Reference against Justice Faez flawed: Justice Umar Ata Bandial

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court bench suggested the federal government refer the matter of foreign assets of family members of Justice Qazi Faez to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), providing an opportunity to the spouse of the judge to explain about the sources for purchasing the London properties.

The full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Tuesday resumed hearing in a set of petitions, challenging the presidential reference, filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth returns.

The court asked Farogh Naseem if the FBR arrives atany conclusion after seeking explanation from the spouse of the petitioner judge, the federal government can approach the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on the basis of findings of the tax body.

The court observed that the FBR is the relevant authority which can inquire into the prime concerns of the federal government regarding source of funding through which the family members of the petitioner judge acquired London properties.

Farogh Naseem sought time till Wednesday (today) for seeking instructions form the government. The court also directed the federation’s counsel to provide assistance on the collection of material, allegedly illegally besides addressing the allegations of malice, smear campaign against the judge and his family members as well as allegation of covert surveillance.

“We would like to hear from you on illegally collected material and the manner in which information was collected as well as malice,” Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked Farogh Naseem.

The judge observed that these are all the points which have been alleged by the petitioner judge. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, another member of the bench, asked Farogh to inform the court about the body that had collected the material or information for the instant reference.

During the course of proceedings, the court told the federation’s counsel that there were some flaws in the reference sent to the SJC. The court observed if it finds out malice, then the reference will be no more.

Justice Bandial observed that it is an admitted fact that London properties were acquired, but the petitioner judge wants to be proceeded against in accordance with the law. Justice Faisal Arab asked the counsel to think over the option of FBR and then inform the court.

Farogh Naseem, however, said the SJC conducted disciplinary proceedings against judges. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that if a public servant is not able to take information from his spouse about the assts, then what will be the situation.

The counsel replied that in this situation, if a public servant presents such a pretext, then he could be sent to jail, adding that in that case the petitioner judge has not said that his spouse was not giving information.

The counsel added that the government did not ask for the tax record of the spouse of the judge but the Supreme Judicial Council.

Justice Yahya Afridi, however, interrupted and remarked that the government first wrote a letter to the FBR. Justice Mansoor asked the counsel as to whether the judge could ask directly the FBR for tax record of his spouse.

“I think he can do so,” Farogh replied. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel to point out if there is any law in this regard. Farogh Naseem contended that if he were a judge, he definitely would have know-how about the assets and financial position of his spouse and children.

At one point when Justice Maqbool Baqir asked the federation’s counsel as to what is smear campaign, the counsel got emotional and replied that smear campaign is against all of us, adding that the petitioner judge had called him a tout.

Justice Bandial, however, asked the federation counsel to be patient. Justice Bandial asked about the status of Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) and how information was collected for the reference. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday).