ISLAMABAD: In a bid to counter the allegations of receiving funds from abroad, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Wednesday submitted documents in the Supreme Court regarding a foreign company registered by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in United Kingdom ‘to engage expatriates based in UK to participate in politics in Pakistan and raise money for party activities’.
The documents submitted by PTI counsel before a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, stated that the ruling PML-N also owned a company in UK in the name of PMLN-UK, which was got registered under the Companies Act, 2006, in September 2015.
The top court is hearing a petition of PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi seeking disqualification of PTI chief Imran Khan as member of National Assembly.
According to the PMLN-UK’s statement of objects, the company is formed to engage Pakistanis based overseas in UK to participate in the politics in Pakistan as enunciated by PMLN and to promote its ideology.
The PMLN’s private limited company is also mandated to borrow as well as raise money in such manner as the company shall think fit and to secure the repayment of any money borrowed, raised or owing by mortgage, charge, standard security, lien or other security upon the whole or any part of the company’s property or assets. The company is also authorized to enter into any arrangements with any government or authority that may seem conductive to the attainment of the company’s objects.
Counsel for PTI contended before the top court that PTI was not the only party which had registered an agent company abroad but ruling PML-N, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) and even the federal government too had got registered their agent companies.
He further said that PTI had not collected money from government or any multinational company but it was collecting money from overseas Pakistanis and granting them party’s membership in return, which was not prohibited under the law.
The counsel contended that the PTI Limited Liability Company was registered with Foreign Agents Regulatory Authority (FARA) in US and its objective was to collect funds from overseas Pakistanis and even the dual nationals. He maintained that the dual nationals could also get the membership of any Pakistani political party since there was no bar in the law.
The chief justice asked if a company contributes to party’s gatherings in terms of transportation and fueling services, which forum and who will determine whether this contribution comes under prohibited sources and at what time the scrutiny or examination could be done.
Mansoor said that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) could scrutinize the report of declaration of assets but only at the time of allotment of symbols or at the time of submission of declarations. However, he added, once the parties’ accounts are published by ECP, those could not be re-scrutinized.
The bench observed that the scrutiny of the accounts of political parties was a matter of public importance and standards should be set up in this regard.
Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that this was a matter of public importance wherein a question had been raised under Article 184 (3) on a political party getting foreign funding.
Naeem Bukhari, counsel for PTI chief Imran Khan, contended that his client had been a professional cricketer from 1971 to 1992 and had also been playing for two counties in UK, including Sussex and Yorkshire during the year 1971 to 1979. He said that his client earned money by playing cricket and purchased a flat in London in 1983. He said that his client was the sole owner of the flat and no other asset was placed under the Niazi Services Limited (NSL) at any point of time except the London flat.
Bukhari said that his client had purchased the Bani Gala land in March 2002 and the land was declared as belonging to the dependent, his former wife.
However, the court directed Naeem Bukhari to place his arguments on the questions as to what type of assets were mandatory to be disclosed as per electoral law and as to whether a Pakistani citizen was required under the income tax law to disclose his foreign assets.
