SC’s five-year bar on scrutiny of PTI foreign funding surprises many

ISLAMABAD: The five-year bar that the Supreme Court judgment relating to Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen has placed for scrutiny of foreign funding of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has surprised legal circles which say it is not backed by any law. However, PTI dissident Akbar S Babar, who has raised the issue of foreign funding in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), which is pending disposal, is optimistic that the five-year restriction will not affect his case.

“I will establish what I have asserted even if the foreign funding of just one year is to be proved against the PTI because bank accounts in Britain and Saudi Arabia are still operative,” he told The News when contacted to seek his comment on the court’s direction.

Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed, a former senior PTI leader, was surprised over the time limit and stated that no law provides for it. There was no need to impose it, he adds.

Immediately after the judgment was read out by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Federal Minister Daniyal Aziz was the first one to quickly take exception to this limit, claiming that it was meant to benefit the PTI.

Babar said his case in the ECP was not against Imran Khan but was against the PTI as a political party. “I have all the record to prove it,” he said. When PTI circles were contacted for their viewpoint, they said on condition of anonymity that the foreign funding case against the party was not worthy to be tried, and it will not stand the trial. They said that it was a gimmick for political purpose, and the plaintiff will bite the dust at the end.

In its ruling, the bench said it is the duty of the ECP to scrutinise accounts of political parties on the touchstone of Article 6(3) of the Political Parties’ Order (PPO) read in the light of Article 17(3) of the Constitution. In this behalf, the ECP must act transparently, fairly and justly, without discrimination among different political parties seeking election symbols to contest the polls to the constitutional legislatures of Pakistan. For undertaking such scrutiny, it shall be reasonable for the ECP to examine the accounts of a political party within five years of its objected accounts having been published in the official gazette.

It shows that the direction not only applies to the PTI but all the political parties that are facing such challenges and will be confronted with them in future. According to the verdict, the alleged falsity of the certificates issued by Imran Khan under Article 13(2) of the PPO is a secondary fact, ascertainable by a competent court of law after the ECP gives its findings whether any prohibited funding has been received and collected by the PTI in terms of Article 6(3).

The petitioner’s lawyer Akram Sheikh stated that the contributions or donations collected by Imran Khan and the PTI through sources prohibited under the PPO be confiscated in favour of the state. He argued that Imran Khan has made false declarations – statements while issuing the certificates for the years 2010 to 2013 under section 13(2)(a) of the PPO, pledging that no funds from any source prohibited under the law were received by his party.

The PTI chairman has failed to disclose assets and concealed an offshore company while submitting his ‘statements of assets and liabilities’ therefore he is liable to be declared disqualified from being elected or remain MP under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution, the lawyer asserted.

He pleaded that Imran Khan is guilty of offences of ‘corrupt practice’ and ‘tax evasion’ by declaring that the Banigala property is a gift from his former wife in his ‘statements of assets and liabilities’ whereas, admittedly, she was only a “benamidar” of the said property.

Imran Khan’s mis-declarations, misstatements and contradictory pleas with regard to Banigala property make him disqualified, Sheikh said and claimed that the PTI chief misused the tax amnesty scheme and played a fraud on public exchequer.

The counsel said that the PTI is a foreign-aided political party in terms of Article 2(c)(iii) of the PPO as it received contributions prohibited under Article 6(3) thereof read with Article 17(3) of the Constitution. He argued that despite this position, Imran Khan personally issued certificates to the ECP to the effect that PTI does not receive funds from prohibited sources meaning thereby that it is not a foreign-aided political party.

These certificates, he said, make a mis-declaration of fact and thus the PTI chief has proved himself to be not sagacious, righteous and honest. Imran Khan is, therefore, liable to be disqualified from holding elective office or being elected thereto under Articles 62(1)(f) and (g), and 63(1)(p).