Presidential reference case: Qazi Isa’s wife is financially independent, SC told

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) was told on Monday that the spouse of Justice Qazi Faez Isa was financially independent and how she could be considered dependent on her spouse. A 10-member full court of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial resumed hearing into the identical petitions, challenging the Presidential Reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly not disclosing foreign properties of the members of his family in wealth statement.

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 Qazi Amin Ahmed.

Continuing his arguments, Babar Sattar, one of the members of the legal team of Justice Qazi Faez Isa submitted before the court that the federation in its rejoinder had admitted that the Federal Board of Revenue had collected tax from spouse of the petitioner (Justice Isa).

With the rejoinder of the federation it has become clear that spouse of Justice Qazi Faez Isa was financially independent and not dependent on her spouse”, Babar Sattar submitted before the court.

The learned counsel contended that wife of Justice Isa had paid the taxes as paid by Prime Minister Imran Khan hence she was financially independent as the Prime Minister therefore, the counsel questioned as to how spouse of Justice Isa could be dependent on her husband.

Elaborating his stance, Babar Sattar submitted that in the year 2010, spouse of the petitioner paid tax more than one lakh rupee while she paid tax of Rs1,83,000 in 2011 and Rs1,47,000 during the year 2013.

The counsel submitted that in 2017, Prime Minister Imran Khan had paid tax more than one lakh rupee and the spouse of Justice Qazi Faez Isa also used to pay tax like that of the prime minister.

“Your argument is that the spouse of the petitioner is financially independent as the prime minister”, Justice Maqbool Baqir asked the learned counsel. Yes, Babar Sattar replied.

During the course of hearing, the counsel extensively gave arguments on different sections of Income Tax Ordinance 2011 including sections 116(1) and Section 116(2). He submitted that the contents of Section 116(1) is totally different from Section 116(2).

The counsel submitted that the law does not require an individual to disclose information regarding the assets of his spouse and children.

When the counsel continued deliberating upon arguing on various sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, Justice Umar Ata Bandial interrupted and said that they are not here to look into the vires of Section 116(1) and 116(2).

“We are not chartered accountants sitting here so, please tell us the source of funds”, Justice Bandial asked the counsel adding that no wealth statements had been filed by the petitioner.

Babar Sattar said, according to the federation stance, the petitioner should have disclosed wealth statements of his spouse and children.

“We are hearing it for the fourth day so please proceed to the bottom line”, Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked the counsel.

Babar Sattar submitted that the instant reference was based on non-disclosure of assets of spouse and children, however, he contended that under Section 116(2) the petitioner was not supposed to disclose the assets of his spouse and children.

Justice Faisal Arab observed that there are basic allegations that the petitioner has not disclosed the assets of his family members hence it might have been assumed that after concealing the assets, the money may have sent abroad through money laundering.

Babar Sattar, however, contended that allegations were leveled against the petitioner without proofs. “What solid evidence the President had on which the reference was filed against the petitioner”, the counsel questioned.

He said that wealth statement has nothing to do with income. Justice Faisal Arab however, observed that wealth is connected with income. If there is no income there will be no wealth”, Justice Arab added.

During the hearing, the learned counsel cited the article written by Shabbar Raza Zaidi, chairman Federal Board of Revenue saying if a person conceals anything in his wealth statement, he is liable to pay penalty for this, however, if an individual does not show the assets of his financially independent spouse and children, he is not required to pay the penalty.

This is what the FBR chairman did mention in his article”, Babar Sattar contended. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Tuesday) at 11:30 am.