Receipt of prohibited funds had to be established first: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that the PTI Chairman Imran Khan had given a false statement by benefiting from the Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2002 and declaring his London flat.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, heard the petition filed by the PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi.

The petitioner seeks disqualification of Imran Khan and Secretary General Jahangir Tareen for not disclosing assets, ownership of offshore companies and PTI being a foreign-aided party. Continuing his arguments, Muhammad Akram Sheikh, counsel for Hanif Abbasi, told the court that Imran Khan had claimed that he had availed himself of Tax Amnesty Scheme in 2002 and declared his London flat. 

The counsel contended that Imran could not avail himself of the benefit of the scheme as the London flat was not in his name.

He said Niazi Services Limited (NSL) that had the legal title of London flat was not an assesse in Pakistan. He said the immunity provided under the said scheme extended only to tax liability of an individual, and had no bearing on liability of an individual under other laws.

He said the NSL was constituted abroad but it benefited from the amnesty scheme meant for Pakistan. The chief justice asked Akram Sheikh as to who was the real beneficial owner of NSL, as Imran claimed he was neither a shareholder nor a part of any management.

Akram Sheikh submitted that the company was created by Imran Khan three decades ago and he could have winded it up after the sale of his London apartment but it was kept alive till 2015.

He said the judgment regarding the rent dispute of NSL reflects that Imran Khan received rent at the rate of GBP 34,800 per annum, which had not been declared by him anywhere in his statements.

He said the tenancy continued till May 2002, adding that the unpaid rent was receivable that was not mentioned as an asset in the nomination paper for 2002 election. “Hence, by virtue of mis-declaration of assets due to omission to disclose NSL, as well as utilizing the tax Amnesty Scheme as an owner of the flat, Imran Khan is not 'sadiq' and 'ameen',” Akram Sheikh contended.  He said Imran Khan did not declare an amount of 127,000 pounds in his affidavit. He said Imran Khan also received 208,000 pounds as rent of the London flat.

Akram Sheikh submitted that the matter pertaining to prohibited foreign funding received by the PTI be sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan for examination. Justice Umer Ata Bandyal however observed that the receipt of prohibited funds had to be established first.

He contended that the apex court hears and decides hundreds of cases daily; however, it was a very important case involving a political party. He pleaded the court to determine a policy with regard to receiving foreign funding by the political parties.

Akram Sheikh recalled that in the Benazir Bhutto case, an 11-judge bench of the apex court had ruled that every political party was bound to get its accounts audited by a well-reputed chartered accountant firm. He said the source of income of PTI was just donations.

During the hearing, the counsel for the ECP stated that the apex court could directly hand down any decision if it was proved that a political party was working against the ideology of Islam or Pakistan.

Muhammad Akram Sheikh contended that Imran Khan should be disqualified for not declaring a loan that he received from his former wife, Jemima, as an asset.  Justice Faisal Arab, however, asked Sheikh if a failure to declare a loan as an asset could lead to the application of Article 62 of the Constitution.

Akram Sheikh submitted that the Supreme Court had disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for not declaring a salary that he could have received from his son's company in its ruling in the Panama Paper’s case. 

At this, Justice Umer Ata Bandyal observed that since the Panama Papers case was related to the Sharif family's assets, the comparison was invalid. He also asked the counsel to read the verdict before commenting on it. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until mid-September.