ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan was requested on Friday that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan’s ‘shifting stances’ over the utilization of 0.1 million pounds and acquisition of Bani Gala property constituted a clear case of misstatement, which warranted disqualification under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution.
This was contended by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi in his reply to the revised concise statement filed by PTI chairman a few days earlier, in which he backtracked from his earlier stance about the money trail of 0.1 million pounds.
Abbasi submitted the reply through his senior counsel Muhammad Akram Sheikh, raising a plethora of legal questions on the revised concise statement of Imran Khan.
The reply raised legal objections over the filing of revised statement by Imran Khan, contending that it was not necessary, reasonable, or in the interest of justice that the revised plea be allowed.
“In fact, Khan is abusing the process of the court.” It requests the court to dismiss Imran Khan’s plea seeking amendment in his concise statement.
The reply stated that PTI chief did not disclose complete details of his assets in his annual returns for the year 2003-04 furnished before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
To the PTI chief’s changing stances on usage of 0.1 million pounds, the reply said that only 25,000 pounds were paid to the solicitor, who represented Niazi Services Limited (NSL), from 0.1 million pounds lying in the account of Imran Khan’s offshore company NSL.
It contended that Imran repeatedly made allegations against others alleging lack of probity, whereas his own conduct showed that he did not take these values seriously, and was neither ‘Sadiq nor Ameen’ in terms of Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution and section 231 of the Elections Act 2017.
The reply stated that Mr Khan had adopted the position that ECP was correctly informed about his assets and liabilities, as on June 30 each year, but that was allegedly a false assertion.
It said the London flats were declared as an asset of Khan as on June 30, 2002 as per the nomination form filed for elections in 2002 from NA-71 (Mianwali). It said Imran has clearly admitted that in respect of underlying asset (London Flat) he was always the beneficial owner.
Since this property was admittedly an asset of Imran, it is evident that, after conversion of this asset into cash after its sale, the cash equivalent would also be an asset of the Mr Khan, the reply stated.
However, the statement of NSL accounts attached with the revised concise statement of Khan showed that as on June 30, 2003 (being the period between June 16, 2003 and October30, 2003) he owned 99,702.28 pounds. The reply said that likewise, on June 30, 2004, Imran Khan beneficially owned 33, 412.50 pounds and these facts were not disclosed in the statement filed in the ECP for the period ending June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2004.
The reply contended that shift in stance by Imran Khan, including his revised concise statement and in relation to the acquisition of Bani Gala property, are ‘reckless’ with regards to commitment to veracity and truthfulness. “This is specifically important when appearing before the court of law,” the reply further stated. It said the bench had observed that it was holding inquisitorial proceedings, thus Imran was entitled to depart from his pleadings.
It said the revised statement was absolutely unsustainable plea, as inquisitorial proceedings do not mean that the litigants are free to move in a casual manner and shift from stances in the pleadings, suiting their convenience. It said the litigants remain bound by their pleadings.
The reply states that major difference involved in inquisitorial proceedings is that the court conducting the proceedings is not supposed to be a neutral, distant umpire but instead, an inquiry into facts may be conducted by the judge himself.
The reply maintains that, ‘reliance on wrong advice’ is never an acceptable excuse, and that ‘remedy lies in proceedings against the adviser rather than seeking to escape liability before a court of law’.
“Lack of due diligence and memory issues are absolutely false pleas, which are not tenable before the court of law”, the reply states.
“Since Imran Khan had been making categorical assertions regarding the matter, supported by sworn affidavits, thus it is a clear case of misstatement which falls in the category of Article 62(1)(f)”, the reply reads. A petition seeking disqualification of PTI chairman is under adjudication before the apex court.
Published in Daily Times, October 21st 2017.
