Will Imran measure up to repeated declarations for his accountability?

ISLAMABAD: Will Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan live up to his repetitive vociferous public declarations that he presents himself for accountability along with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on account of offshore companies?

The answer to this question will come when the premier’s legal team will argue in the Supreme Court, resuming its hearing on the offshore companies today (Monday), that Imran Khan and his number two Jehangir Tareen should also be included in the investigation and it should not be person-specific.

The PTI chief has innumerably announced at public forums that accountability should start from the prime minister and him first and should not be limited to Nawaz Sharif alone. The premier has formally requested the top court in writing that Imran Khan and Tareen should also face inquest in connection with their offshore shells. While he had volunteered his accountability by a judicial commission, the PTI chairman had also repeatedly stated that he should also be simultaneously probed.

In view of this stand, his legal czars are unexpected to oppose the other side’s plea that the inquiry should also include him and Tareen if he kept up his assertion.

However, if his lawyers argued against the acceptance of the premier’s plea, Imran Khan will be exposed for evading the accountability nut. It will then turn out that what he has been saying day in and day out was just gimmickry.

It is not clear whether or not the five-member panel of judges will take into consideration a letter of Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali that he had written while rejecting prime minister’s request to form a judicial commission. His reply had also set certain guidelines to be followed by the government.

One of them was that before forming any opinion as to the establishment of requisite commission of inquiry or otherwise, it is necessary to have the list of all individuals, families, groups, companies, etc., with their total number, along with some relevant particulars, against whom purported inquiry proceedings are to be held.

It is not known whether the bench will prepare such a list of all individuals, families, groups, companies, etc., for the one-judge judicial commission to investigate and whether it will confine the inquiry to just one man, Nawaz Sharif.

The chief justice had sought the precise list so that the investigation as requested by the government did not take years to conclude. Unless such information and particulars are provided and the issue of formation of commission under some proper legislation is reconsidered and resolved, no final response to the prime minister’s letter can be furnished, he had stated. The top judge had also pointed out that the formation of a forum under the 1956 act would only result in the constitution of a toothless commission, which will serve no useful purpose, except giving bad name to it.

Justice Jamali had further noted that the government’s proposed Terms of Reference (ToRs) are so wide and open ended that, prima facie, it may take years together for the commission to conclude its proceedings.

Meanwhile, the reply of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam to the allegation relating to offshore companies to be filed in the apex court was largely incorporated in the rejoinders submitted by her father and spouse Captain (r) Safdar when they handed over their responses to the highest judicial body.

But still she is required to separately give her answer to the charges levelled in Imran Khan’s petition. However, she is unlikely to come out with anything different from what the premier and her husband have already stated in their replies.

As far as the rejoinders of her two brothers, Hussain and Hassan, are concerned, they will also reiterate that Maryam has nothing to do with the offshore companies and has drawn no monetary benefit whatsoever from them as she is not entitled to any pecuniary gains.

In his reply, the premier said that as per his information Maryam neither is nor ever was the beneficial owner of the offshore companies - Nescoll, Nielson and Coomber Group. He held the view that he had not declared Maryam as his dependent in his tax returns for the tax year 2011; and none of his children are his dependents nor any of them has been declared so in his tax returns as well as the wealth statement filed in accordance with the applicable laws. The assets standing and held by him in Maryam’s name in the tax year 2011 were duly disclosed in the wealth statement at serial number 12 being the only appropriate place for such disclosures.

Safdar said in his rejoinder that his wife Maryam did not own any offshore company and she pays all taxes regularly. However, Imran Khan’s legal squad will emphasise that Maryam was the beneficial owner of the offshore companies as noted by the PanamaLeaks. Immediately after the scandal erupted in April, Hussain consistently argued that she was the trustee only for technical purposes and draws no benefits from these firms.

While the apex court opens hearing, there are two important steps where the reaction of the contesting parties will be extremely important. One of them is the ToRs while the other is the judge to be appointed as the one-man commission. Their reaction on both issues will determine whether or not the controversy lingering for the last seven months will be set at rest once and for all and whether or not the proceedings will be a smooth sailing or hit the roadblocks.