Legal pickle

Imran Khan’s legal woes intensified on Thursday   when his legal team was unable to provide evidence that he paid back his ex-wife Jemima Khan the money he owed her for the purchase of his Bani Gala estate. Instead of submitting verified bank statements showing the money leaving his account or reaching hers, Imran provided an email Jemima had written to a family friend confirming she had received the amount from Imran’s offshore company. The reason given by Imran for not disclosing the 75,000 pounds sterling in his offshore company’s account in his asset declaration to the Election Commission of Pakistan is that he did not have the authority to withdraw the money and so did not consider it an asset. At this point, the parallels between Imran’s case and that of Nawaz Sharif are difficult to ignore. Just as Nawaz produced a letter from the Qatari prince explaining that the money for his family properties in London came from his business dealings with Nawaz’s father, Imran is presenting a letter from his ex-wife as evidence in lieu of a genuine money trail. The Supreme Court did not accept the Qatari letter and has now told Imran that he too needs to provide proof.

There is also a similarity in the overseas accounts maintained by Imran and Nawaz. Nawaz was ultimately disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 for not mentioning a salary he received in the UAE in his asset declarations, even though he never withdrew the salary. Imran too did not reveal his offshore company’s assets – which were more considerable than the salary deposited in Nawaz’s account – and is giving the same explanation as Nawaz for not doing so. In fact, Imran has been even shoddier in accounting for his earnings. The Supreme Court is trying to determine if the gift Jemima gave to Imran for the purchase of the Bani Gala estate was meant as a way to turn black money white and avoid taxes. He could clear that up by providing

proof of his earnings playing World Series cricket in Australia and county cricket in England. But he has claimed that counties in England do not keep records for more than 20 years and has only provided estimates. Imran is essentially telling the Supreme Court to take him at his word, a luxury that he is not willing to grant any of his political opponents. Imran’s case should show not only that he is far from being above reproach himself, but that the proper response to the Panama Papers all along was to seek political reforms rather than trying to topple governments through the courts.