ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday a review petition seeking to overturn its judgement which exonerated Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan from corruption charges.

On Dec 15 last year, a three-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had absolved Mr Khan of all allegations of corruption, but disqualified his party’s secretary general Jahangir Khan Tareen for misdeclaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Through his counsel Mohammad Akram Sheikh, Mr Abbasi has in his review petition requested the court to disqualify Imran Khan in terms of Articles 62 and 63, read with relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act.

Last week, Jahangir Tareen had also moved a review petition pleading innocence and arguing that he could not present legal instruments and specific documents regarding his trust Shiny View Limited and property Hyde House in the earlier round of litigation because these were not in his personal knowledge, possession or control.

PML-N leader asks apex court to set aside five-year limitation placed on ECP to audit accounts of PTI

Mr Abbasi has also requested the court to set aside the five-year limitation placed on the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to audit the PTI accounts, emphasising that the limitation goes beyond the interpretative authority of the apex court and impinges upon the powers of the legislature since it amounts to inserting a specific term into the law.

Referring to the non-declaration of London flat by Mr Khan in the nomination papers for 1997 elections, the review petition highlighted that the submission raised by the petitioner’s counsel was not an ‘uncertain speculation’ and hence did not require evidence, because Mr Khan had categorically admitted that he neither declared his ownership of the flat nor his offshore company Niazi Services Limited (NSL) until he availed of the amnesty scheme in 2000.

Therefore, it logically followed that the flat was not declared in the nomination forms filed by Mr Khan in 1997, the petition said.

Conversely, it added, the circumstances warranted the application of Article 122 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, as was invoked in the connected case against Jahangir Tareen. Article 122 states that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him.

About non-declaration of assets and liabilities of Mr Khan’s former wife Jemima in the nomination papers for 2002 and his statement of assets and liabilities 2003, the review petition contended that the apex court had overlooked the contention of Mr Abbasi that the PTI chief consistently failed to declare any assets or liabilities of Jemima Khan while she was still his spouse. This amounted to glaring misdeclaration and corrupt practices envisaged in the law, the petition said.

During that time, the petition argued, Jemima Khan was financing the purchase of Banigala land at Mr Khan’s request. In the case of a shell company being used as a trust vehicle to hold property, unlike in the case of an ordinary company, the beneficial owner was the residuary claimants of the company, it said.

Likewise, the petition added, Mr Khan was the recipient of all assets held or generated by NSL, and even the funds recovered by NSL through litigation done in its own name. It was not conceivable by any stretch of imagination that NSL was dissolved while it still held the London flat, it said.

Without prejudice, the petition reiterated, that NSL was admittedly not a trading or manufacturing company sponsored by some investors to undertake some commercial activity. Mr Khan conceived this company in order to hold his London flat. The corporate structure was arranged for by the service providers, who were charging a management fee for their services. NSL, as an entity, therefore was owned by Mr Khan and not the trustees. Any ownership of the trustees was, therefore, only nominal/benami in nature, the petition said, adding that beneficial owner of NSL was Mr Khan and he should have disclosed this asset in the declarations with the ECP.

The petition highlighted the changing stances by Mr Khan before the court and argued that the judgement did not advert to the emphatic contentions regarding the constantly shifting stances of Mr Khan regarding his financial transactions.

Published in Dawn, January 17th, 2018