Hanif Abbasi files another application in Imran Khan's disqualification case
Shares
ISLAMABAD,(APP): Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi on Thursday submitted another misclenious application before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan's disqualification case.
Hanif Abbasi submitted application through Advoocate Akram Sheikh and stated that during previous hearings of the case, the PTI chief had changed his stance about the purchase of Bani Gala land by getting loan from his ex-wife Jemima.
He also stated that in his initial concise statement, Imran Khan had claimed that he bought the Banigala land for himself, whereas his ex-wife Jemima remitted funds for this purpose as a loan, and that the sale agreement was also in his name.
The application claimed that Imran Khan allegedly backtracked from his earlier stance when he claimed that the Banigala property was purchased by Jemima herself. Thus, he (Imran) completely suppressed the fact that he obtained a loan from Jemima to purchase the land.
Abbasi insisted that this stance is a complete deviation from Immran’s earlier pleadings and the position adopted in the fresh reply was that the land was always the exclusive property of Jemima and was paid for by her.
The application pointed out that in his wealth statement for the year ending June 2002, filed with the Federal Board of Revenue, Imran Khan had accounted for Rs6.5 million as a gift to his then-wife.
However, in his nomination form filed in the year 2002, Imran Khan had declared the same amount as an advance, whereas the column pertaining to gifts was empty.
Referring to Imran Khan's offshore company Niazi Services Limited (NSL), the application argued that being an asset, the same was liable to be declared. Moreover, just as Imran Khan had admitted to being the owner of the London flat, the funds in NSL’s account were also his assets that needed to be declared.
Referring to the stand taken by Imran Khan that the use of the term benami by Jemima in the power of attorney document was an error, the application stressed that it was completely contrary to the record and an afterthought.
