SC directs PML-N’s lawyer to submit material against Tareen in written form

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the counsel for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi to submit his submissions against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Secretary General Jehangir Tareen in a written form. A three-member Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, directed this while hearing a petition seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen over non-disclosure of their assets, ownership of offshore companies, and PTI being a foreign-aided party. During the hearing, the chief justice observed that when Tareen formed a ‘trust’ and transferred the money abroad through a legal way, how he could be declared ‘dishonest’. He said the court could not bypass any law, thus it could not declare anyone a dishonest person on mere allegations while remaining in the ambit of law. Resuming his arguments, Hanif Abbasi’s lawyer Azid Nafees contended that Tareen had adopted different stances at different stages of the case about his 18,566 acres of agriculture land, which he acquired on lease. He said once Tareen claimed before the court that the land was exempted from all type of taxes, whereas later he contended that there was no column in the nomination papers of the Election Commission of Pakistan to declare the leased agriculture land. He said when he was the beneficiary of the leased land, he was required to pay taxes under the law. To a court query, he said Tareen did not pay any tax on his agricultural income. He said the leased land was also not registered with the Finance Department. The chief justice then noted that the beneficiary of any property could not be declared its legitimate owner in certain matters. He asked the counsel to explain under what law Tareen was required to disclose the property of his ‘trust’. The chief justice noted that it would have to be seen whether the tax authorities of Punjab had taken any action against Tareen for not paying taxes on the leased agriculture land. The counsel argued that a prime minister was disqualified on account of concealing facts. The chief justice then noted that the key issue in the Panama case was the source of money, which was used to purchase the properties in London. He said that according to the trust deed presented by Tareen before the court, he (Tareen) was the discretionary lifetime beneficiary of his UK properties. He said avoidance of tax through legal means could not be considered “dishonesty”. The counsel then stated that while deciding the issue of honesty, the court must examine the conduct of the candidate as well. He contended that the documents submitted by Tareen about the lease of 18,566 acres of land were forged. On arguments that Tareen was required to declare his assets in the nomination papers, the chief justice noted the trust was not an asset. During the hearing, Justice Umar Ata Bandial noted that two judges of the Panama case had observed that there must be a violation of law for the disqualification of an MNA under Article 62(1) of the constitution because it would be considered a lifetime disqualification. He noted that the detailed verdict on the review plea in Panama case has drawn a distinction between disqualification under election laws and Article 62(1) of the constitution. He said the court had to see whether the dishonesty could be construed from the documents submitted by Tareen. The counsel stated that earlier Tareen stated his children were the actual beneficiaries of the trust, but later he submitted the trust deed, according to which he (Tareen), his spouse and children were the beneficiaries of the trust. He contended that the trust was established just to conceal the ownership of property, adding that the court would have to look at the element of dishonesty in a lawmaker’s conduct, instead of looking into his intention. In his arguments, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Tareen, stated that the owner of a trust’s funds was the company on which the trust based. He said his client, being a settler of the trust, did not use his prerogative.   Published in Daily Times, November 9th 2017.