I do not know why ex-CJ separated Imran, Tareen from Panama case: CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday said the Supreme Court should have heard the case against Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen along with the Panama Papers case.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, resumed hearing in the petition filed by the PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi seeking disqualification of the PTI Secretary General Jahangir Tareen for non-disclosure of his assets and ownership of offshore companies.

During the hearing, the chief justice observed: “Why were the cases against Imran Khan and Tareen kept separate from the central case?” He noted that while it had been reported that 38 hearings of the disqualification case had been held, “nobody talked about the caution and calm with which these hearings were conducted”.

“We do not want anybody to be wronged,” he added. He said no documentary proof have been provided to the court so far that could establish that Jahangir Tareen, being a federal minister, had used his influence for bank loan write-offs. The chief justice observed that parliament is supreme and they don’t want to lay down a law which could be used as sword of Damocles for parliamentarians in the future.

Justice Saqib Nisar said that parliamentarians are public representatives and they have great respect for them. He said the matter in hand is about honesty of elected representative, so the court is searching to examine as to whether those who are in government committed any corruption or misused their offices for their personal benefits.

Earlier, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Jahangir Tareen, claimed that the petition has been filed under political motives instead of larger interest of the public. He submitted that the petitioner, being a leader of the ruling PML-N, misled the court by saying that the name of Jahangir Tareen surfaced in the leaked Panama Papers.

“The name of my client never appeared in the PanamaLeaks”, Bashir Mohmand contended, adding that his client had not concealed any of his assets in his ‘assets declaration’ submitted before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Sikandar Bashir raised objection on the locus standi of the petitioner and pleaded the court to examine whether Hanif Abbasi invoked the jurisdiction of the apex court with clean hands. He submitted that Hanif Abbasi had sought disqualification of his client on four grounds, including loan write off, discrepancy in declarations before the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and ECP, inside trading and ownership of offshore company. The counsel claimed that his client was not the beneficial owner of any offshore company and he will elaborate this issue in detail. He contended that the PTI general secretary cannot be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution as he claimed that the petitioner has not produced before the court documentary proof that could substantiate accusation of loan default against his client.

The counsel contended that a loan of Farooqi Pulp Mill was settled/written off in 2007 before his client became director of the mill in 2010. At this, counsel for Hanif Abbasi Azid Nafees informed the court that Pulp Mill was owned by son-in-law of Tareen. He said Tareen was federal minister for industries and production when loan of the mill was written off.

The chief justice observed that no documentary evidence was yet provided to the court that could establish that Jahangir Tareen being a federal minister had used his influence for bank loan write off. He asked Sikandar Bashir Mohmand why there was discrepancy in the income tax return and declaration of his client of 2010-11 before the Election Commission.

The counsel replied that his client (Tareen) declared income of Rs542 million in tax returns of 2010 before the FBR, whereas Rs120 million in declaration of assets before the ECP. He further submitted that his client declared income from agriculture land as Rs700 million in tax returns of 2011, whereas his assets of Rs160 million were declared before the ECP during the same period.

The court adjourned the hearing till today (Thursday).