Presidential reference: No corruption charges leveled against Justice Isa, SC told

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) was informed on Monday that the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa did not allege that the judge owned London properties either directly or benami.

A ten-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial resumed hearing into identical petitions, challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly owning properties abroad but he did not disclose it in his wealth returns.

Other members of the full court are Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Muhammad QaziAmin Ahmed.

Continuing his arguments, Munir A Malik, counsel for Justice Qazi Feaz Isa submitted that the presidential reference did not allege any dishonesty or corruption against his client saying that a calculated media campaign had been launched against the judge for maligning him.

In fact, it was the government which had alleged in the reference that his client had not declared in his wealth returns the properties of his spouse and children. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah said that it did not say that the children of the petitioner were dependent.

Justice Yahya Afridi, another member of the bench, asked the learned counsel as to whether the Federal Board of Revenue had issued notices to the spouse and children of the petitioner. Munir A Malik replied in affirmative but contended that the Bureau did not issue any notice to his client.

Munir A Malik contended that head of the Asset Recovery Unit Shahzad Akbar, law minister, attorney general, law secretary, prime minister and President of Pakistan are privy to the presidential reference adding that these six persons leaked the main points of the reference to the media.

Munir A Malik, while replying to a question, told the court on last hearing that up till tax year 2017 there was no substantial gift given by his client either to his spouse or children. He submitted that his client had sold the property in Quetta while his son-in-law bought the property in Kasur.

Justice Fiasal Arab asked the counsel about the date of formation of Asset Recovery Unit to which he replied that in 2018 the apex court had taken suo motu notice regarding the properties owned by Pakistanis abroad.

He submitted that on May 10, 2019, when Assistant Commissioner Zia Ahmed Butt received a letter regarding the tax details of his client and on the same day, it was forwarded to International Commissioner Tax while an investigation on the complaint was started before dispatching it to the prime minister.

“Everything was taking place on the same day”, Malik contended adding that on March 7, 2019, the ruling coalition started raising objections to the judgment delivered by the petitioner on Faizabad sit-in.

The learned counsel contended that Abdul Waheed Dogar filed a complaint on April 10 but did not give details about the foreign properties of the petitioner. He did not mention as how he managed to get those documents regarding the properties adding that Shahzad Akbar met the complainant Dogar and later on asked Minister of Law for investigation. Even Law Minister Faroogh Nasim did not mention as to how Abdul Waheed Dogar searched out the documents regarding the properties of the petitioner.

Munir A Malik submitted that head of the Asset Recovery Unit got through a letter from Federal Investigation Agency about Justice Isa’s family. He said that an investigation against his client was started right from the office of the prime minister. Justice Munib Akhtar asked the counsel as to whether his client went to United Kingdom after delivering the Faizabad sit-in and before filing of a complaint against him. The counsel replied that he will inquire form his client in this regard.

The court then adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday) wherein Munir A Malik will continue and will argue on Article 211 as well as Article 248 of the constitution.

Earlier at the start of hearing, Hamid Khan, counsel for Supreme Court Bar Association sought adjournment in the matter until next week on account of the elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association, being held on October 31. He said that as Azadi March of the opposition parties was also scheduled to be held on the same date in the federal capital therefore, it would be very difficult for the lawyers, who will be coming from KP, Karachi and Quetta for casting their votes hence it would be better that the hearing of the instant proceedings be adjourned until next week.

Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Ali Khan, however, opposed the request of Hamid Khan saying that he, too, came here today from Karachi to attend the proceeding of the court. Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that in order to hear the instant matter, they assemble every time hence it would not be appropriate to adjourn the instant proceedings on petty issues.

Justice Bandial said that the apex court is a constitutional body and they have to do their job in accordance with law adding that one of the members of the bench had to go outside the city for a personal matter but he did not go due to the sensitivity of the case.

“It’s not an ordinary case but a case related to our honorable fellow Judge”, Justice Bandial said. Hamid Khan, however, contended that they too are of cautious about the matter being sensitive but said that as some of the counsels of other petitioners are not present hence they will miss the arguments of the learned counsel of the petitioner.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, however, told Hamid Khan that some of the lawyers are present here who are noting down the proceedings of the matter on voluntary basis, therefore, they could be asked for sharing the points of the proceedings. Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that as Munir A Malik, counsel for the petitioner is present in the courtroom, they would like to hear his arguments.