ISLAMABAD: Seemin­gly unsatisfied with a fresh 1,600-page document furnished by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) secretary general Jahangir Tareen — who is facing a disqualification case — the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted at the possibility of constituting a “commission”, similar to the one tasked with ascertaining the facts in the Panama Papers case.

“You want us to summon the revenue officer concerned or form a commission to find out the actual situation of cultivation [on leased lands]?” asked Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, who heads a three-judge SC bench hearing petitions filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi.

Mr Abbasi is seeking the disqualification of PTI chief Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen for not disclosing assets, possessing offshore companies and for the PTI being a foreign-aided party.

The observation came when Advocate Sikandar Bashir Mohmand — who represents Mr Tareen — told the Supreme Court that he had provided a ten-volume document to show genuine agriculture transactions through 160 original lease agreements, Jama bandi (revenue records) and crossed cheques to the landlords of the 18,566 acres of leased lands in Rahim Yar Khan and Rajanpur districts.

The counsel explained that his client had entered into lease agreements with family heads instead of individual landowners, which was a common practice in these areas. Since most of the lands were owned by large landholders with feudal backgrounds, the level of record-keeping was not as meticulous as it should be, he said.

PTI leader’s counsel chastised for not producing required documents; Imran Khan claims earlier stance about £100,000 was incorrect

However, the chief justice regretted that none of the documents contained Khasra gardawari — a document containing the record of on-spot verifications of agricultural land by revenue officers — which the court had repeatedly asked for. Therefore, the court noted, the lease agreements might not be of any help to Mr Tareen.

“The crossed cheques may buttress your position, but kindly show us one document [that shows] that your client cultivated these lands,” the chief justice inquired again, recalling that the relevant law suggested that any agreement over 11 months should always be registered.

“It is very unusual that the landholders of the area are paid through crossed cheques,” the chief justice wondered, adding: “We need to know what the actual position is.”

However, Mr Tareen’s counsel contended that there was reluctance on the part of the landowners to record everything in black and white.

During the proceedings, the chief justice also pointed out key contradictions, stressing that the relevant official record in this matter was Khasra gardawari, adding that in the absence of relevant documents, the possibility of the defendant’s witness being a sham or farce could not be ruled out.

This drew a sharp reaction from the counsel who warned that the word “sham” would be all over the headlines the next day, adding that the media never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

The court, however, stated that the word was not meant to refer to his client.

While perusing the various documents, the chief justice reiterated that the counsel’s client did not have any official proof of the leased lands, nor did he have anything to prove that these lands were being cultivated by Mr Tareen.

But Advocate Mohmand stuck to his guns. “I am not debating with the honourable bench, only saying that this is the reality in the area,” he argued.

“When I have paid Rs210 million to the landlord, how can it be that I am not cultivating the leased lands?” the counsel pointed out.

But Justice Umar Atta Bandial observed that the money could have been payment for sugarcane procured for his factory.

“I am trying to establish my bona fide in good faith,” the counsel argued, adding that he had realised that the 1,600 pages he had filed were worthless.

Imran Khan

Referring to documents submitted on behalf of PTI chief Imran Khan, the chief justice regretted that Mr Khan was trying to set up a new case and wondering whether the stance he had taken in these documents was the same as the one adopted earlier.

“You are providing more documents at the fag-end of the proceedings,” the chief justice said, issuing notices to the petitioner to submit a rejoinder within a week.

There was always a disconnect because the chain of proof was missing, the chief justice observed, illustrating his point by highlighting the absence of the account statement of Tahir Nawaz — Mr Khan’s accountant — to show that actual amount was credited in his accounts.

In the documents, Mr Khan has stated that he had nothing to gain by not disclosing to Pakistani authorities the utilisation of approximately 100,000 pounds retained by the directors or shareholders of Niazi Services Limited, his offshore company.

Niazi Services was de-notified in 2012 and not in 2015, as stated earlier.

According to the counsel, the position adopted earlier about the remaining 100,000 pounds retained by NSL in 2003 was based on memory, incorrect advice, absence of the requisite record and lack of documentary information.

The chief justice however observed that the authenticity of all these documents was being challenged by the petitioner, while Justice Bandial recalled that the petitioner was right in claiming that Mr Khan made heavy payments to maintain his offshore company. The case will be taken up again on Wednesday (today).

Published in Dawn, October 18th, 2017