Imran made false declaration, SC told

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that Pakistan Tehreeke-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan had made a false declaration on June 30, 2003 when he did not disclose to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the funds kept in the Niazi Services Limited (NSL) account.

Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbassi filed a reply in response to the CMA, filed the other day by Naeem Bukhari, counsel for Imran Khan, in the Supreme Court in Imran Khan disqualification case.

Hanif Abbasi filed the reply through his counsel Muhammad Akram Sheikh, contending that Imran Khan, in his letter dated April 18, 2003, addressed to Barclay Bank Private Limited, instructed the bank to retain a sum of 100,000 pounds for the reasons best known to him.

He said that Imran had not shown that there was any compulsion on him from any side. “If Mr Khan had allocated Pound 100,000 to meet certain contingencies and the same had been retained for that purpose and utilised across a period of time, it does not mean that the Pound 100,000 had ceased to be an asset of Mr Khan,” Akram Sheikh submitted.

He contended that the flat had been declared to be an asset of Mr Khan in the nomination papers, filed before the ECP for the year ending June 30, 2002.

“Once the flat, which was an asset of Mr Khan, was sold, its proceeds also continued to be an asset of which Mr Khan was the beneficial owner in the same manner that he had been owner of the asset in its previous shape, i.e. an item of immovable property,” Sheikh submitted.

He stated that the proceeds of the sale being an asset of Mr Khan, a major portion of it was transferred with his consent, to Mrs Jemima Khan to settle Mr Khan’s loan and Pound 100,000 was retained in the account to meet other expenses and liabilities that might accrue in the future. All these funds continued to be an asset of Mr Khan till the last penny had been consumed.

“It is an absolutely false proposition that if a person retains a part of his assets to meet future liabilities, the retained assets would lose their status as an asset of that person,” the reply contended adding that it is absolutely clear from the record that Mr Khan made a false declaration before the Election Commission.

Similarly, he said that the two letters to establish that the Respondent No 1 (Imran) issued instructions to the manager Barclays Private Bank Ltd regarding disbursement of money received from sale of the London flat, are also not beyond question, and hence, are not reliable.

In addition to the dissimilarity in the signatures of the Respondent No 1 on both the letters, the address of the Respondent No 1's organisation [Imran Khan Cancer Appeal] given at the bottom of each letter is also not the same, while both these letters were issued with a gap of 7 days.

It is pertinent to note that the address given on the letter dated 11 April 2003 [at pg 5 of CMA No 6799] is verifiable from the current website of the said organisation, whereas the address on the other letter, dated 18 April 2003, belongs to a photographing company called "Imperial Studios" and not to the Respondent No 1's organisation.

In addition to the aforementioned documents, the Respondent No 1 has also attached a document purported to be the call account statement of NSL maintained by Barclays Private Banking, in order to show that the proceeds from the sale of the London Apartment was spent to repay the loan obtained from Ms Jemima Khan, and to pay for services rendered by Taher Nawaz and Co. However, the said document bears no sign of validation, attestation or verification to establish its authenticity.

It is also interesting to note that the transaction dated 7-5-2003 is reflected to be for "loan repayment to IK Niazi" i.e. Imran Khan Niazi, whereas the Respondent No 1 has relied on this document to show repayment of loan to Ms Jemima Khan, says the reply.

Akram Sheikh submitted that Imran Khan had attached excerpt of Ms Jemima Khan's bank statement of Anglo Irish Bank to show receipt of GBP 562,415.54.

The said bank statement, just like all other bank statements of foreign banks attached by the Respondent No 1 during the course of the proceedings, fails to comply with the attestation and certification requirements, laid down in Article 89 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 read with Section 4 of The Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1981.

Moreover, Akram Sheikh contended that the documents purported to be emails from Ms Jemima Khan and Mr Taher Nawaz to Ashley Cox also bear no proof of authentication, and hence, cannot be relied upon.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is patently obvious that the contents of the CMA in question, along with the documents appended with it, are baseless, unsubstantiated, and only a fabrication by the Respondent No 1 to fill the lacunae in his pleadings made before the court and financial transactions in question, he submitted.

He said the said documents neither stand on their own, nor do they adequately substantiate the corresponding claims made by the Respondent No 1 in the enclosing CMA.

He prayed to the court that the CMA No 6799/2017, along with the documents appended therein, to be dismissed, disregarded and removed from the docket of the court, on account of being unverified and unreliable.