ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Tuesday submitted a written response in the Supreme Court regarding the “nature of a beneficial interest in trust relationships”.
The three-member bench of the SC headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Umar Ata Bandial had reserved its judgement on Nov 14 in a petition seeking the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Secretary General Jahangir Tareen after counsels from both sides had concluded their arguments.
The petition filed by Abbasi seeks the disqualification of the two PTI leaders as members of the National Assembly over allegations of concealing their sources of income.
After the SC had reserved its verdict in the case, the chief justice had asked the petitioner and the respondents to submit any additional written material that they wished to submit.
Abbasi in his written response stated that according to Black’s Law Dictionary, a trust should be considered an asset.
It further identifies a bare trust ─ “which has a single beneficiary” ─ as one in which “the beneficiary has an identifiable, equitable interest in some property.” The response argues that the case pertaining to Imran “involves a bare trust”.
The response further claims that Imran Khan controls the operations of his offshore company Niazi Services Limited, hence it cannot be stated that PTI chief is not the owner of the company.
The response also states that the case pertaining to Tareen involves a discretionary trust where “although the beneficiary has an interest in the trust [sic] there is no commitment on the part of the trustee to confer on him the benefit of any defined property”.
“It is within the discretion of the trustee as to who, one or more, of the beneficiaries shall have the benefit of the trust property.”
“Nevertheless, a beneficiary under a discretionary trust has an ‘interest’ to be considered as a potential recipient of benefit under the trust and a right to have his interest protected by the court of equity,” the response adds.
“The whole class of beneficial beneficiaries, under a discretionary trust, can call upon the trustee to surrender the property according to the instructions of the beneficiaries.”
The response further argues that Tareen cannot claim that he does not own the trust through which his property in Britain had been bought.
The response further states that “anything that can be disposed of for value is, by definition, an asset”.
“Therefore, in the cases of Imran Khan Niazi and Jahangir Tareen, their interest in the trust property was in the nature of a proprietary interest that could be disposed of, and constituted as an asset.”
Abbasi’s response reasserts that the Tareen and Khan had concealed the trust and the offshore company, respectively, in their nomination papers submitted to the ECP.
The court’s decision in the disqualification case of the PTI leaders has been reserved since Nov 14. It has still not been announced when the verdict will be issued.
