Swati hid two properties, amicus curiae tells SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was Tuesday informed by the amicus curiae that former federal minister for science and technology Azam Swati had not declared his two properties in the assets declaration.

As the court resumed hearing of the suo motu case concerning the transfer of IGP Islamabad, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar forwarded the probe into alleged violation of tax laws and mis-declaration made by Mr. Swati to the FBR and directed the police to investigate the alleged misuse of criminal law against a poor family in the light of recommendations made by the amicus curiae.

Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Ijazul Ahsen are the members of bench headed by the chief justice. The court said it will examine Swati’s qualification after receiving findings from the FBR and police.

The court directed that the reports be submitted in the light of recommendations submitted by the amicus curiae.

The court had appointed senior lawyers Khalid Javed Khan and Faisal Siddiqui for legal assistance in the applicability of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution to Swati. The ex-minister had allegedly influenced police to victimise the family of one Niaz Muhammad whose cow allegedly grazed on his farmland.

Faisal Siddiqui, amicus curiae, submitted before the court that there was no legal precedent in which the superior courts had held that in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of the 1973 Constitution, a parliamentarian could be disqualified under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution if he mis-declared his assets before the relevant public authorities excluding the Election Commission of Pakistan. He further submitted that in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could direct the relevant authorities to take action for such mis-declaration under the relevant laws.

Faisal Siddiqui said with regard to misuse of authority by interfering in the appointment/removal of public servants for private gains, there was no legal precedent in which the superior courts had held that in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) constitution 1973, a parliamentarian could be disqualified under Article 62(1) (f) of the constitution. He contended that the Supreme Court could only direct the institution of criminal cases under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or the NAB Ordinance 1999 (if found applicable after considering all the material on record) against Muhammad Azam Khan Swati and other relevant persons.

Earlier at the outset of hearing, Barrister Ali Zafar submitted that if a person filed mis-declaration, the court could direct the Election Commission of Pakistan to take action in accordance with the law.

He further submitted that the Senate chairman could direct the ECP to take action against such a person adding that a petition could also be filed with the ECP.

Ali Zafar further submitted that a trial court could initiate proceedings in criminal matters but everyone had absolute right to a fair trial as was enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution.

The chief Justice however observed that the apex court had open-ended powers to deal with matters in accordance with the law.

It is pertinent to mention that the court had constituted a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for probing the transfer of IGP, Islamabad.

The JIT findings submitted to the court had found that Mr. Swati had misused his office and was given a special treatment by the authorities concerned.

On Tuesday, Barrister Ali Zafar told the court that Mr. Swati had resigned from his post. The chief justice, however, remarked, “Swati has only resigned from the ministry; we are looking into this matter under Article 62 (1)(F) of the Constitution.”

“Does Swati qualify to be an MNA? His name still appears on the ministry’s website,” the CJP added.

The Chief Justice asked IGP Islamabad Amir Zulfiqar as to what he had done so far to which he replied that they had registered an FIR against Usman Swati, Najeebullah, Jan Muhammad, Faiz Mehmood and Jahanzaib.

The chief justice, however, observed that nothing was done against the main person behind all this, as he was an influential person.

He said the IGP was transferred on just one phone call.

The CJP asked the IGP if he could not provide justice to people then why he was IGP.

“The poor family was beaten up. The court asked him to provide justice to them but he (IGP) also got involved,” the CJP recalled.

The CJP said the court wanted to set an example that the rich and powerful could not mistreat the poor.

“We will issue a notice regarding Article 62 (1)(F) of the Constitution to Swati, as the police will not register a case against him,” the chief justice said.

Later the court adjourned the hearing.