ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) was informed on Friday that the shifting of stances by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan regarding utilisation of 100,000 pound to acquire Banigala property was a clear case of misstatement which fell in category of disqualification under Article 62(1) (f).
Petitioner PML-N leader Muhammad Hanif Abbasi seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan submitted his reply in the application filed by Imran Khan the other day in the Supreme Court seeking amendment to his concise statement.
Naeem Bokhari, counsel for Imran Khan the other day filed an application with the Supreme Court in the petitions filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi seeking disqualification of Imran Khan and PTI Secretary General Jehangir Tareen for non-declaration of their assets and ownership of offshore companies. He sought amendment to his concise statement he had filed earlier with the apex court. The apex court had asked Muhammad Akram Sheikh, counsel for Hanif Abbasi to submit his reply in response to Imran Khan’s application.
On Friday, Muhammad Akram Sheikh while submitting the reply on behalf of the petitioner Hanif Abbasi, submitted that Imran Khan while shifting stances regarding utilisation of 100,000 pound to acquire Banigala property was a clear case of misstatement which fell in category of Article 62(1)(f) hence he should be disqualified.
The reply stated that the position earlier taken qua the remaining almost 100,000 pound retained by NSL in 2003 was based on memory, incorrect advice, absence of the requisite record and lack of documentary information.
Hanif Abbasi however, contended that reliance on wrong advice was never an acceptable excuse. Remedy lay in proceedings against the adviser rather than seeking to escape liability before a court of law.
Memory and lack of due diligence were absolutely false pleas which were not tenable before a court of law, the reply stated, adding that the applicant (Imran Khan) had been making categorical assertions regarding the matter, supported by sworn affidavits, and it was clear case of misstatement which fell in category of Article 62(1)(f).
It was further submitted that on the basis of the pleadings filed and the stance adopted by the applicant regarding the London Flat, it was evident that the applicant had made false declarations before the ECP and false averments before this court.
Hanif Abbasi said that Imran Khan had adopted the position that the ECP was correctly informed about assets and liabilities of the applicant, as on June 30 of each year. “This is clearly a false assertion as the London Flats were declared as an asset of the applicant as on 30.6.2002 as per the nomination form filed for elections in 2002 from NA-71(Mianwali)”, Hanif Abbasi claimed.
As regards the flat, Hanif Abbasi said that the applicant had clearly admitted in paragraph 18 of the concise statement in respect of underlying asset (London Flat) he was always the beneficial owner.
“Since this flat was admittedly an asset of the applicant, it is evident that, after conversion of this asset into cash after its sale, the cash equivalent would also be an asset of the applicant (Imran Khan), Hanif Abbasi submitted.
He further contended that in the application, Imran Khan had stated that 100,000 pound remained in NSL to meet the cost and judgment in favour of the tenant of the London Flat. Retention of money, belonging to a person, to meet some contingency did not mean that the money ceased to be an asset of that person. In fact, an interesting revelation from the proposed revised concise statement was that only 25,000 pound were paid to the solicitor representing NSL.
The shifting stances by the applicant, as being adopted now in the proposed concise statement, and also relating to acquisition of the Banigala property were reckless as regards commitment to veracity and truthfulness, especially when appearing before a court of law, Abbasi submitted.
He contended that the applicant repeatedly made allegations against others alleging lack of probity, however, his own conduct showed that he had been the most casual about these values and was neither righteous nor sagacious in terms of Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution and section 231 of the Election Act 2017.
He prayed to the apex court that the application filed by Imran Khan, seeking amendment to his concise statement might be dismissed.