-
SC rejects Hanif Abbasi’s plea seeking disqualification of Imran Khan over non-disclosure of assets, owning offshore company and for receiving foreign funds
-
Bench says money trail provided by Khan sufficiently covers Bani Gala property price, funds given by Jemima and proceeds from sale of London flat
-
Tareen disqualified for life for giving untrue statements regarding beneficial interest in offshore company
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a petition seeking the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan; however, his party colleague Jahangir Khan Tareen was sent back to the pavilion with a life ban, for what the judges ruled was, due to “dishonesty” in his submissions before the court.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Nov 2 last year filed the petition, 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.
THE CASE AGAINST IMRAN KHAN:
Announcing the verdict in the packed Courtroom No. 1 of the apex court, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said the three-judge bench had found that Imran Khan was not liable to declare offshore company, Niazi Services Ltd (NSL), in his 2013 nomination papers as he was not a shareholder or director of the firm.
The court noted that Imran Khan had declared the London flat through an amnesty scheme under Pakistan’s income tax laws, after which there was no need left to also declare NSL — which had only been set up to buy the flat — as an asset in his income tax returns, statement of assets or annual returns.
FUNDS FOR BANI GALA PROPERTY:
On the allegation that Khan had laundered money to buy his Bani Gala property and would not be able to justify the money trail, the court ruled that it was quite satisfied that the initial purchase price of Rs43.5 million of the Bani Gala property was paid partly by Imran Khan (Rs7.3 million) and partly by Jemima Goldsmith (Rs36.2 million) at the time of its purchase.
The amount was covered by foreign currency remittances made by Imran Khan’s ex-wife, the court found, which was later returned by Imran Khan in 2003 after he sold his London flat.
On Imran Khan’s ownership of the Bani Gala property, the court said that Abbasi had no leal standing to make the charge.
The court stated unequivocally that the Bani Gala property is owned by Imran Khan after it was orally gifted to him by his ex-wife after their divorce. Prior to that, the property had been acquired by Khan for his family and the money provided by his then wife had been more than refunded by him, the court ruled.
Therefore, the court said, there was nothing irregular in Khan’s ownership of the property and, in any case, Hanif Abbasi had no grounds to challenge the gift transaction between a husband and wife.
IMRAN KHAN’S FLAT IN ISLAMABAD:
Ruling on Abbasi’s charge that the PTI chief had not declared a flat that he owns on 1-Constitution Avenue in Islamabad in his assets statement, the court stated that Imran Khan had actually declared his advance payment made to 1-Constitution Avenue Tower in his statement of assets and liabilities filed with his income tax return in the tax year 2014.
He was allotted the flat in the following year, and thereafter declared it in both his assets and liabilities statements filed with his income tax returns for the year, as well as his annual returns order filed with the ECP.
“Therefore, we hold that no misdeclaration of assets was committed by Imran Khan in relation to the said property in his annual return filed with the ECP in the year 2014,” the court ruled.
THE CASE AGAINST JAHANGIR TAREEN:
The bench comprising CJP Nisar and justices Umar Ata Bandial and Faisal Arab, however, found PTI Secretary General Jahangir Tareen to be dishonest on one count among the multiple charges brought against him.
The following are the charges levelled against the PTI senior leader:
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IN UK:
The court found Tareen guilty of dishonesty for not declaring a property in the UK in his nomination papers.
“We hold that Shiny View Limited (SVL), an off-shore company, was established by the respondent which has legal title of the property measuring 12 acres known as “Hyde House” but the actual, true, real and beneficial owner of the said property is the respondent,” ruled the court.
“Respondent has sent around more than Rs500 million at the exchange rate prevalent at that time and claims that amount to have been utilised for the purposes of purchase and construction of “Hyde House”.
“SVL or Hyde House was never transferred to any trust by the respondent, thus, it is his asset, which he has failed to declare in his nomination papers filed on 9.9.2015 according to the mandate of the law to contest the by-elections from NA-154 Lodhran and, therefore, he is not honest in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA.”
“Besides, in his concise statement the respondent in unequivocal, clear and unambiguous terms stated that he has no beneficial interest in the trust arrangement which holds the SVL and the Hyde House, however from the trust deed dated 5.5.2011, on which reliance has been placed by the respondent himself, he is the ‘discretionary lifetime beneficiary’ along with his spouse and, therefore, this is a blatant misstatement on the part of the respondent made before the highest judicial forum of the country which is not a trait of an honest person.”
“Consequently, on both the counts mentioned above, the respondent is declared not to be an honest person in terms of the constitutional provisions and the provisions of ROPA, therefore, he ceases to be the member of the Parliament having incurred the disqualification.”
