ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) counsel surprised the Supreme Court bench hearing the disqualification case against Imran Khan on Wednesday when he claimed that not only his client but also the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Peoples Party, Muttahida QaumiMovement and All Pakistan Muslim League and even the Pakistan government also owned companies in foreign countries to collect donations.

`The PTI is not the only one but other political parties also havecompanies abroad,` said PTI lawyer Anwar Mansoor before a threejudge bench.

Headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, the bench had taken up PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi`s petition seeking disqualificationof PTI chairman Imran Khan and secretary general Jahangir Tareen for non-disclosure of assets and existence of offshore companies owned by Mr Khan and Mr Tareen and for the PTI being a `foreignaided` party.

During the proceedings, Justice Umar Ata Bandial described the petition as of the highest public significance since the question had been raised against a party for receiving foreign funds. The politicians of a country should be up to the mark, he observed.

Mr Mansoor submitted a set of documents showing initiation of a company called the PML-N UK with Zubair Gul having the right to exercise control over the company.

The company`s statement of objectives says that its purpose is to promote democracy, peace, prosperity, social justice, rule of law, education and health, tolerance and equality in Pakistan.

One of the purposes of the party is to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan and engage Pakistanis living abroad, particularly in the UK, to participate in Pakistani politics.

`This is why you say that any action should be across the board,` observed Justice Bandial.

But the counsel argued that the PML-N was a registered company in the UK and its objectives were similar to those of the company registered by the PTI in the US and the PML-N also had provisions for collection of funds.

However, he did not submit any document suggesting transfer of funds from the UK to Pakistan by the PML-N, saying unlike the US where everything was of ficial and open, the situation was different in Britain and it was difficult to download record from the UK since it had no organisation like the US Foreign Agents Regulatory Authority (FARA).

`When everybody is doing this, then it will be appropriate to say that the petitioner has not come with clean hands,` the counsel argued, adding that the serious punishment of banning a political party had been provided under the law if foreign aid was usedagainst sovereignty and integrity of the country.

To illustrate his point, Mr Mansoor cited the example of Indian spy Kulbushan Jadhav who was aided through foreign money to foment terrorism in Pakistan.

`You mean to say that the foreign aid must have nexus with working of the party against sovereignty and integrity of the country,` Justice Bandial asked.

Senior counsel Mohammad Akram Sheikh, representing Mr Abbasi, spoke of the perils if strings of a political party were pulled from abroad and, to substantiate, he said how they were facing foreign interference in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Referring to PTI-USA-LLC (limited liabilities company), Mr Mansoor argued that the company registered with the FARA was the PTI`s agent, and entitled to collect funds on behalf of the party to transmit to Pakistan but constituted to fulfil requirement of US laws. Such funds or donations do not fall within the prohibitory funds clause under the relevant laws.

He argued that it was a lawful activity as even the Election Commission of Pakistan, under the local laws, specified foreign donations to be legal. The dual nationals of Pakistan origin living abroad could donate party funds to the company, he said.

At this the chief justice recalled how the apex court was considering a sepa-rate case relating to voting rights to overseasPakistanis and observed that `their hearts pulsated with us` since they were living abroad under compulsions.

The chief justice asked the counsel to suggest any forum if the ECP could not intervene in the matter of foreign funding.

But the counsel argued that if the commission was allowed to look into the party funds to discover foreign funding af ter the submission of annual financial accounts and its subsequent publication, it would open floodgates creating commotion for ECP.

If something wrong had been done and a `mis-declaration` had been filed, then ECP could issue a notice to the party to explain the situation or return the accounts for correction but the commission could not accept complaints from everybody, he said.

Butthe chiefjusdce observed thatit was a mere presumption that floodgates would be opened for the ECP.

He asked the counsel to explain which forum would determine that the financial assistance did not fall under prohibitory funding if a local or locally incorporated multinational corporation donated a fleet of 100 buses along with fuel or an aircraft or booked several rooms in a local hotel to help the political party to make their public meeting a success. But the counsel argued that once the accounts of the political party were made public, they could not be reviewed or re-opened.