Multiple standards in Nawaz, Imran verdicts: lawyers

LAHORE: Friday was termed a big day in political history of the country, as Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan was given a clean chit by the Supreme Court, party’s secretary general Jehangir Tareen was disqualified for life, while a plea for reopening of Hudabiya Mills case against Sharifs was dismissed.

Regarding Imran Khan exoneration in offshore company Niazi Services case, the anchorperson asked his guests in Geo News programme ‘Naya Pakistan Talat Hussain Ke Saath’ that the court said in its verdict that the respondent was under no legal obligation to disclose the corporate vehicle, and its sale as an asset either in his income tax returns or his statement of assets and liabilities, filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

However, famous lawyer Salman Akram Raja said that there was difference in these two assertions. The court said that as shares of the company were in the names of Imran Khan’s sisters, therefore, their disclosure was not mandatory.

However, the judges said in the verdict that disclosure of the flat was necessary, as the flat was purchased with shares; it was owned by the company but, in fact, Imran Khan was its real and beneficial owner. The verdict said that benefiting from the amnesty announced in year 2000, Imran Khan declared it as an asset in the year 2002 elections.

Salman Akram Raja said that apparently, there appeared different standards in Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan disqualification cases. The verdict said that since 1983, Imran Khan had been beneficial owner of the London flat. For the first time, Imran declared it as his asset in the year 2002 general election, after an amnesty was announced for the foreign properties owners in the year 2000, he did not declare the flat in his nomination papers in 1997 elections.

Salman Akram said there seemed a different criterion. “Before I talk about Niazi Services shares, one thing is clear that this verdict acknowledges that Khan Sahib owns these flats since 1983,” the lawyer said. He showed their ownership in 2000 under an amnesty scheme and mentioned them for the first time in his nomination papers for the 2002 elections. These flats were not disclosed in the 1997 elections. The ground on which Mian Nawaz Sharif was disqualified was that he did not disclose the income or salary, though he did not receive it, in his tax returns and nomination papers in 2013. Not showing assets in nomination papers has already been declared a hard crime in the Panama verdict. As regards the Mayfair or Nights Burj flats, they should, of course, be of some value. They were not disclosed in 1997 and the judgment remained silent on them.

Talat Hussain said that they (judges) were saying that “respondent was under no legal obligation to disclose the corporate vehicle and its sale as an asset either in his income tax returns or his statement of assets, liabilities filed with the ECP”.

Talat Hussain asked Irfan Qadir that Imran said he founded the offshore company – Niazi Services Limited. The Supreme Court said as he was not a shareholder, there was no obligation on him to declare them.

Irfan Qadir said he believed there seemed no harmony among these three verdicts, as earlier Kamran Murtaza also said. Since 2009, not double standard but multiple standards seem to be dominating all the verdicts.