News @ 3 - 28th Sep 2017

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, on Thursday once again expressed its dissatisfaction on assets and bank transactions’ records provided by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chief Imran Khan, ARY News reported.

The three-member bench was hearing a petition, seeking disqualification of PTI chairman Imran Khan, when it noted that the contradictory stances have been adopted by the party counsel.

The PTI chief’s counsel – Naeem Bukhari – presented his arguments before the bench, asserting that an email has been sent to Khan’s former spouse Jemima Goldsmith concerning the loan that she provided to Khan for purchase of Bani Gala residence.

Bukhari said that Jemima has assured his client about sending the back details.

To which, the chief justice remarked that the PTI chief is adopting dual stance over the money received from Jemima.

“The first response does not mention Khan receiving loan from his former wife, the matter of loan was highlighted in subsequent reply,” the chief justice remarked.

The bench queried Khan’s counsel the motive behind not providing complete asset details with Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in his nomination papers.

“The presence of 75,000 British pounds in Barclays Private Bank and Trust Ltd; and if the funds had been transferred from one account to the other, why the bank statement of 2003 was not presented before the ECP,” the bench asked.

To which, Bukhari contended that it was the job of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), and not the ECP to inquire about the income, assets and liabilities.

The chief justice then asked the counsel whether the 75,000 pounds did not constitute Khan’s assets.

In response, Bukhari replied in negative. “We reject the allegation that the money was remitted as a gift to evade tax,” he said.

The Chief Justice noted that it was a simple case but it has been deliberately made complicated.

He said that the counsel had not disclosed earlier that Khan’s ex-wife Jemima had given Rs6.5 million as a gift to him.

At this, the counsel asserted that monetary exchange between wife and husband does not qualify as a loan.

Joining in remarks, Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the documents do not divulge the money trail.

Later the court adjourned the hearing till October 3.