Article 62(1)(f) — which sets the precondition for the head of government to be “sadiq and ameen” (truthful and honest) — had led to the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif from holding public office in the July 28 judgement on the Panama Papers case.
INSIDER TRADING:
Though the SC conceded that Tareen may have committed the crime of insider trading, it also noted that he returned his gains along with fines, penalties and charges to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) as was demanded from him by the SECP.
Further, the court noted that under the terms of the settlement with the SECP, Tareen could not be deemed to have committed an offense just because he agreed to a settlement. The SECP itself had said that the matter “will stand disposed off with no further action” if Tareen agreed to the settlement — which he did — the court could no longer judge Tareen on the matter.
The court also noted that the SECP had never criminally prosecuted Tareen, which meant that this was “a past and closed transaction.”
AGRICULTURAL INCOME:
On the issue of Tareen being dishonest because he mis-declared and underpaid his agricultural income tax in 2010 and 2011, the court said that it was already a sub judice matter.
“We are not persuaded to make any declaration against the respondent in this context because the matter whether inaccurate declaration has been made by the respondent, either in respect of agricultural income tax before the concerned department […] or before the Federal Board of Revenue, is a matter which is sub-judice before different forums in the income tax hierarchy and even before this court,” the court reasoned.
“Besides, no action so far for the alleged misdeclaration or short payment has been taken against the respondent by the authorities under the Act of 1997,” therefore Tareen cannot yet be judged to be a dishonest man, the court ruled.
LOANS WRITTEN OFF:
On the charge that Tareen had got his company’s loans written off by abusing his authority as a public figure, the court ruled that it was not convinced that Tareen had misused his authority in this regard.
The company in question that Tareen was said to have benefited, FPML, was actually found to have had its loans written off before 2010 — when Tareen was neither a shareholder nor a director of the company.
“He became the shareholder and director with effect from 29.12.2010 to 4.2.2013 and during this period no loans were written-off,” the court noted.
THE CASE AGAINST PTI:
On allegations that PTI is a foreign-funded party, the SC bench directed that the foreign funding case against PTI as a party be investigated by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), as Abbasi had no locus standi in it.
The judges ruled that the charge could only be presented by the federal government for its validation on a reference made to the Supreme Court.
“It is the responsibility of the ECP to look at the foreign funding case in detail,” Justice Nisar said, adding that the ECP should, for the sake of impartiality, look into the foreign funds of the party over the preceding five-year period only.
“The ECP must act transparently, fairly and justly, without discrimination among different political parties,” wrote the chief justice.
The court also ruled that the allegation of PTI’s asset certificates being falsified could only be determined in a competent court of law after the ECP gives its findings on whether any prohibited funding has been received or collected by the PTI.
The CJ said that the delay in the verdict, which was announced more than an hour late in Courtroom No.1, was due to a mistake on one page. “We had to go through the entire 250-page document,” he explained, apologising for the delay. He asked that the verdict be heard with patience.
Petitioner Hanif Abbasi, as well as other members of PML-N, including State Minister for Interior Talal Chaudhry and State Minister for Information Maryam Aurungzeb, were present in the court.
Neither Imran Khan — currently in Sindh — nor Tareen were in attendance.
Strict security arrangements were made for the verdict, as at least 900 security officers were stationed outside the court, with 300 more deployed inside.
Courtroom No. 1 was last in the limelight when a five-judge SC bench comprising justices Asif Saeed Khosa, Gulzar Ahmed, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Ijaz-ul-Ahsan disqualified Nawaz Sharif as prime minister in the Panama Papers case.
THE PETITION:
The petition filed by Abbasi in Nov 2016 accused the two PTI leaders of not declaring their assets to the ECP and sought their disqualification based on alleged violations of the lncome Tax Ordinance 1979 and Representation of Peoples Act 1974.
On May 3, amidst a heightened political backdrop, a three-member bench of the apex court had begun hearing the petition.
During the proceedings of the case, the lawyers from both sides had presented their arguments for over 100 hours and referred to 73 different cases as precedent. After more than 50 court hearings, the verdict was reserved on November 14.
TAREEN DESEATED:
Tareen, following his disqualification, was denotified by the ECP in a notification issued.
“The Election Commission of Pakistan hereby de-notify Mr. Jahangir Khan Tareen as Member National Assembly of Pakistan from constituency NA-154 Lodhran-1 with immediate effect…”
The notification further declared Tareen as a returned candidate from his constituency Lodhran-1 which stands rescinded with effect from December 15.
