A look at ‘striking similarities’ between SC proceedings

ISLAMABAD: There seems to be striking similarities in the intricacies, but it is yet to be seen whether the outcome would be the same. Legal grounds on which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted by the Supreme Court this summer may threaten political future of many legislators, Imran Khan of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in particular.

How did Imran Khan accumulate millions in the West as cricketer, and through which channels the money was transferred to Pakistan in 1980s to help him build a palatial residential villa atop a mountain overlooking Islamabad?

These are the questions Mr. Khan’s lawyer Naeem Bokhari has been struggling to answer during the past 320 days as the SC resumed hearing of a case seeking Mr Khan’s disqualification on the similar grounds ex-premier Sharif was removed.

The apex court heard Panama case for over 126 days, with the country's top legal brains having consumed around 111 precious hours of judges in 35 hearings.

Similarly, 320 days have passed since Chief Justice Saqib Nisar took up PTI Chairman Imran Khan and PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi’s case, with top legal brains Akram Sheikh and Naeem Bokhari,having already consumed 56 hours of the SC in the past 27 hearings. 

On July 28, a five-judge bench ruled that Sharif was no longer qualified to hold the office of prime minister for concealing his “receivable assets” at the time of his elections in 2013. Though the apex court has dismissed Sharifs’ review pleas, legal experts are divided over the judges’ interpretations.

A three-member bench headed by chief justice is hearing a similar challenge to Imran Khan and the question being asked is if he would face the same fate after committing the alleged mis-declaration in the end.

Voluminous materials consisting of more than 6,000 pages were presented before the SC in Sharif family case while over 3,200 pages have been presented in Imran Khan, Jahangir Tareen and Hanif Abbasi case before the court so far. Over 150 questions were asked by judges and petitioner in this case while some 300 questions were asked in Panama case.

Naeem Bokhari produced a plethora of documents including Ashley’s letter, different land agreements, some evidentiary documents of money trail, invoices of charges paid by Jemima Khan and a couple of new affidavits of her, Rashid Khan, and many others. 

Many striking similarities were witnessed in the Courtroom No-I during Panama case when Sharifs’ counsels — Salman Akram Raja, Khawaja Haris, Shahid Hamid, Salman Aslam Butt, Makhdoom Ali Khan and PTI’s lawyers — Naeem Bokhari, Hamid Khan, etc — presented their arguments. 

It was Chief Justice Saqib Nisar who posed more than 45 striking questions in Imran Khan’s case. Justice Umar Bandial raised more than 25 questions while Justice Faisal Arab posed over 22 questions to both parties.

The remaining questions came from both parties’ lawyers. Neither Mr Khan, nor any other top ranking party leader attended a single hearing in this case, while PTI Chairman spent 94 hours in the courtroom by attending 32 of 35 proceedings of Panama case. 

Judges and lawyers did recall popular Qatari letters 112 times while Jemima Khan was named around 87 times by all the parties in the courtroom. The petitioners and respondents focused on Articles 62, 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69 and 184(3) in Imran Khan case while parties focused on Articles 62, 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69 and 184(3),185, 187, 224 and 248 of the Constitution in Panama case.

Akram Sheikh, counsel for Hanif Abbasi, found striking contradictions in statements of Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen made before the SC perhaps similar contradictions were found in Sharifs’ replies submitted before judges in Panama case. 

After going through some 1400 pages submitted by PTI chairman’s legal team this correspondent learnt that there seemed serious contradictions in ‘date of purchase of London flat’. In his initial concise statements bearing CMA-7927/2016 and 3657/17 filed on 29-11-2016 and 22-05-2017 and in his speech before Parliament on May 18, 2016 he claimed that London flat was purchased in 1983 while the ‘transfer deed’ attached at pg12 of CMA-5238 reflects transfer on Apr 2, 1984. 

Imran Khan in CMA-7925 claimed that he paid for London flat ‘out of his income earned outside Pakistan’ (para-6, pg2 & para-21, pg-13]; however, he did not mention in his another affidavit. Some striking contradictions were also found in case of ‘payments made for Bani Gala properties by Rashid Khan.’ The chief justice sought proof of original documents of all the reimbursements repeatedly but Imran Khan has yet to convince the court. 

About ‘remittances for Bani Gala properties’, Imran Khan in his Affidavit (22-05-2017) in CMA-3657 claimed that Rashid Ali Khan "was entrusted with task of receiving amounts sent in  US dollars by Jemima Khan to his Citi Bank Account No. 901027943)." Rashid Ali also affirmed the same fact in his Affidavit at pg20 of CMA-3657. Imran Khan, however, in a later CMA-3800 filed on 29-05-2017, introduced a new fact that an amount to GBP20,000 was sent to Rashid Khan on 1-10-2002, directly into PR Account of Rashid Khan (para-iv pg3).   

‘Regarding start of cricket career 1971-1972, Mr Khan in his initial concise statement CMA-7927/2016 filed on 29-11-2016 claimed that he studied in University of Oxford in 1972-1975 while he was selected in Pakistan's cricket team in 1971. Mr Khan was inducted in national team and his cricket career predates his tenure at University of Oxford in para-1-2 at pg1 of CMA 7925. 

However, in his latest CMA-5238 filed on 22-07-2017, Mr Khan went to University of Oxford in 1971, and was selected to play for Pakistan, and also for Worcestershire from 1971. About ‘return of money to Jemima Khan’, PTI Chairman in CMA-7925/16 claimed that he paid the ‘equivalent amount’ to Jemima Khan, whereas according to the letter attached at pg12 of CMA-3657 of 2017 and Naeem Bokhari informed the court on 25-07-2017 that amount paid by Imran Khan to return loan far exceeds amount of loan admittedly taken. The same excess amount is also admitted to have been paid to Jemima Khan by Imran Khan in his Affidavit filed before SC in CMA-3657/17 at pg8. Similarly, there are many contradictions about the  ‘value/cost of the flat when purchased, payment from Kerry Packer Series, conversion rate of dollars to pounds in years 1977-1979 and money left over after repayment of loan to Jemima Khan.