ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s counsel Naeem Bukhari on Thursday told the Supreme Court (SC) that the PTI leader’s former wife had confirmed receiving £562,000 from his client in 2003 after the sale of his London apartment.
“Jemima will contact her bank to provide proof showing that the said amount was received in her account from the account of the PTI chief’s offshore company Niazi Services Limited,” Bukhari submitted before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar.
The court had resumed hearing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi’s petition in which disqualification of Khan and PTI Secretary General Jahangir Khan Tareen had been sought over non-disclosure of assets, existence of offshore companies owned by Khan and Tareen as well as PTI being a foreign-aided party.
On Thursday, Bukhari submitted a letter written by the PTI chief to his bank in 2003 for the transfer of the said amount into his ex-wife’s account.
During the proceedings, Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that the court was only looking into the source of fund and movement of money as it was not conducting the tax proceedings.
“Imran Khan is a public office holder but does not have public funds,” the judge observed.
Meanwhile, the CJP observed that the PTI chief’s counsel has yet to prove remittance of £0.1 million pounds from Jemima for the purchase of the Bani Gala land in 2002-03.
Bokhari recalled that the court had sought answers to two questions in the last hearing: why Imran Khan had not declared before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the presence of 75,000 British pounds in Barclays Private Bank and Trust Ltd; and if the funds had been transferred from one account to the other, why the bank statement of 2003 was not presented.
Bokhari argued that it was the job of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), and not the ECP to enquire about the income, assets and liabilities.
CJP Nisar asked the counsel whether the 75,000 pounds did not constitute Imran’s assets. Bokhari replied in negative.
“We reject the allegation that the money was remitted as a gift to evade tax,” he said.
The ECP does not have the right to determine income, assets and expenditures, the counsel maintained, regretting that Imran did not submit a clause-by-clause reply.
“You have not presented the arguments you are making today in any previous hearing,” the chief justice responded, addressing the counsel.
He said Bokhari had not disclosed before that Khan’s ex-wife Jemima had given Rs6.5 million as a gift to him.
At this, the counsel said that monetary exchange between wife and husband does not qualify as a loan; financial issues between the two are personal matters.
The chief justice then observed that the allegation against Khan is that he acquired the Bani Gala property through money laundering, which the PTI chief has denied.
He said Jemima gifted Rs6.5m to Khan and the money was returned; the court required accounts details for the same.
“Where are the details regarding the transfer of the sum from Jemima’s account and the return of that sum from Imran Khan’s account?” Justice Nisar asked.
The chief justice observed that Khan has so far provided money trail of only three payments, including those of $33,000, $270,000 and 20,000 pounds.
Documents showing money had travelled from the account of Niazi Services Limited to Jemima’s account could fill the gaps in the money trail, Justice Nisar observed.
Bokhari further argued that the 174,000 pounds remaining in the accounts of NSL did not belong to Khan and neither could he withdraw it. He said that a London court had ordered the company to pay 48,000 pounds to the tenant.
The hearing was adjourned until October 3 after Bokhari completed his arguments.
At the previous hearing on Sept 23, Hanif Abbasi submitted documents in the court containing tax returns provided by Imran Khan to the ECP in his nomination papers for the 2003-2006 period.
The documents included financial details of the sale of Imran Khan’s London apartment in 2004. The documents also do not have any mention of a loan taken from Jemima Khan for the PTI chief’s Bani Gala residence.
In one of the previous hearings, Justice Bandial observed that a discrepancy exists between documents submitted by the PTI chairman earlier and now.
Moreover, the chief justice observed during the course of hearing that the PTI chairman has submitted copies of documents that are unverified.