Pak’s SC dismisses PML-N leader’s petition seeking Imran Khan’s disqualification
Islamabad, Oct 18 : Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition filed by a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Imran Khan over non-disclosure of his assets and ownership of offshore companies.
An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar dismissed the review petition filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, saying that “no lawful point has been raised in the petition”, Geo TV reported.
During the hearing, Abbasi’s lawyer said, “Imran provided documents in pieces which were not verified and not acceptable.”
At this, the chief justice said, “The court decides whether it is satisfied with the documents that are submitted and we are satisfied with the ones we received.”
Abbasi’s lawyer, however, said, “If the court was advised then it would have clarified the law.”
In response, Chief Justice Nisar said, “We have clarified the law in our decision.”
Last month, the apex court had refused to form a full bench to hear Abbasi’s review petition against its decision to dismiss the disqualification case against Prime Minister Imran.
In his 13-page review petition, Abbasi had demanded the disqualification of Khan over non-disclosure of his assets and ownership of offshore companies.
The petition stated that now, since Imran has become the prime minister, the matter is more pertinent for the public.
The original petition, filed by Abbasi in November 2016, had sought Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen and Imran’s disqualification over non-disclosure of their assets and ownership of offshore companies.
It accused the PTI leaders of not declaring their assets to the Election Commission and violations of the lncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, and Peoples Act, 1974. It also claimed that the PTI is a ‘foreign-funded’ party.
In its December 15, 2017 ruling, the apex court had disqualified Tareen but ruled in favour of Imran.
The chief justice had cleared Imran in the case as the petitioner was not directly affected in the foreign funding case.