- Counsel Bukhari admits Imran’s failure to show offshore company in his nomination paper
- SC asks ECP to explain jurisdiction in investigating matters relating to party’s foreign funding
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) some pertinent questions regarding the latter’s jurisdiction in investigating matters relating to foreign funding of a political party.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Hanif Abbasi against the alleged possession of illegal properties and tax theft committed by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and party leader Jahangir Tareen.
Counsel for PTI Naeem Bukhari took the opportunity to clarify his client’s ownership of the Niazi Services Limited. He said that Imran Khan was neither a shareholder nor a director of the Niazi Services, rather his sisters were shareholders of the company.
“Omitting Niazi Services from the election nomination papers may have been the result of a callous mistake rather than an ill-intentioned move,” Bukhari said, and informed the court that they could not procure documents detailing the assets managed by the Niazi Services and invited the petitioner – Hanif Abbasi – to do so.
“Imran Khan declared his London flat following an amnesty scheme,” Bukhari told the court “Are you saying Imran Khan took full benefit of the amnesty scheme,” Chief Justice Saqib Nisar asked. Bukhari said that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had no evidence implicating the PTI chairman.
Bukhari once again raised the question of maintainability of the case when he argued that since the matter was before the Federal Bureau of Revenue (FBR), the apex court has no jurisdiction over it. However, the court asked the PTI counsel to submit details of five past transactions and to explain how and when the monies were received.
“You have to prove the money trail,” Chief Justice Nisar maintained. Justice Faisal Arab reminded Advocate Bukhari that previous he has said that it was not at all necessary to show an offshore company. “Now you are saying that it was an honest mistake. Are you not denying your own arguments,” he questioned.
The court then presented a number of questions directed towards the ECP, asking it to submit a response. “Under what circumstances can the ECP hear a case regarding foreign funding,” the court asked. “How does the ECP have the authority to take suo motto notice on such a matter,” the court asked.
Among other questions, the court asked how and when would details of an ECP-led investigation into financial discrepancies be made public. An ECP representative told the court the body would submit a written reply to the apex court’s questions. The court’s proceedings will resume on Thursday [today].
