SC concludes Imran’s disqualification case after 66-hour long arguments

ISLAMABAD: The country’s apex court Tuesday concluded PTI chairman Imran Khan’s disqualification case after 66 hours-long-arguments presented by counsels of both parties in 33 hearings of 335 days.

The three-judge bench of the apex court hearing PML-N leader, Abbasi’s petition which seeks the disqualification of PTI chief Imran Khan and secretary general Jahangir Khan Tareen over non-disclosure of assets, existence of offshore companies owned by Imran and Tareen.

“Naeem Bokhari Sb [counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan] has yet to answer some important questions—though we conclude the hearing—but not reserving the judgment [until conclude hearing into Jahangir Tareen case]—will continue to ask questions, if feel necessary,” observed Chief Justice Saqib Nisar.  

“We remained quite handicapped. Bokhari Sb has yet to provide some documents to justify 6% to 7% money trail matters—some assets of Niazi Services Limited were also not brought on the record,” observed the Chief Justice.

Only the time will tell what will be the outcome of this case after concluding hearing into Mr Tareen case—secondary part of this case (Hanif Abbasi Vs Imran Khan & Hanif Abbasi Vs Jahangir Tareen) this month.

But many lawyers find some genuine similarities in the intricacies which may threaten political future of PTI chief Imran Khan.    

On the final day of hearing, an interesting situation created in the Courtroom No-I when worthy judges were searching for Naeem Bokhari (counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan) who were not present in the court. It took him 65 minutes after judges asked the concern to trace him. This correspondent witnessed that it was Anwar Mansoor Khan who ensured the court that Mr Bokhari would be here after a while.

It this another important case of Pakistan’s history counsels of both parties have presented over 3500 voluminous materials (pages) in some 33 hearings which lasted for some 66 hours in the apex court.

PTI Chairman’s ex wife Jemima Khan was named over 151 times by judges and counsels. She remained in focus in this case as the ‘Qatari Letter’ was focused in the Panama Papers case.

Judges asked around 170 striking questions from both parties where they try to find similarities attached to Panama case.

The central point in this case remained: How did Mr Khan accumulate millions of dollars in the West as cricketer, and through which channels the money was transferred to Pakistan in 1980s to help him build Bani Gala Villa?

Why did Imran Khan not declare his offshore company in declarations submitted with the Election Commission of Pakistan?

Reference of Panama Papers case was also given more than three dozen times by the petitioner's counsel in this case.

This correspondent witnessed proceedings of both cases—Paanama Papers and Imran Khan Cases in the apex court which heard Panama case for over 126 days where top legal brains consumed around 111 precious hours of judges in 35 hearings.

On July 28, a five-judge bench ruled that Sharif was no longer qualified to hold the office of prime minister for concealing his “receivable assets” at the time of his elections in 2013.

Similar arguments were presented by Akram Sheikh who claimed that the ‘Respondent No-I’ committed such kind of the alleged mis-declaration in this case.

But Mr Sheik, like his opponent Naeem Bokhari, perhaps could not completely convince the judges the way he wanted for. Naeem Bokhari produced a plethora of documents including Ashley’s letter, different land agreements, disputed documents, some evidentiary documents of money trail, invoices of charges paid by Jemima Khan and a couple of new affidavits of her, Rashid Khan, and many others.

Many striking similarities were witnessed in the Courtroom No-I during Panama case when Sharifs’ counsels — Salman Akram Raja, Khawaja Haris, Shahid Hamid, Salman Aslam Butt, Makhdoom Ali Khan and PTI’s lawyers — Naeem Bokhari, Hamid Khan, etc — presented their arguments. Perhaps Mr Bokhari gave his best to defend his client.

The petitioners and respondents focused on Articles 62, 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69 and 184(3) in Imran Khan case while parties focused on Articles 62, 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69 and 184(3),185, 187, 224 and 248 of the Constitution in Panama case.

Neither Mr Khan, nor any other top ranking party leader attended a single hearing in this case, while PTI Chairman spent 94 hours in the courtroom by attending 32 of 35 proceedings of Panama case. Similarly, ex Premier Nawaz Sharif and his children did not attend a single hearing in Panama case. Akram Sheikh, counsel for Hanif Abbasi, found striking contradictions in statements of Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen made before the SC perhaps similar contradictions were found in Sharifs’ replies submitted before judges in Panama case. Naeem Bokhari did not cite a single case study before the court which requested him to refer to some case studies in response to Akram Sheikh’s arguments.

As the apex court concludes hearing into Mr Tareen case, perhaps by next week, all eyes will be set on Chief Justice to announce order into this case.