ISLAMABAD: Leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Jahangir Tareen Friday filed review petition in the apex court against his disqualification verdict on December 15.
Tareen has also submitted an affidavit with the review petition, stating that the purpose of establishing the Random Trust was to provide a family dwelling in England for his children and grandchildren. In the affidavit submitted alongwith review petition, he said he has four children and all are married and independent.
He also submitted his statement in the court saying that he did not tried to conceal assets in nomination papers purposely. He maintained that the reason behind establishing the trust was to provide a house to his children in UK whereas making himself and his wife as beneficiary was a precautionary step.
The statement further said that the trust was formed through the transfer of payments from the banking channels of Pakistan.
Last year on December 15, the apex court while announcing the verdict on PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi’s petitions, disqualified Jahangir Tareen for life, stating that the reply submitted by Tareen was a confession in itself, thus, he stands disqualified under Article 62 (1) (F) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The court however; dismissed plea to disqualify Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar said Imran Khan was not liable to declare Niazi Services Ltd in his 2013 nomination papers as he was not a shareholder.
He states further that the reason he did not mention his offshore company Shiny View Limited or Hyde House (the palatial residence) in his nomination papers or tax returns as he had arrived at this conclusion based on his honest belief and understanding of the legal effect of the trust arrangement. He claimed that the question of concealing the trust does not arise since it was funded through remittances from Pakistan using official banking channels.
“My understanding and knowledge of the trust arrangement, its legal aspects and components and its legal effect was that of a lay person gathered from my interaction with my professional advisors and the Trustees,” the affidavit states.
Tareen concludes that the documents he submitted in court during the hearing “do not warrant a declaration of dishonesty" on his part, adding that there was never any intent to mislead or conceal the truth from the court, his former constituents, the government, nor is there any evidence to the contrary on record.