings”, argued Mr Abbasi in the fresh para-wise comments in response to the new concise statement filed by Mr Khan on Monday.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar is hearing the petition of Mr Abbasi seeking disqualification of PTI chief Imran Khan and secretary general Jahangir Tareen over non-disclosure of assets, existence of their offshore companies as well as the PTI being a foreign-aided party.

Moved through his counsel Akram Sheikh, Mr Abbasi highlighted in his comments that Mr Khan’s fresh application did not specifically indicate to what extent his (Mr Khan’s) original concise statement was being sought to be revised.

PML-N leader says PTI chief should be proceeded against for having submitted ‘false’ statements

The rules did not visualise that a revised concise statements could be filed because there could only be specific particularised amendments under the rules, Mr Abbasi argued.

Moreover Mr Khan’s concise statement was rife with glaring inconsistencies and lacunas, not only in juxtaposition to themselves but also with regards to the statements and documents already placed on record, Mr Abbasi said.

Therefore, the fresh application failed to provide a sufficient testimony to Mr Khan’s sagacity, honesty or righteousness rather indicate to the contrary, he alleged.

Thus the Supreme Court should reject the revised concise statement and Mr Khan should be proceeded against for having filed false statements sworn on affidavits before the court because it allegedly suggested that he was neither righteous nor sagacious nor honest in terms of Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution and Section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of People Act, Mr Abbasi argued.

Citing examples, he highlighted that in the case of offshore company — Niazi Services Limited (NSL) — Mr Abbasi alleged, Mr Khan was also shifting stances on the Banigala properties and the nature of his relationship with ex-wife Jemima Khan. Similarly, in the matter relating to foreign funding Mr Khan had taken the most unusual stance that, although money had been collected by the agents contrary to the stipulations of law, Mr Khan allowed only the “permissible” and “kosher” funds for use in Pakistan.

In this manner, Mr Khan was artificially trying to absolve his party regarding receipt and use of funds for purposes of the party abroad that had been collected.

Moreover Mr Khan had asserted in his application seeking amendments that “documents have become available in pieces, as the case has evolved or unfolded in dimensions and directions different from the earlier pleadings”.

But all his earlier assertions were supported by sworn affidavits and therefore could not be twisted contrary to earlier pleadings, Mr Abbasi emphasised.

The fresh assertion in the new application by Mr Khan that he had nothing to gain by non-disclosing to the authorities in Pakistan about the utilisation of 100,000 pounds was also not legally sustainable, Mr Abbasi argued adding that Mr Khan in his nomination papers for the Mianwali seat in elections of 2002 had declared the London flat as his asset.

Thus once the London flat was sold the nature of this asset changed from immovable property to liquidated cash. This converted form continued to be an asset of Mr Khan and funds available in the NSL account, beneficially owned by him, had to be declared in the same manner as the flat, in the declarations for the year 2003 and thereafter.

Alternatively, there was no legal weight in the assertion of Mr Khan that he had nothing to gain by not disclosing to the relevant authorities in Pakistan 100,000 pounds that was retained by NSL after the disbursement of part of the sale proceeds of the London apartment, Mr Abbasi stated.

This was because the question being currently adjudicated by the Supreme Court pertained to the disqualification of Mr Khan on account of making false declarations and consequently, falling short of the criteria laid out in Article 62 of the Constitution.

It did not depend upon whether the candidate in question gained anything as a result of the false declaration or not in view of the binding precedent of this principle in the July 28 Panama judgment in which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified.

The hearing will resume on Monday.

Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2017