close
Thursday March 28, 2024

SC upholds Tareen’s life-long disqualification

The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday upheld its decision disqualifying Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) former Secretary General Jehangir Tareen for lifetime for being dishonest, and failing to declare his London properties in the nomination papers.

By Sohail Khan
September 28, 2018

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday upheld its decision disqualifying Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) former Secretary General Jehangir Tareen for lifetime for being dishonest, and failing to declare his London properties in the nomination papers.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Unter Ata Bandyal and Justice Faisal Arab, dismissed the review petition of Jehangir Tareen, challenging his disqualification. “We do not find any ground to review; hence, the instant petition is dismissed,” Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar announced after hearing the Tareen's counsel.

At the start of the hearing, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand came to the rostrum for commencing his arguments. The Chief Justice asked him generally as to how many billions of rupees have been shifted abroad. The counsel expressed his ignorance to which the Chief Justice told him that he should have the information on fingertips. The Chief Justice then asked him as to how much his client had shifted to which the counsel replied Rs50 crores. The Chief Justice observed that the trend should be of leaders bringing back the money to the country. The Chief Justice asked the counsel that his client is a major political leader questioning as to whether he has ever thought of bringing money back to Pakistan? The Chief Justice observed that it has come to his knowledge that Tareen bought a company and shares. "How can a public representative make such suspicious transactions?" he questioned, adding that angels had not made the off-shore company.

Sikandar Bashir Mohmand said the London property e.g. Hyde House was bought through a Trust. At this, the Chief Justice said that they are not re-hearing the case and it had already been argued by the learned counsel. The counsel replied that he was going to provide fresh documents. The Chief Justice said the court was asking for those documents but the learned counsel took very long to even submit the trust deed. “At that time the documents were not in my possession but with the trust deed,” Sikandar Bashir Mohmand replied. The Chief Justice said that Tareen is the actual approver, who transferred the amount and approved the design of the building. “You people have covered the faces, concealing your assets from public,” the Chief Justice remarked, adding the court will not re-hear the case. “Being a public office holder, you (Tareen) take away money from Pakistan,” the Chief Justice observed but the counsel replied that it is not unlawful to take money abroad. “A huge amount was taken out from Pakistan to purchase a house but you did not disclose it in your nomination papers and this is the whole picture,” Justice Umer Ata Bandyal observed. “As a private person you can take away money but being a public office holder you will have to disclose it in your assets,” Justice Bandyal added.

During the hearing when the counsel argued in a louder voice, the Chief Justice asked him to keep his voice low and maintain the decorum. The counsel apologised and submitted that by nature his voice is loud. Last year on December 15, the Supreme Court had disqualified Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf Secretary General Jehangir Tareen for non-declaration of his assets in his nomination papers and declared him not to be an honest person in terms of the constitutional provisions and the provision of Representation of People Act 1976 (ROPA). The court, however, had cleared PTI Chairman Imran Khan with the ruling that he has not committed mis-declaration of assets relating to allotment of a flat on the Constitution Avenue; hence, no dishonesty was found in the omission made by him and dismissed the petition, seeking his disqualification.

The 80-page judgment in Jehangir Tareen case, authored by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, held that the respondent (Tareen) is “disqualified in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA for the non-declaration of his asset i.e. “Hyde House” in his nomination papers, and in making untrue statement before this Court, that he had no beneficial interest in Shiny View Limited off shore company (SVL), therefore, he should cease to hold the office as the member of the National Assembly with immediate effect.” “We hold that SVL, an off-shore company was established by the respondent which has legal title of the property measuring 12 acres known as “Hyde House” but the actual, true, real and beneficial owner of the said property is the respondent,” says the verdict. The court ruled that Tareen has sent around “more than Rs 50 crores at the exchange rate prevalent at that time and claims that amount was utilised for purchase and construction of ‘Hyde House’”. The verdict observed that “SVL or Hyde House was never transferred to any trust by the respondent, thus, it is his asset which he has failed to declare in his nomination papers filed on 9.9.2015 according to the mandate of the law to contest the by-elections from NA-154 Lodhran and, therefore, he is not honest in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA.”

However, the judgment in Imran Khan case ruled that no mis-declaration of assets was committed by the respondent “in relation to the said property in his annual return filed with the ECP in the year 2014. There is no dishonesty in the omission made by him.” The court found that Imran Khan had declared his advance payment made to 1-Constitution Avenue Tower, Islamabad, in his statement of assets and liabilities filed with his income tax return in the tax year 2014. In the following year, the court noted that the respondent was allotted the flat and declared the same both in his assets and liabilities statement filed with his income tax return for the tax year 2015 as well as his annual return under Section 42A of the ROPA filed with the ECP in 2015. The court found that M/s NSL was established as a corporate vehicle for the legal ownership of the London flat, of which the respondent was the beneficial owner. “The Respondent was neither a shareholder nor a director of NSL which had a paid up capital of £9/- and the London flat as its sole asset,” says the judgment adding that this asset held by NSL was declared by the respondent under an Amnesty Scheme granted pursuant to Section 59D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It said Imran Khan was under no legal obligation to disclose the corporate vehicle NSL as an asset either in his income tax returns or his statement of assets and liabilities filed with the ECP along with his nomination papers or in his annual returns filed under Section 42A of the ROPA.

On Thursday, the court earlier also rejected the plea of Muhammad Hanif Abassi seeking formation of a full bench to hear his review petition against its verdict clearing Imran Khan from disqualification.

The Chief Justice asked the counsel on what grounds he was seeking constitution of a full court to hear his review petition. Muhammad Akram Sheikh replied that in Nawaz Sharif case on Panama Paper, the court had applied rule of strict liability holding that Mian Nawaz Sharif had not disclosed in his nomination forms for Election of 2013 some assets in the nature of receivables, being his entitlement to salary from a company owned by his family. However, he contended that in the case under review, the court had held that Imran’s disqualification did not have the strict liability. The learned counsel contended that in the case under review it was clearly established form the record that the respondent Imran Khan had made mis-declarations and serious concealments regarding his own assets and liability as well as the assets of his wife. Akram Sheikh recalled that Chief Justice had himself constituted larger benches to resolve conflicting judgments and to bring about consistency and for the advancement of the interests of the ultimate consumers of justice, the people of Pakistan.

The court dismissed the plea and Akram Sheikh sought time for arguing in the review petition which the court accepted. Hanif Abbassi in his review petition had demanded disqualification of Imran over non-disclosure of his assets and ownership of offshore companies.