In the docks: Sharifs, Imran’s fates intertwined

• SC orders Imran Khan to submit offshore company’s details
• Hussain records his statement before five-member JIT

SHAH NAWAZ MOHAL/FARID SABRI

It seems the fates of Sharif family and Imran Khan are intertwined, as both have landed themselves into trouble, being in the docks for similar reasons – offshore properties and money trail.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued notices to Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and ordered him to submit relevant details pertaining to the Niazi Services Limited – an off-shore company owned by the PTI chairman – before the court.

A three-member bench, comprising Chief Justice Saqib Nasir, Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, was hearing a petition seeking the disqualification of the PTI chief and his party’s Secretary General Jehangir Tareen.

The petition, filed by Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Hanif Abassi, accuses the two PTI leaders of not declaring their assets to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and seeks to unseat them based on their alleged violations of the lncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Peoples Act, 1974.

Acting on an application filed by lawyer Akram Sheikh, the bench issued notices to PTI ordering the production of records pertaining to the Niazi Services Limited before the court within a one-week period. During the proceedings, Chief Justice Nisar had reminded PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari that the petitioners had alleged that Imran’s London flats were owned by the Niazi Services.

“It has also been alleged that the declaration made by Imran Khan regarding the flats are incorrect,” the chief justice pointed out. “The case before us is whether Imran Khan is Sadiq or Amin as he has concealed his assets,” he remarked. While the defence has maintained that Imran Khan declared the flats under an amnesty scheme.

The court noted that the amnesty scheme was meant for Pakistani residents, adding that the Niazi Services was not a Pakistani company. When the chief justice asked Bukhari if his client was a shareholder in the Niazi Services, the lawyer said he was not. He told the court that Jemima Khan, ex-wife of the PTI chief, had loaned money to Imran for the Bani Gala property via a bank transfer.

He said that some of the money for the land was put up by the PTI chief himself. The counsel said that Imran Khan had later returned the loaned amount to Jemima via a cross check and the payment was made through the accounts of the Niazi Services. Bokhari said that through the sale of flats owned in London, his client had earned 690,000 pounds sterling, while Jemima had loaned Rs40m to the PTI chief for the land.

“Why did she loan him an amount that was greater than the cost of the land,” Justice Bandiyal asked. The chief justice also remarked that if Imran Khan had taken loans from his wife, evidence in this regard would have to be submitted before the court. “If it is not proven that loans were taken from Jemima for the purchase of the Bani Gala property, there will be consequences,” he added.

Bukhari also told the court that Imran Khan had declared his investment in the Grand Hyatt in his income tax returns. He said that the documents regarding the transactions would be submitted before the court and that Jemima has been contacted in this regard. He also said that no public money was involved in the Bani Gala transaction and questioned the interest of the third party (PML-N) in the case. The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday (today) morning.

JIT QUESTIONS HUSSAIN: Hussain Nawaz, a businessman and son of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, also recorded his statement before the five-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT), set up by the Supreme Court in the Panama Papers case. This is the second appearance of the prime minister’s son before the investigators, probing the ruling family’s financial dealings abroad.

“I was fasting and responded to all the questions asked,” Hussain told journalists after his appearance before the JIT. He said that he has provided all the documents that the JIT asked for, adding that he respects the law. “I can say with conviction that nothing wrong would be proved against me, my father or any sibling,” he said. When asked about the two members that Hussain earlier objected to, he said that the matter should be let to rest.

“If I have any objections in future, I’ll appeal to the court,” he told a questioner. During the questioning, Hussain was given a tough time as JIT put a bulk of questions. Hussain was questioned about the money trail which was allegedly used to purchase the London property, responding to which he said that they [Sharif family] were in business with a Qatari prince and in a business settlement they got the London flats.

Officials said that Hussain might be summoned on Wednesday (today) by the JIT after high-level probe team examines the record. The JIT has asked for important documents related to 16 areas of interest – from offshore companies, foreign bank statements, tax returns and properties.

Hussain reached the Federal Judicial Academy at around 11am. He was greeted by the Pakistan Muslim League-N activists upon his arrival, including Asif Kirmani, MNA Tariq Fazal, Senator Chaudhry Tanvir, MNA Maiza Hameed, Danial Aziz, Hanif Abbasi and Mayor Sheikh Ansar Aziz also reached the venue along with party workers.

Moreover, National Bank of Pakistan President Saeed Ahmad also reached the venue around the same time to give his statement to the JIT. He appeared first in front of the JIT, headed by Wajid Zia. During the session, the JIT questioned Saeed about the usage of his bank account in the Hudaibiya Papers Mill case in which confessional statement by Ishaq Dar was also the part of the questionnaire.

However, it is pertinent to mention here that Dar, later disown his statement. Around two-and-a-half hours after the JIT started deposing Ahmad and later Hussain, a special ambulance arrived at the JIT headquarters. At the academy’s gate, a man sitting in the SUV-turned-ambulance with a government number plate identified himself as Dr Omar said they had been called in. He refused to comment further and went inside.