Dar challenges Panama Papers verdict

ISLAMABAD – Finance Minister Ishaq Dar Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Panama Papers verdict of July 28, a day prior to his appearance before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

The five-member SC bench in its final judgment had asked the anti-graft body to file a reference against Dar for possessing assets and funds beyond his known sources of income.

The NAB has summoned Dar on Tuesday (today) to record his statement. The finance minister has prayed to the apex court to grant a stay against the NAB reference until the final decision on his review petition. He has also asked the top court to set aside the July 28 final order and dismissed PTI chief Imran Khan’s petition.

Dar has filed the petition under Article 188 of the Constitution and contended that in Imran Khan’s original petition the only allegation against him was his confessional statement of April 20, 2000. He said that there was no allegation against him regarding possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Dar has contended that the July 28 verdict has deprived him of three stages under NAB Ordinance — inquiry, investigation and reference.

“The amplitude of powers conferred to the apex court under 184 (3) of the Constitution cannot be expanded to negate or whittle down fundamental rights under articles 4, 9, 10A, 14 and 25 of the Constitution or to reduce NAB’s powers under Section 18 of NAO to nullity,” Dar said in his review petition.

He has submitted that the apex court direction for the filing of reference along with the order that the entire process, including trial, shall be monitored by a judge of the apex court and the high praise for the Joint Investigation Team tantamount to assuming and combining into one the roles of the complainant.

He said that this was a grave prejudice to his fundamental rights because the accountability court will be influenced by the fact that the reference has been directed to be filed by the Supreme Court and the top court judge was monitoring the entire prosecution that was based on the JIT report.

He has submitted that a three-judge bench heard the arguments on the JIT report, but the final order was passed by a five-member bench. The inclusion of two judges, who did not hear the arguments on the JIT report, has vitiated the final order in its entirety. “To oversee the investigation by the apex court judge is violative of Article 175(2)(3) and 203 of the Constitution,” he said.

Dar said on July 17, he had filed a wealth reconciliation statement that his net assets were Rs9.11 million on June 30, 1993, that rose to Rs831.70 million on June 30, 2009. He has contended that whether 16 years could be considered a short span of time? In the next seven years including when he was the finance minister, his net assets declined to Rs544.27 million as on July 30, 2016.

He said the increase from 1993 to 2009 was explained by annual income and wealth tax returns available with the FBR and the NAB. This record was made available to the JIT on July 8 before the JIT submitted its report on July 10.

Dar said that during the financial year 2002-03 and 2007-08, he was abroad and a non-resident for tax purposes as under section 11(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, he was not required to declare income earned abroad. At the beginning of the tax year 2008-09, when he came back, he became resident for tax purposes. “The money earned abroad was merged with the local assets in wealth statement for 2009. However the JIT did not consider this aspect,” he said.

Dar said there was not an even glimmer of the prima facie case that his assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income. He said the JIT did not take into account the complete record of his income and wealth tax returns from 1983 to 2016, including the financial year 2002-03 to 2007-08. The JIT also did not consider section 11(6) of Income Tax Ordinance 2001, and the indisputable fact that his tax returns have been accepted by tax authorities.

“The JIT had not identified even one asset that has not been declared and accounted for in the tax returns from 1983 to 2016. It also not identified even a single arithmetical or accounting error in the tax returns from 1983 to 2016,” Dar said.

He said that Justice Ejaz Afzal in the majority judgment on April 20 noted: “Nothing significant has come forth against respondent 9 [Capt (retd) Safdar] and respondent 10 [Ishaq Dar] as could justify the direction asked for.”

Dar contended that no direction whatsoever was given to the JIT against him. But it gave an opinion that Dar’s assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income and the apex court erred in law by directing the NAB to file the reference against him. The July 28 judgment against Dar says: “So it the case against respondent 10 vis-à-vis 91 times increase (from R9.11 million to Rs831.70 million) within a short span of time. A reference be filed against respondent 10 for possessing assets and funds beyond his known sources of income.”

Source: The Nation