Justice Isa terms Shahzad Akbar an imposter

ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa termed Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Accountability and Chairman Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) Shahzad Akbar Mirza ‘imposter’ and third member of troika whose other members were the incumbent Law Minister Farogh Naseem and former Attorney-General Anwar Mansoor Khan.

Justice Isa, who is facing Presidential Reference for concealing his properties in United Kingdom allegedly held in the name of his spouse and children filed an application in the Supreme Court praying to consider its contents as part of his pending petition, challenging the Presidential Reference.

A 10-member full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, will resume on June 2, the hearing into the identical petitions, challenging the Presidential Reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

Justice Isa submitted that Shahzad Akbar Mirza was the third member of the troika whose other members were the incumbent Law Minister Farogh Naseem and former Attorney-General Anwar Mansoor Khan.

The judge raised questions over the appointment of Shahzad Akbar as ARU Chairman as well as Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Accountability.

"ARU is not established under the constitution or under any law, therefore, every action of the so-called ARU and its so-called chairman is unconstitutional and illegal and Mirza Shahzad Akbar is nothing but an imposter,” Justice Isa contended, adding that imposters conceal themselves and true to form so did Mirza Shahzad Akbar; neither he, nor any officials’ respondents answered the questions.

The judge questioned as to who employed Mirza Shahzad Akbar and if the post of 'Chairman ARU' was advertised and if applications were invited for the post and if he was selected by Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC).

“If the answers to the aforesaid three questions are in negative, how he was employed and what are the terms and conditions of his employment. If he is a Pakistani, a foreigner or a dual-national.

Since ARU has no legal basis, every single rupee spent and used by it and its so-called chairman constitutes pilferage of public funds.

The judge submitted that imposter Shahzad Akbar Mirza illegally gathered information about a judge of the Supreme Court and his family but does not reveal the same about himself and his family including; what Mirza Shahzad Akbar’s income tax and wealth status are and when he started filing his income tax returns and Why he does not disclose his properties/assets/accounts. Why he does not disclose the name of his wife and children, what the nationalities of his wife and children are if his wife and children own properties in Pakistan and abroad. If he disclose his wife and children's properties in his returns. How many children does he have, where do they study/work, their marital status and, if they are married, particulars of their spouses.

The impostor, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, was also appointed by the prime minister as his Special Assistant on Accountability. Paradoxically accountability's major-domo remains the most unaccountable person in Pakistan; an enigma cloaked in secrecy”, Justice Isa submitted adding that the position of an Assistant to the Prime Minister is a political one and is a political appointment.

He contended that a Special Assistant to the Prime Minister is not one who is in the service of Pakistan (Article 260 of the Constitution). The judge submitted that a special assistant has no concern with the running of the government adding that this court has held that the post of Special Assistant to the Prime Minister is neither the creation of the Constitution nor can it be termed a constitutional post' and 'merely by granting the status of a State Minister to a Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, such person does not by any definition of the words become a State Minister.

The impostor, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, is a law onto himself and has assumed a privileged status to which a Special Assistant is not entitled to”, Justice Isa contended adding that he unconstitutionally and illegally acts as a federal minister. He simultaneously, as the so-called ARU chairman, exercises powers, which only those in the service of Pakistan can exercise and he also directs government servants to do his bidding, illegally accesses confidential information and misuses it.

The judge further submitted that Mirza Shahzad Akbar has no special qualifications yet the prime minister deemed it fit to appoint him as his Special Assistant. He contended that that this court in the case of Muhammad Adil Chatta (above) had observed the need for 'laying down some criteria, minimum standards, educational qualifications, fields of experience and levels of experience for appointment as Special Assistants to the Prime Minister in order to ensure that the exercise of discretion by the prime minister in this regard is properly structured, streamlined, circumscribed and systemised.

The judge, however, said that he could legitimately question that Mirza Shahzad_Akbar did not possess any special qualification for the job, but was appointed as Special Assistant and also raised the spectre of what had endeared him to the prime minister in appointing him, however, in this petition he does not question the discretion exercised by the prime minister and whether it was legitimate and justifiable.

“However, it is noteworthy that neither the Law Minister nor the Prime Minister initiated the legislative process in terms of the aforesaid observations of this court,” Justice Isa maintained adding that whether the said observations were considered of no consequence or whether absolute discretion, without it being 'structured, streamlined, circumscribed and systemised', was desired, or whether it was both; the said respondents have not answered.

Justice Isa recalled that the then Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan during the course of proceeding in the matter commenced his submission on February 18 and made unsubstantiated and highly contemptuous statement which was an attack on this court.

The Judge said that Law Minister Muhammad Farogh Nasim, one of the respondents, was present in the court but did not stop the Attorney General nor did he dissociate himself from the statement.

He further stated that after attending the case and as the law minister was leaving the premises of the Supreme Court, he was questioned by journalist Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui asking him about the serious allegation s made in the statement which targeted this court.

The law minister responded, “I think you should ask Attorney General as he raised it.” When the law minister was further questioned he said “We should not have further discussion on this as one of the learned judge s had observed that this matter should not be reported.

“The law minister's interview was uploaded to YouTube by AQS Live”, the judge submitted adding that the statement was not an off-the-cut remarks by the Attorney General but was pre-planned, carefully crafted and calculated.