ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned as to whether any documents were available that could establish that the PTI had received funds from prohibited sources.
The remarks came as a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umer Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab resumed hearing of the petitions filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and General Secretary Jahangir Tareen for non-disclosure of assets, ownership of offshore companies, and foreign funding to the party.
The court asked Akram Sheikh – the petitioner’s counsel – whether he had any document that could prove that the PTI had received funds from prohibited sources.The chief justice observed that the respondent, Imran, had filed his declaration with the ECP that he had never received funds from prohibited sources.
Sheikh, however, contended that Imran had furnished a fake certificate before the ECP and, therefore, should be disqualified under Article 62 of the Constitution.However, the chief justice observed that the Political Party Order (PPO) 2002 did not envisage such a penalty for the submission of a fake certificate. He remarked that “the apex court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution decides cases on the basis of admitted facts.
The chief justice asked the petitioner’s counsel that he would have to establish his stance and prove that the affidavit filed by the PTI chief was bogus. Sheikh submitted that being a senior counsel of the apex court, he would have to protect his dignity as well as the apex court. He referred to the list of FARA wherein agents from abroad transferred funds to the PTI in Pakistan.
He said a total of $1.186 million were transferred from PTI California, USA by March 31, 2017, while some $2.3 million were collected from Texas during the year and $2 million were transferred to PTI. Till to date, they (PTI) did not contradict this amount, he added.
Sheikh contended that prohibited funds should be investigated, saying the court may constitute a JIT in this regard. “I am only saying that that it should be investigated.” He said it was a right of the nation to know that funds were received by the PTI were from multinational companies. “And it is on the record that the respondent had admitted accepting prohibited funds,” Sheikh submitted, adding that prohibited funds could be confiscated under the law.
He informed the court that the PTI received some $40,760 from foreign corporations. The court however, observed that there might be possibility that the funds might be established by the overseas Pakistanis.
The counsel, however, argued that he could bear the burden of obtaining the certificates of the corporations which had collected funds for PTI. During the hearing, the chief justice asked Naeem Bukhari, counsel for Imran, that he had not yet submitted related documents and passport in order to determine his status of being non-resident. Bukhari replied that he would provide so.
Sheikh also presented his arguments on the Niazi Services Limited (NSL). The court observed that Imran was the real owner of the company but not title holder He said to establish the money trail regarding funds needed to purchase the London apartment, Imran had attached various documents purportedly issued by financial institutions and others along with CMA No 5238/2017.
He, however, contended that the documents were photocopies and neither verified nor authenticated instruments. Internet search disclosed that the financial institutions did not even exist at present, he added.
“All the record produced by Imran is of a dubious nature,” Sheikh contended and added that the facts of the case clearly established that Imran had consistently made false and misleading statements in the declarations filed with the ECP in the nomination papers as well as in the income tax and wealth tax records.
The counsel contended that Imran was, therefore, clearly neither Sadiq nor Ameen nor a righteous person and “this fact is established from the admitted record that has been placed before the apex court.”
He said that the respondent Imran was not competent to remain a member of the National Assembly. Later, the court adjourned further the hearing of the case till today (Thursday).