DND Report: Imran Khan always presented himself as honest while others presented him as a thief and robber, but the reality turned out to be the opposite. The PTI lawyers such as Salman Akram Raja told foreign media that Malik Riaz and NCA had a deal that money would transfer to the Supreme Court of Pakistan not the state of Pakistan while the reality is otherwise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2023 gave a verdict that NCA sent money to the state of Pakistan.
If the Accountability Court’s decision is examined carefully, it becomes clear that it has not only exposed Imran Khan as corrupt or a robber but also raised questions about his party’s political future. Will this party now be able to fool the public by raising so-called slogans against corruption?
Immediately after the accountability court’s decision based on irrefutable evidence, PTI has started using foreign lobbies to spread negative propaganda against the accountability court and its judge.
The anarchist party PTI is trying to prove by sharing screenshots of various foreign websites and channels on social media that the court has given this decision under pressure but they are unaware of the fact that the decision has been given based on one year of hearings, all the evidence and undeniable proofs, where Imran Khan was given numerous opportunities to present his defense, but he failed in this regard.
The worrying thing is that PTI has started using the religion card to hide the theft of Imran Khan. This is not the first time that misleading the public by using the religion card is an old habit of this party. Linking Al-Qadir University with religious education is hiding its theft under the guise of religion. They should be ashamed because using the religion card for politics is deplorable and unconstitutional as well.
Some important facts of the case are hereunder for the ready reference of the readers:
- On the 2-12-2019 Cabinet Note:
“The Cabinet Note of 2-12-2019, relied on by the defendants in court, clearly states that the £190 million was to be returned to the State of Pakistan—it leaves no room for interpretation.”
- On the NCA and ARU press releases:
“Both the NCA and ARU publicly announced in their press releases that the seized £190 million was to be returned to the State of Pakistan, and not to Malik Riaz.”
- On the United Nations Convention against Corruption:
“Under the United Nations Convention against Corruption, both the United Kingdom and Pakistan were required to return the money seized in the United Kingdom to the State of Pakistan.”
- On the settlement under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002:
“Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the settlement with NCA saved Malik Riaz from punishment, but the confiscated money was to be returned to the State of Pakistan under the United Nations Convention against Corruption.”
- On failure to produce documents during the trial:
“The accused had every opportunity to produce documents during the trial to prove that the money was not to be returned to the State of Pakistan, but they could not produce a single document.”
“The NCA in its annual report clearly described the seizure of money earned from illegal sources as a success and said that this money was returned to the State of Pakistan under the United Nations Convention against Corruption.”
- On the Supreme Court’s decision (23.11.2023):
“The Supreme Court held that using the seized funds to meet Bahria Town’s dues was tantamount to ‘robbing Peter and giving it to Paul’ and ordered the money to be returned to the Government of Pakistan.”
- On not challenging Malik Riaz’s agreement:
“Malik Riaz never challenged the UK settlement; how is it possible that the money is returned to the accused himself? This agreement has meaning only when the money is seized from the accused and returned to Pakistan under the UN Convention.”
A sealed envelope was presented before the cabinet, and Imran Khan never denied that this amount was not state money. Supreme Court of Pakistan described this transaction as ” Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. After this judgment by the Apex court, none may say that this was not state money. In any case, Imran Khan has had the opportunity to produce the settlement agreement in his defence but he did not produce any evidence.
