ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court reminded Pakistan Tehreeki-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan on Tuesday that he still needed to satisfy it about the source of funds used to buy his Banigala property when he was short of money.

In case Mr Khan failed to establish the source, he would have to inform the court about the consequences that would follow, ChiefJustice Mian Saqib Nisar o bserve d.

The observation came at the end of the day`s proceedings on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi`s petitionagainst the PTI chief after Advocate Naeem Bokhari, representing Mr Khan, tried to answer the queries the three-judge bench had posed on May 25.

Mr Khan also submitted his concise statement to clarify discrepancies regarding non-disclosure of an offshore company, Niazi Services Limited (NSL), in his nomination papers for the 2002general elections, the income tax returns of the following year and the money transactions to buy the 300 kanals in Banigala.

Mr Abbasi has sought disqualification of Mr Khan and PTI secretary general Jahangir Khan Tareen over non-disclosure of assets, existence of their offshore companies and belonging to a foreign-aided party.

The chief justice said Mr Khan might not be liable to pay taxes on his income as a professional cricketer abroad since he was a non-resident Pakistani till 1988 but he had to explain which domestic law had allowed him to not disclose it in Pakistan.

He reminded Mr Khan that he also had to respond to the petitioner`s argument that he could not avail an amnesty scheme of 2002 to disclose his London apartment in Pakistan since it was not owned by him but by the NSL and the offshore company was not an `assessee`(individual).

Advocate Bokhari explained that his client had never considered the NSL as an asset but as a parking place and if any returns had to be submitted then it should have been done by the NSL directors. Moreover, till October 2002, Mr Khan was not a holder of a public office, he argued, adding that the PTI chief`s former wife Temima Khan would soon furnish her bank account details containing the remittances made to him.

Fresh application The court issued a notice to Mr Khan and the PTI on a fresh application, filed by Mr Abbasi through his counsel Muhammad Akram Sheikh, seel(ing the statement ofaccounts of the NSL from its formation till date. The applicant also requested the court to requisition account statements from the Citibank N.A. to establish the authenticity of the remittance. Mr Khan has to submit his answers within a week.

The applicant also questioned the source of seed money for the purchase of the London flat in 1983, saying that the refund of the amount to Ms Jemima was important but what was more important was the sources from where 117,500 pounds was generated by Mr Khan who claimed to have acquired it by playing cricket on which taxes were paid both in Australia and London. Yet no record of payment of any taxes in London and Australia had been provided, Mr Abbasi alleged.

Mr Khan has claimed that the balance funds from the sale of the flat in 2003 after repaying the loan to Ms Jemima were brought to Pakistan. But the application said the specific means of bringing the large amount to Pal(istan (appar-ently in excess of Rs10 million) had not been fully disclosed.

Therefore, Mr Khan should present his 2003 income tax returns to confirm the declaration of the funds having been brought to Pakistan and declared, he said.

Advocate Bokhari told the court that all records of income tax returns from 1989 onwards would be placed before it in a sealed envelope but the other party would not be entitled to look at them.

Referring to Mr Khan`s claim that the NSL, worth only nine pounds, did not require any declaration by Mr Khan since it was of no value and so he was not accountable for it, the application submitted that it would be an absurdity that the company had zero capital and, therefore, was at all times incapable of an existence under any applicable legal provision.

Mr Khan had stated in his affidavit of May 22 that the London flat had been `placed` in the NSL by him, the application recalled, adding that this led to an admis-sion that he had purchased the property prior to it being placed in the company as an asset.

The petitioner said NSL managing director Ashely Cox had said in a statement that funds had been transferred from the company to Ms Jemima upon receipt of a letter from Mr Khan. Only the beneficial owner having control of the NSL could have issued instructions for transfer of funds from it to a third party, the petitioner said. He contended that Mr Khan was at all times the beneficial owner of the NSL, a company holding an asset worth almost a million dollars purchased by him prior to placing it in the company.

The application emphasised that the NSL having millions in order to pay off Mr Khan`s debts and being used for pursuing all activities, could not be termed merely a shell company and the non-disclosure of such an asset went to the root of the matter in hand.

`Therefore it is in accordance with law as well as equity and alsoin continuation with the soul and spirit of earlier orders` that Mr Khan be asked to present the money trail through the bank record, it said.

Foreign funding The court also sought from the Election Commission of Pakistan its stance on arguments of PTI counsel Anwar Mansoor that the Supreme Court had no authority to intervene in the matter of foreign funding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution since only the federal government could refer such a matter to it through a reference against a political party.

The apex court asked the ECP to explain whether it had a limited jurisdiction to take up a matter regarding prohibited foreign donations since the PTI counsel had argued that the commission could only decide about such matters before publishing the statements of assets and liabilities of the parties, after which it became a past and closed transaction and, therefore,couldnotbereopened.