KARACHI: An appellate by-election tribunal of the Sindh High Court on Monday dismissed two appeals against acceptance of the candidature of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan from a National Assembly constituency, NA-246, in Lyari.

The tribunal headed by Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry observed that the appeals were meritless and dismissed in limine.

Two candidates of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan Mohammad Jawed and Syed Tayyeb Hussain Hashmi filed appeals against the order passed by the returning officer rejecting their objections and accepting the nomination form of the PTI chief.

The lawyers for appellants argued that the declaration signed by Mr Khan about bank account for the purpose of election expenses was incomplete inasmuch as the account number and the name of bank had been left unfilled while he did not annex with his affidavit a copy of tax returns for the year 2021.

They further contended that the PTI chief’s net assets had increased from the previous financial year, but his tax returns did not justify such increase.

They maintained that he had also not disclosed the cost incurred on his foreign travels.

The tribunal in its order said that at the same time it was not being disputed that Form-B filed by Mr Khan listed four bank accounts and any of which may well be an account maintained for election expenses while it was also not disputed that he had in fact filed a tax return for the year 2021.

“No material is placed on the record to substantiate the averment that tax returns are false, or that any asset has been suppressed in Form-B. The affidavit of the candidate is that in the period of three years he made three foreign trips all as head of state and none in his private capacity,” it added

The order further stated that it appeared to be sufficient disclosure of foreign travels especially when it was not being alleged that there were undisclosed overseas trips and therefore, none of these objections were substantial.

It observed that while filing written objections before the RO, appellants had only vaguely pleaded that candidate had suppressed information and objections now being urged were never pleaded specifically.

Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2022