The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday dismissed the claims of being ‘biased’ in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan disqualification case compared to the Panama Leak case, saying that the Sharif family had failed to satisfy the apex court regarding the London flats’ money trail.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi’s counsel Akram Sheikh had earlier objected to the court’s decision of entertaining Imran Khan’s revised statement through his counsel Naeem Bukhari.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, adjourned the hearing of the case till Tuesday (today), pertaining to a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi, that seeks Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen’s disqualification in foreign funding case. In the previous hearing, the bench had closed the hearings without reserving the verdict.
The counsel for the PML-N leader argued that Imran should not have been allowed to change his earlier statements, adding that he filed around a dozen statements having an inconsistent stance on different matters along with contradictory documents.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial, while replying to Sheikh’s argument, said that the larger bench in Panama case was entertaining documents to establish money trail of Landon flats and it repeatedly asked questions regarding the case. He, however, maintained that the Sharifs failed to satisfy the court on several occasions before the matter was referred to the Panamagate Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
On the contrary, Imran has provided the court with relevant documents, he said, adding the court was still trying to establish the authenticity of the documents submitted by the PTI chairman. In reply to Sheikh’s assertion that the court favoured Imran, Justice Bandial said the court allowed him to submit new documents in order to save the court’s time for further enquiry into the matter, adding the court was in the process of examining whether Imran made a correct statement regarding the purchase of Bani Gala land or not.
Last week, Imran Khan had submitted a “revised concise statement” before the court, which was criticised by Hanif Abbasi’s counsel in a rejoinder submitted to the court, saying that the PTI chief was “abusing the court process through his statement”, which further went on to highlight the contradictions in the PTI chief’s statement.
“Imran Khan has submitted seven written responses to the court; this [the revised statement] in which he has sought a change in his position is the eighth,” Sheikh said. Sheikh had further said that “Imran believed that matters of veracity and integrity were like a cricket ball that could be swung in any direction of his choice, including a “U-turn”.
However, Bokhari argued that his client had provided answers to questions raised by the court, as he dismissed the allegations of a “U-turn” and contradictory statements by his client in the revised statement. The chief justice told Sheikh to present the inconsistencies before the court; upon which he responded that he would submit a written reply, and was allowed one week to do so.
Moreover, Sheikh said that he had requested the court to reserve the verdict earlier as the hearing had ended for the parties involved. He added that the court could ask questions in case if they arose, but objected to the filing of additional documents. However, the chief justice told the lawyer that the court had left the case open for itself and had asked Bokhari for additional documents.
[…] Source link […]
Comments are closed.