A verdict—reserved by the bench on November 14—on a petition seeking Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan and secretary-general Jahangir Tareen’s disqualification will be announced on Friday by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Chief Justice Saqib Nisar is expected to read out the verdict at 2pm afternoon.
Justices Faisal Arab, Nisar and Umar Ata Bandial had comprised the three-member bench which heard the case.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Nov 2 last year filed the petitions, seeking the two PTI leaders’ disqualification over non-disclosure of assets and existence of their offshore companies, as well as receiving foreign funds for their party.
PTI chief was represented by senior counsel Naeem Bukhari, who argued during the proceedings that the case should not be treated on a par with the Panama Papers case in which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified. It was because, according to him, there was a world of difference between the two.
He had said that, in this case, no money was sent out of the country, adding that it could be the case of a young man who could not manage his accounts properly.
He had also argued that his client did not mention his Draycott flats of London in his statement of assets and later benefited from the tax amnesty scheme of 2000, asking if utilising the amnesty scheme be considered dishonesty. But he admitted that the line between honesty and dishonesty had to be drawn by the apex court.
Bukhari, during closing arguments, had told the court that his client had submitted all documents they could obtain before the court.
The bench, after the court reserved its verdict in the case against PTI chairman, had proceeded to question the lawyer representing Tareen regarding the latter’s properties in Britain.
The bench had specifically inquired after Hyde House, which Tareen claims to have bought for his children through a trust.
The bench had subsequently reserved its verdict on Tareen’s disqualification after hearing arguments on his line of defence from both sides; however, before closing the proceedings, the chief justice had told all parties not to expect an early decision on the case.