ISLAMABAD: Hearing a petition against Pakistan Tehreek-iInsaf (PTI)chairmanImranKhan, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Monday observed that the Supreme Court cannot disqualify a parliamentarian on mere assumptions.

`We are conscious of the fact that declaring a member [of] par-liament as non-sagacious, non-profligate and not-ameen carries a stigma,` the chief justice said while heading a three-judge bench that had taken up the petition instituted by Hanif Abbasi, a leader of the ruling PakistanMuslim League-N (PML-N) from Rawalpindi.

The petitioner has sought disqualification of Mr Khan and PTI`s secretary general Jahangir Khan Tareenfornon-disclosure of assetsand existence of offshore companies and for the PTI being a foreign-funded organisation.

During the proceedings, the CJ pointed towards Mr Abbasi`s counsel Muhammad Akram Sheikh and said the petitioner was seeking disqualification of an MNA which the court could not do on assumptions.

But the counsel retorted that such stigma was being hurled in multiple manners by the gentleman (Imran Khan) against the leadership of the ruling party.

The court asked Naeem Bokhari, who is representing Mr Khan and Mr Tareen, to submit details about the formation of the Niazi Services Limited (NSL), the offshore company, and explain who the original beneficial owner of the company was.

`We understand that offshore companies were an investment vehicle for the purpose of avoiding and not evading taxes, which was also permissible under the law,` observed the chief justice.

The court also asked for replies to the application moved by Mr Abbasi, seeking a money trail to substantiate the purchase of the 300 kanals of land in Banigala where Mr Khan lives.

Privileged papers The chief justice made it clear that the income tax returns and wealth statements were privileged documents which even the courts could not summon until theprivilege was waived.

The application required Mr Khan to submit the bank statement of Account No 9010327943 held with Citibank Islamabad in the name of Rashid Ali Khan from March 2002 to January 2003 in which remittances equivalent to $660,693 were received from the account of Mr Khan`s former wife Jemima Khan from the UK as a personalloan.

Likewise, the statements of bank accounts of Jemima Khan in the UK were also required.

Mr Sheikh also asked Mr Khan to submit his bank account statements for March 2003, his income tax and wealth tax returns for financial years from 2001 to 2005, as well as his bank account in the UK for the period April 2003 to Dec 2003. Mr Khan is also required to submit wealth tax statements from the year 1983 to 2003 filed under the Wealth TaxAct, 1963.

Mr Khan claimed, the applicant argued, that proceeds from the sale of his London apartment were used for the purchase of the Banigala land and the transactions and payments resulting from there were linked together. Those were linked together through a set of transactions broadly consisting of a loan of $660,693 remitted to Mr Rashid Khan`s accounts by Jemima Khan, conversion of the loan amount by Mr Rashid Khan to Pakistani rupees and corresponding payments made to the seller of the Banigala land in addition to personal funds available to the extent of Rs6.8 million prior to the availability of the personal loan paid towards the first three instalments for the purchase.

`NSL never disclosed` The counsel argued that the NSL, used for the purchase ofLondon flat by Imran Khan, was never disclosed in his income tax returns or wealth statements, not even before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), though the PTI leader mentioned it while benefiting from an amnesty scheme during the Musharraf government to allegedly whiten the London property by paying Rs240,000.

`Even if we consider that NSL had become a shell company after the sale of the London flat why 350 pounds as well as the legal fee of the solicitor, which usually runs in thousands of pounds, were paid for 12 long years until 2015,` the counsel said and asked whether NSL was earning profit.

At this Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that one can presume that the offshore company had other assets than the London flat.

The issue can be resolved veryeasily, the chief justice observed, by asking Mr Khan to submit an affidavit. `There can be multiple reasons to keep a company alive, the CJ said.

Mr Khan is not an ordinary man but an elected leader who by not disclosing NSL in his income tax returns or the wealth statements had committed misconduct and fraud, the counsel argued.

The counsel also cited tweet messages of Jemima Khan to at least two private television channels in December 2011 in which she claimed that she never lent or paid back any money to Imran Khan for the Banigala land, besides a general power of attorney in which she declared that 300 kanals Banigala land was purchased by Mr Khan.

The land was transferred in her name but after divorce she returned the same, the counsel said.