Can Nawaz’s ouster act as precedent in Imran’s case?

• Barrister Zafar says PTI leaders can be disqualified if something surfaces

Nearly two weeks after the announcement of the Panama Papers verdict on April 20, a three-member Supreme Court bench – headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saqib Nisar – took up petitions filed by Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen for not disclosing their assets and offshore companies before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Presently, the bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar with Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab as its member are hearing the petition under the Article 184(3) of the constitution, Justice Khosa-led five-member bench heard the petition filed by PTI, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Awami Muslim League under the same article.

Among other things, Hanif Abbasi alleged in his petition that in his declaration of assets for 2014, Imran had willfully concealed his investment of Rs2.97 million to purchase a luxury apartment at the Constitution Avenue’s Grand Hyatt complex here in Islamabad.

The petition prays that since this omission along is a clear violation of the sections 12(2) (f) and 42A, read with section 82 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1976, and, therefore, Imran be disqualified as the member of the National Assembly.

While the prime minister was shown the door by the apex court on failing to declare his un-withdrawn receivables from a UAE-based company, many observers believe that both Imran and Tareen have little reason to celebrate. As the judgment in Nawaz Sharif’s case has set a precedent where non-disclosure of the assets can end up in disqualification.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Barrister Ali Zafar said that if some kind of misdeclaration comes up in the record submitted to the Supreme Court then this case will act as a precedent. “They too can be disqualified if something surfaces that is tantamount to misdeclaration and since I am not familiar with the facts of their case I’ll limit myself to this,” he said.

He said that the matters of corruption and embezzlement were referred to the relevant courts just like the apex court did in the Panama case where it sent all the references to the accountability court. “Imran has revealed ‘each’ and ‘every’ penny he has ever earned,” said Advocate Chaudhary Faisal.

In 2014, the properties of One Constitutional Avenue were showed in the income tax returns but by omission were not shown in the statement of assets and liabilities and in 2015 they were rectified, he replied when asked about the accusation levelled by Hanif Abbasi in his petition as a ground for Imran’s disqualification.

“There is a difference between omission and concealment. The omission is unintentional and concealment is intentional. What happened on Imran’s part was an omission,” he concluded.