ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Thursday resolved to uncover the truth about Imran Khan’s financial records, even if the Supreme Court had to conduct an inquiry or summon relevant records.

The observation came when a three-judge Supreme Court noted glaring discrepancies in the explanation offered by senior counsel Naeem Bokhari on behalf of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief regarding the non-disclosure of an offshore company in his nomination papers for the 2002 elections and his income tax returns from the subsequent year.

The Supreme Court had taken up ruling party leader Hanif Abbasi’s petition seeking the disqualification of Mr Khan and PTI secretary general Jahangir Tareen.

The court not only highlighted inconsistencies in the accounts, it also observed that the petitioner was also claiming that Mr Khan was not sadiq and ameen, since he had submitted false statements in his income tax returns, when he should have disclosed all his business abroad before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Naeem Bokhari attributes inconsistencies in PTI chief’s financial records to ‘bad accounting’

During the hearing of the Panama Papers case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family, the five-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had also highlighted inconsistencies and pointed out that the real issue was that of honesty.

When the court concluded its proceedings on Thursday, Mr Bokhari conceded that he had to satisfy the court on a number of queries; whether Mr Khan was required to disclose foreign asset details under local laws; how could Niazi Services Limited — incorporated with a total capital of nine pounds — acquire the London flat worth 117,000 pounds; and why did Mr Khan continue to receive rent for the flat until 2004, when it was sold in 2003.

Mr Bokhari also assured the court he would help reconcile the amounts remitted between Mr Khan and Jemima Khan. He will also explain why the revenue record bears the name of Jemima Khan when an additional 95 kanals of land was purchased in 2005, a year after their divorce. The counsel told the court that Mr Khan would write to his ex-wife to provide the entire remittance record from her accounts to satisfy the court’s queries.

The court also wanted to know why the amount remitted to the accounts of Rashid Ali Khan, an old friend of Mr Khan and an international banker, had mentioned the name of Jemima twice, but not the subsequent four times.

Advocate Akram Sheikh, who represents Hanif Abbasi, pointed out that there were reports suggesting that Rashid Khan had been appointed director of Khyber Bank at a hefty salary. Niazi Services, Mr Bokhari argued, was merely a vehicle to place the flat under its ownership and to save Mr Khan from paying capital gains tax.

He recalled that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had stated before the Supreme Court earlier that it was investigating the Panama Papers and if there was a requirement to pay a penalty, Mr Khan was willing to pay.

Any non-payment or short payment of taxes would be determined by FBR, the counsel emphasised.

Mr Bokhari emphasised that the Banigala land was purchased for Jemima Khan and their two children, and that since their marriage was dissolved in 2004 without any bitterness, the land could still be with her. It was a matter between a husband and his former wife and the court had nothing to do with it, the counsel argued. If the accounts could not be reconciled, what should be the presumption, the chief justice asked, to which Mr Bokhari quipped: “Bad accounting”.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court summoned the entire record of the foreign funding case against the PTI, pending before the ECP.

Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2017