ISLAMABAD :The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Thursday directed the PTI’s financial expert to complete his briefing on the party’s foreign funding case in five days.
Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja said he would later seek the details of questions, if any.
PTI lawyer Anwar Mansoor said the matter of PTI accounts could have been sorted out in five minutes.
“It is difficult to prove an allegation,” replied the CEC.
He added that the PTI lawyer had explained the issue of the accounts to the ECP bench in a comprehensive way.
The ECP directed the PTI lawyer to complete his arguments in two days.
The hearing of the foreign funding case was adjourned till June 7.
Earlier, PTI’s financial expert Najam Shah told the ECP bench that according to the scrutiny committee report, the party’s funding had exceeded Rs1.64 billion.
He added that the PTI had received funding of Rs1.33 billion between 2009 and 2013.
“The difference between the PTI’s data and the scrutiny committee report is more than Rs310 million.”
Shah went on to claim that the scrutiny committee had made an overstatement of over Rs310 million in PTI funds.
“A perception is being created that the PTI received more than Rs2 billion in funding,” he added.
The CEC replied that what was left now after comparing bank funds.
Shah said he would like to explain in detail the accounts that the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) had attributed to the PTI.
“According to the SBP report, the PTI had 26 bank accounts till 2009-13,” he added.
The PTI Central Finance Wing receives funding from abroad from nine bank accounts.
“The scrutiny committee identified Rs836 million in the report that is not proven anywhere.”
ECP Member Nisar Durrani pointed out that the scrutiny committee in its report had stated that the PTI had not disclosed the source of many funds.
Shah replied that the party’s Central Finance Wing did not have record of individually owned accounts.
The CEC told him to only present the details of the accounts which the scrutiny committee had not been informed about.
He added that six or seven accounts were controversial and needed to be clarified.
“Don’t repeat the things already said as it is creating confusion.”
The financial expert replied that the record of individually opened bank accounts could not be submitted to the scrutiny committee.
“The Central Finance Committee could not obtain the record of such bank accounts.”
