Justice Isa case: Complainant’s credibility questioned in SC

ISLAMABAD: The credibility of complainant alleging Justice Qazi Faez Isa for owning London properties was Tuesday questioned in the Supreme Court with the contention that the whole investigation in the matter was carried out without any authorisation.

A 10-member full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing of a set of identical petitions, challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth returns.

The other members of the bench were Justice Maqbool Baqir, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Muhammad Qazi Amin Ahmed.

Continuing his arguments, Munir A Malik, counsel for Justice Isa, submitted that the complainant, Abdul Waheed Dogar, was not a credible person.

He submitted that the review petitions were filed against the judgment in Faizabad sit-in case in March, while Waheed Dogar addressed a letter to the Chairman Asset Recovery Unit on accountability of judges on April 10, 2019.

The counsel read out Mr. Dogar’s letter in which he stated that he had acquired some documents revealing that Justice Isa had some properties in London but he did not disclose them in his wealth returns.

The counsel, however, contended that Mr. Dogar did not identify a particular property and there was no contact number as well as CNIC number of the complainant in the letter.

Later on, he submitted that the chairman Asset Recovery Unit met law minister and called up the complainant to take his version as well.

“Can you tell us as to what is the Asset Recovery Unit?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel to which Munir A Malik replied that he will discuss it later on.

Malik informed the court that the complainant got the information after searching it online about the London properties and alleged that Justice Isa had not disclosed it in his wealth returns. Malik said that the complainant could not even correctly spell the name of Justice Isa.

He submitted that for the first time the names of Zarina Khoso Karerira, wife of Justice Isa, and son Arsalan Khoso came to the surface.

Malik said as per the Asset Recovery Unit, the complainant had provided a copy he had got from the Land Department of London but he had not yet seen it.

On May 8, the Asset Recovery Unit wrote a letter stating the details of properties of the judge, while on May 10 the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) addressed a letter to the chairman ARU pertaining to accountability of judges.

The counsel informed the court that later during a meeting of FIA with the ARU, the name of spouse of Justice Isa and her Spanish nationality was mentioned.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, however, observed that the name of spouse of the petitioner came due to the application filed for obtaining Spanish visa adding that she was granted a five-year visa.

Malik contended that the name of wife and son of his client came after the ‘proxy’ complainant wrote a letter to the Asset Recovery Unit.

“How did he come to know about the name of the spouse of my client?” Munir Malik questioned.

Collection of material, formation of an opinion and then filing of a reference are the three sequences in which the whole process was made out,” Malik added.

He asked whether all legal procedures were adopted while carrying out investigation against his client.

Malik questioned how legal proceedings could be launched against a judge on the basis of the complaint filed by Dogar.

“There are certain safeguards in the law against investigation against judges. The complaints were received, evidence was collected and references were filed each at different times,” Malik noted.

“If things against the judges proceed in such a manner, then what will be the status of Article 209 of the Constitution? Tomorrow, a Station Head Officer (SHO) of a police station will launch an investigation against a Supreme Court judge,” Malik contended.

At this, Justice Faisal Arab told the counsel that there were only two opinion makers, the president and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), adding that the SHO or an income tax officer were not the opinion makers.

“Do you want to say that the whole investigation was carried out without any legal authorisation?” asked Justice Maqbool Baqir. “Yes,” Munir A Malik replied.

“We need to look into the mechanism of investigation,” Justice Bandial noted.

“You say that something was cooking up,” Justice Maqbool Baqir asked the counsel to which Malik replied in the affirmative.

On court queries, Malik talked about how to get information about someone’s properties in London and deliberated upon the detailed inquiry as well as Map Inquiry.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Malik whether one could get information online from the London Land Department to which Malik replied that one could find it out provided he had details about the address of the plot but one could not search the property by name.

“So, if I know the address, then I can find and search the property,” Justice Maqbool Baqir observed.

“But the question here arises as to how information was collected regarding these properties?” Justice Bandial asked.

Malik submitted that the information was collected after chasing the petitioner and his family members.

The counsel also referred to a news report published in 2018 in New York Times regarding an attack on The News reporter Ahmed Noorani adding that the BBC had also covered the incident.

Justice Qazi Amin Ahmed asked Malik if Ahmed Noorani had revealed the identity of attackers.

“If any organization was involved in the attack?” he further asked.

Malik, however, replied that he did not know anything in this regard.

Malik said The News had published another news item on June 15, 2019 titled “Who is complainant of reference against Justice Faez Isa” and read out some of its paras.

It was stated in the said news item that Abdul Waheed Dogar was the man who filed the complaint against the Supreme Court (SC) Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice KK Agha of Sindh High Court.

Finally, the mystery has been solved and the complainant against two judges of the superior court is the same person who filed ‘Larki ke Bhai’ famed fake news story against journalist Ahmad Noorani after October 27, 2017 attack on him, he read out the contents of the news item.

He submitted that when the reporter of The News asked Waheed Dogar from where he got the information, he was clueless about it.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar told Malik that he did not understand the logic when he said that the complainant was a proxy.

Munir A Malik contended that Mr. Dogar was not a credible journalist and he was provided with information for filing a complaint against his client. “I am showing to the court that he is not a credible person,” Malik contended.

Meanwhile, Waheed Dogar came to the rostrum and said something to Munir A Malik.

Justice Bandial asked as who was the gentleman at the rostrum? “He is Mr. Dogar,” Munir Malik replied.

Justice Bandial asked Malik if his client had ever given gifts to his spouse or son to which the counsel replied that he will check it and inform the court.

Justice Bandial replied that the court will be inquiring about this.

The court issued notices to the parties concerned in the three other petitions concerning the case and adjourned further hearing until today (Wednesday) at 11:30am. Malik will continue his arguments.