SC to hear petition against Imran from May 3

Three-member bench headed by CJ Saqib Nisar to hear PML-N leader’s petition against PTI leaders’ offshore companies

ISLAMABAD: A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, will take up the petitions of a member of the ruling PML-N against the PTI chief Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen over alleged tax-evasion and offshore companies on May 3.

Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Umar Ata Bandiyal are the members of the bench. Muhammad Hanif Abbasi had filed the petitions against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan and Secretary General Jahangir Tareen under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

He alleged that Imran Khan had acquired funds from prohibited sources to fund the party’s political activities, including mobilization of party activists to engage in civil disobedience and destruction of state property. 

He further contended that Imran Khan, while submitting certificates to the Election Commission of Pakistan from 2011 to 2014, declared that no funds were obtained from prohibited sources.

Abbasi alleged that Imran Khan had willfully concealed incorporation of an offshore company of which he was a beneficial owner, adding that Khan also intentionally concealed investments made in real estate in Islamabad.

He further claimed thatKhan was involved in evasion of taxes, as he had not declared the sources of income and expenses. The PML-N leader also claimed that Tareen had misguided the ECP and the FBR by concealing details of his offshore company and submitting false declaration of assets of agricultural income while filing tax returns in 2010 and nomination paper in 2013.

Abbasi alleged that Tareen fraudulently overstated his agriculture income to the FBR and was involved in tax-evasion of agricultural income, as he had over-declared income from agricultural sources which was an attempt to unlawfully evade income tax.

He said it was a democratic and fundamental right of them that only constitutionally qualified and worthy individuals hold public offices, especially ones of high significance and influence, such as those held by the respondents.

He said the controversy involved in his petitions was time sensitive as the right to currently hold the membership of NA and qualification/disqualification thereof, of the respondents may be frustrated and rendered meaningless once their tenure expires.