The Supreme Court on Friday handed down its much-awaited
judgement in the Imran Khan, Jahangir Tareen disqualification case,
rejecting Hanif Abbasi's petition for Khan's disqualification but
disqualifying Jahangir Tareen for life.
The verdict was
announced in Courtroom No. 1 by a three-judge bench comprising Chief
Justice Nisar, Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab.
'Imran not out'
The chief justice, reading out the judgement in the packed
courtroom, said the court had found that Khan was not liable to declare
offshore company Niazi Services Ltd in his 2013 nomination papers as he
was not a shareholder or director of the company.
The
court's detailed judgement noted that the money trail provided by Imran
Khan sufficiently covered the Bani Gala property's purchase price, the
funds provided by Jemima Goldsmith, Khan's ex-wife, and the proceeds
from the sale of Khan's apartment in London.
The court
held that the Bani Gala property was Khan's property; he had bought the
land for his family, but was gifted the property by his ex-wife, Jemima
Khan, after their separation, the chief justice remarked while reading
the judgement.
'Tareen was dishonest'
The bench found PTI secretary general Jahangir Tareen to be
dishonest under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and Section 99 of
Representation of People Act (ROPA) on one count among the multiple
charges brought against him.
Article 62(1)(f) — which sets the precondition for the head of government to be "sadiq and ameen"
(truthful and honest) — had led to the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif
from holding public office in the July 28 judgement on the Panama
Papers case.
"The respondent [Tareen] is disqualified in
terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f)
of ROPA for the non-declaration of his property/asset i.e. 'Hyde House'
in his nomination papers, and in making untrue statement before this
Court, that he has no beneficial interest in SVL [offshore company];
therefore, he should cease to hold the office as the member of the
National Assembly with immediate effect," read the judgement.
The
judgement noted that Tareen may have committed the offence of insider
trading, but could not be judged for having committed a crime because of
the terms of his settlement with the Securities and Exchange
Corporation of Pakistan (SECP). The court also stated that the matter
had been closed by the SECP after Tareen paid a fine, and so could not
be used as a grounds to disqualify him.
On the matter of
alleged misrepresentation and short payment of agricultural income tax
by Tareen, the court said it would not issue a declaration on it because
the matter was currently sub judice in multiple courts.
The
court also said it was not convinced that Tareen had been involved in
acquiring loans and having them written off for his benefit, which would
have demonstrated dishonesty. It noted that the loans acquired by FPML
allegedly written off by Tareen were actually written off in 2010,
before Tareen was even a shareholder or director of the company.
Therefore, he could not be held responsible for it.
Foreign funding
The SC directed that the foreign funding case against PTI as
a party be investigated by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP),
as Abbasi had no locus standi to pursue it.
"It is the responsibility of the ECP to look at the foreign funding case in detail," Justice Nisar said.
The
court ruled that the ECP should, for the sake of impartiality, look
into the foreign funds of the party over the preceding five-year period
only.
Delay in verdict
The CJ said that the delay in the verdict, which was
announced more than an hour late in Courtroom No.1, was due to a mistake
on one page. "We had to go through the entire 250-page document," he
explained, apologizing for the delay.
He asked that the verdict be heard with patience.
Petitioner
Abbasi as well as other members of PML-N — including Talal Chaudhry and
Maryam Aurungzeb — were present in the court.
Neither Imran Khan — currently in Karachi — nor Tareen were in attendance.
Strict
security arrangements were made for today's verdict. At least 900
security officers were stationed outside the court, with 300 more
deployed inside.
Courtroom No. 1 was last in the
limelight when a five-judge SC bench comprising Justices Asif Saeed
Khosa, Gulzar Ahmed, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Sheikh Azmat Saeed and
Ijaz-ul-Ahsan disqualified Nawaz Sharif as prime minister in the Panama
Papers case.
The case
The petition, filed by Abbasi in November 2016,
accuses the two PTI leaders of not declaring their assets to the
Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and seeks their disqualification
based on alleged violations of the lncome Tax Ordinance 1979 and
Representation of Peoples Act 1974.
On May 3, amidst a heightened political backdrop, a three-member bench of the apex court had begun hearing the petition.
During
the length of the case, the lawyers from both sides had presented their
arguments for over 100 hours and referred to 73 different cases as
precedent, DawnNews reported. After more than 50 court hearings, the verdict was reserved on November 14.
Abbasi's petition
Abbasi's petition had sought the PTI leaders’
disqualification under charges of false declaration before the ECP,
non-disclosure of assets in offshore companies, and for being a
foreign-funded party.
The petiton had aruged that by
failing to disclose the existence of "Niazi Services Limited" — an
off-shore company allegedly owned by the PTI chairman — to the ECP, Khan
stands in violation of the Income Tax Ordinance of 1979.
Additionally,
Abbasi had claimed that the 'off-shore company' has consistently been
submitting its financial documents to the relevant authorities in the
Channel Islands, where the company is said to be based.
Abbasi
had maintained that Imran Khan failed to formally declare his
'off-shore company' to authorities in Pakistan and opines that Khan's
intention to establish the off-shore company, which was dissolved in
October 2015, was rooted in tax evasion.
Furthermore,
Abbasi had argued that Imran Khan failed to disclose to the ECP his
Rs2.97 million purchase of a luxury apartment in the capital city of
Islamabad. That, he had argued, is a violation of the Peoples Act of
1974 and can result in the dismissal of PTI Chairman Imran Khan.
Questions posed to Imran's lawyer
Throughout the proceedings of the case, Khan's lawyer
Advocate Naeem Bukhari was questioned by the apex bench on various
matters, specifically the money trail for PTI chief's flat in London and
his Banigala property.
In one of the hearings, Advocate Bukhari was questioned over Khan's failure to declare the London flat as an asset. He had told the court that the flat was not declared as it was located outside of Pakistan.
Over several hearings, the court had sought clarity from Khan's lawyer with regards to the PTI chief's Banigala residence,
questioning where the money for it had come from and if Khan had
accepted a loan or a gift from his former wife, Jemima Khan, to purchase
the property.
During the course of the hearing, the bench had also asked for the account details of Niazi Services Limited (NSL), Khan's offshore company, that was dissolved in 2015
Tareen's land and off-shore company
The court had raised questions pertaining to Tareen's 18,500 acres of land, which his lawyer had argued was leased and not owned.
The lawyer had attempted to explain why his client had not declared the
land is his election forms and had made the distinction between land
owned by his client and that which was leased as the basis for his
defence.
Several hearings had also focused on Tareen's
offshore company, Shiny View Limited, established under British Virgin
Islands laws in 2011. The company owned a residential property in
Berkshire, UK, for the use of his four children, who were beneficial
owners of the property, Tareen's lawyer had told the court.
