How land was purchased first, money came later, SC asks Imran

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday asked Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan how it was possible that the money came later and the land was purchased earlier.

The apex court found inconsistency in the information provided by PTI chief Imran Khan pertaining to the money trail for purchasing his Banigala residence in the federal capital and put 14 questions before his counsel to answer on the next date of hearing i.e. May 30.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, resumed hearing into the petitions, filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and its Secretary General Jehangir Tareen over their alleged tax evasion.

“In order to search out the truth, we may conduct an inquiry and seek more record and will go to the bottom for the truth,” Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed during the course of hearing, adding that truth had much importance in the system.

Putting a volley of questions, the court asked Naeem Bukhari as to how Rashid Khan, the agent of Imran Khan, paid the seller nine months before having received the amount from Jemima Khan.

The court further directed the counsel to explain as to how it would be established that from where the money came to Rashid Khan’s account and how 95 kanals of land was transferred in Jemima’s name after divorce and why she was mentioned as the wife of Imran Khan in the documents. The court asked the counsel as to how he would reconcile the record.

The court asked the learned counsel for the PTI chief as to how a company of nine dollars could possess an asset of some 170,000 pounds sterling. The court also directed Naeem Bukhari to provide details pertaining to records of Jemima’s bank statement, as details regarding how she transferred the amount to Rashid’s account were missing.

The court further asked to explain as to how and why offshore companies were established, and what its status would be in the Pakistani law, and also tell as to whether disclosure of foreign assets were mandatory or not.

The court further asked the learned counsel to explain as to whether it was necessary to disclose foreign assets in 2002 or not and why it were not disclosed in the nomination papers.

Earlier, arguing before the court, Naeem Bukhari, counsel for PTI chief Imran Khan, contended that Niazi Services Limited (NSL) was not disclosed in Pakistan as he said that his client was of the view that it was merely a vehicle to place the flat under its ownership.

“Have you studied the Pakistani law under which one has to disclose his/her assets while filing wealth statements?” Justice Umer Ata Bundial, a member of the bench asked the counsel.

“No Pakistani citizen living abroad is required to disclose his assets,” Naeem Bukhari replied, but the chief justice asked him that the petitioner had termed his client not Sadiq and Amin for not disclosing his assets either in the income tax or nomination papers which he was required to do so.

“You did not disclose the properties neither in the asset statements nor in the income tax and wealth statements," the CJP asked adding that as per the law whether his client was required to disclose the Niazi Services Limited (NSL) in the income tax.

Naeem Bukhari replied that three shares were held by the three companies, hence not disclosing the NSL worth of nine pounds sterling did not make his client as dishonest. He further said that from 1983 to 2002, his client was not holding any office but was an ordinary citizen.

Referring to the purchase of Banigala property, Naeem Bukhari told the court that his client had purchased the property meant for his wife Jemima and his children as well and the issue of divorce had nothing to do with the property. “This is my wife's property and this is meant to be her and for her children,” Naeem Bukhari quoted his client as saying.

He said that properties were purchased in the name of wife, and it was no longer considered as benami as well. 

Meanwhile, the bench directed PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari to provide assistance over how offshore companies were being formed and what the motive was for owning one and adjourned the hearing until May 30.