Panama case vs tax evasion case against Imran

Islamabad

Marked similarities and dissimilarities between activities in regard to the previous Supreme Court hearings on the Panama case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children, and current proceedings on concealment of sources of income and tax evasion charges against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and his Secretary General Jehangir Tareen became tellingly visible from day one.

One, there was no presser from PTI spokesmen before or after the day’s hearing, which was a clear departure from the past practice aggressively followed by them during the proceedings on the Panama case for a long time.

However, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stuck to the exercise like before. Petitioner Hanif Abbasi and another party leader Daniyal Aziz held a joint presser before the proceedings. However, it was not approved by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar.

Two, Imran Khan himself did not attend the important hearing while in the Panama case there was not a single day when he was not conspicuous with his presence in the courtroom, being fully attentive to the going-on.

A likely reason behind withholding of comments by the PTI leaders including Imran Khan on the day’s development was that they did not want to publicize the case containing serious allegations against their top leaders.

Three, previously it was a five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa that heard the Panama case whereas now it is the three-judge panel that is seized with the proceedings against Imran Khan and Tareen. The plea for making a larger bench was not accepted.

Four, one similarity is that the earlier bench held day-to-day hearing and had announced at the very outset that it would proceed like this. The present panel is also holding proceedings on daily basis.

Five, the five justices had also not approved several daily news conferences on the court premises, but they stopped short of restricting this activity saying that they did not want to curb the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

Six, previously the Sharif family and the PML-N leaders described the accusations against them as concocted and downright lies. Now, Imran Khan is saying the same as far as the allegations against him are concerned.

Seven, the PTI tried hard to cause maximum hurt to the prime minister and his party during the Panama hearings and now the PML-N is retaliating and attempting to do the same to Imran Khan and Tareen.

The chief justice questioned as to why those not related to the case are speaking about it. He sought settlement of rules in this connection; asked PTI and PML-N leaders not to give any comment regarding the proceedings outside the court and said this tradition should be curtailed and that counsel for parties could address the media to explain the case.

It appears that the petition was drafted in a hurry and that is why it failed to make certain institutions respondents. However, Justice Saqib Nisar said the court can make any individual or institution party in the case. Similarly, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) can also be made a respondent when needed.

Abbasi’s counsel Akram Sheikh argued that Imran Khan is not loyal to Pakistan because between 2010 to 2013 he received $2.3 million in foreign funding using his party’s name. This is prohibited under the Political Parties Order 2002 and Article 17 of the constitution, he pressed.

Sheikh said that Imran Khan was no more “Sadiq” and “Ameen” and his loyalty to the State was also compromised as he gave a statement before Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that he did not get fund from prohibited sources. He pleaded that the PTI chief formed an offshore company -- Niazi Service Limited -- in 1982 but did not disclose it in his nomination papers or tax documents. He gave four versions regarding the purchase of land in Bani Gala Islamabad where his house now stands, and each of them is contradictory, it was emphasized.

Imran Khan has sought dismissal of the petition against him. His lawyer Naeem Bokhari dubbed the allegations against his client as baseless and said Abbasi filed this plea to show his loyalty to the prime minister and wants to malign him to please the premier and to show that he stands with Nawaz Sharif in the Panama case.

The lawyer conceded that Imran Khan owned his offshore company, which was since non-existent as it has been closed. The PTI chief’s two sisters were its directors, he said. Moreover, a reference on the same issue against him has already been dismissed by the ECP.