ISLAMABAD: Petitioner Hanif Abbasi of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz seeking disqualification of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf top leadership told the Supreme Court on Friday that PTI chairman Imran Khan was abusing the court process through his revised concise statement that sought amendments to his earlier pleadings.

“The shifting stances adopted by Mr Khan, as being adopted now in the fresh concise statement, are reckless as regards to commitment to veracity and truthfulness especially when appearing before a court of law,” Mr Abbasi argued in a rejoinder submitted through his counsel Mohammad Akram Sheikh to highlight contradictions in the PTI chief’s statements.

Therefore, the rejoinder said, Mr Khan’s fresh concise statement should be dismissed forthwith.

A three-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had directed Akram Sheikh to furnish the rejoinder in response to the PTI chief’s revised concise statement that would be taken on Monday.

The bench is hearing the petition filed by Mr Abbasi seeking disqualification of Imran Khan and PTI secretary general Tareen for not disclosing their assets and owning offshore companies. He also wants the court to declare the PTI a foreign-aided party.

Hanif Abbasi’s rejoinder in SC claims PTI chief made false declarations about London flat

“[Imran] Khan repeatedly makes allegations against others about lack of probity, but his own conduct shows that he has been most casual about these values and is neither righteous nor sagacious in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution as well as Section 231 of the Elections Act, 2017,” the rejoinder said.

Referring to London’s Draycott flat earlier possessed by Mr Khan, the PML-N leader said the respondent had made false declarations before the Election Commission of Pakistan and false averments before the apex court.

The rejoinder explained that Mr Khan had in a sworn affidavit specifically stated that his offshore company — Niazi Services Limited (NSL) — had been formed on professional advice for the purpose of purchasing the London apartment and after the disposal of the property it was dormant, except for formality of filing statutory returns. But the record of the case showed that these assertions were false because a number of transactions had been routed through NSL accounts, it said.

Moreover, Mr Khan adopted the position that ECP had been correctly infor­med about his assets and liabilities on June 30 every year. But the flat was declared as an asset by Mr Khan on June 30, 2002 in the nomination form filed for election in NA-71 (Mianwali).

Likewise, it said, the PTI chief had admitted that he was the beneficial owner of the London flat. Therefore, the conversion of this asset into cash after its sale would also be an asset of Mr Khan and the statement of accounts of NSL of June 30, 2003 reflected that he beneficially owned 99,702 pounds for the period ending June 30, 2003.

The rejoinder claimed that Mr Khan had on June 30, 2004 beneficially owned 33,412 pounds, but these facts were not disclosed in the sworn statement filed in the ECP for the period ending June 30, 2004. It said Mr Khan had also stated that 100,000 pounds remained in NSL to meet the cost and judgement in favour of the tenant of the London flat.

“The retention of money belonging to a person to meet some contingency does not mean that the money ceases to be an asset of that person,” the rejoinder argued, adding that an interesting revelation from the revised concise statement came to the fore that only 25,000 pounds had been paid to the solicitor representing NSL.

Referring to the stance taken by Mr Khan in his fresh statement that his position regarding 100,000 pounds in the NSL accounts in 2003 was based on memory, incorrect advice, absence of the requisite record, lack of documentary information, etc, the rejoinder argued that reliance on wrong advice had never been an acceptable excuse.

“Remedy lies in proceedings against the adviser rather than seeking to escape liability before a court of law,” the rejoinder said, adding that memory and lack of due diligence were absolutely false pleas which were not tenable before a court of law.

Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2017