Justice Isa claims SJC action was malafide

ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa Thursday severely criticised former two judges including former chief justice, former attorney general, government functionaries as well as sitting law minister.

The judge said that a fifth-generation war had been launched against him and his family; however, he vowed to fight to the last drop of his blood. A 10-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umer Ata Bandial, resumed hearing in the identical review petitions against its last year order of June 19, referring the matter to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), directing it to initiate tax proceedings against the spouse and children of Justice Isa.

Justice Isa as well as several bar associations had challenged the apex court decision to the extent of the matter, referred to the FBR.

Commencing his arguments in the review petition, Justice Faez Isa targeted former chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa, government functionaries, former AG Anwar Mansoor Ali Khan, incumbent Federal Law Minister Farogh Naseem and Shahzad Akbar of Asset Recovery Unit.

The petitioner judge said: “Asif Saeed Khosa stabbed me in the back without listening to my position while fellow judges in the Supreme Judicial Council (JAC) declared me a madman,” Justice Isa said.

He said that former judge Azmat Saeed Sheikh was his good friend, but his judgment saddened him, adding that nowadays he was the favourite personality of the government. Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, told Justice Isa that the judges he was naming had retired.

“Do not make repeated allegations against the two [retired] judges,” Justice Muneeb told Justice Isa. Justice Maqbool Baqir, another member of the bench, asked Justice Isa to concentrate on arguing his case.

Justice Isa submitted that till date, not a single person was present in the court, adding that Law Minister Farogh Naseem had levelled allegations against him and his spouse, adding that he may even be ignorant of Islamic teachings.

“Though we are the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in fact we are a nation of hypocrites,” Justice Isa said. He said the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) had no legal status, adding that Shehzad Akbar was a worker of ruling PTI, adding that he [Shehzad] was an influential person of the country so no one asked him anything.

Justice Bandial, however, asked the judge that political figures get government posts, hence he should not call it wrong. “Leave these things and come to the real issue,” Justice Bandial told Justice Isa.

Justice Isa said that former Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan had committed contempt of court while saying that the judges were helping him. Justice Isa said Anwar Mansoor had made fun of the court as an Attorney General. “The sanctity of the court should not be tarnished,” Justice Isa added.

Justice Bandial told the petitioner judge that Anwar Mansoor had to resign from his post. “Whosoever talked against judges, action was taken against them,” Justice Bandial remarked, adding that the job of the court was to give verdicts, not sending people to jail.

“We want to move on with the main case; so don’t tell us stories,” Justice Bandial told Justice Isa. During the course of proceedings, Justice Faez Isa submitted that sending his spouse matter to the FBR was in total violation of the law. He contended his spouse was not party to the case, but a verdict was passed against her. He said that the verdict against his wife and children was given because of him.

Therefore, “I apologise to my wife, daughter and son,” Justice Isa said. He submitted that sending the matter to the FBR was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, adding that Article 184/3 was for protection of fundamental rights. Hence, “my daughter and son were not legally entitled to the notice, issued by the FBR,” Justice Isa contended.

Continuing his arguments, Justice Faiz Isa said that illegal access to a person’s tax records is a criminal offence. He said that Tax Commissioner Zulfiqar Ahmed, due to pressure of the court, acted adding that members of the Supreme Judicial Council acted on mala fide basis and never provided him an opportunity to argue in his defence. The petitioner judge said the FBR was asked to initiate the process before the issuance of the detailed judgment.

Justice Bandial asked the petitioner judge to concentrate on pointing out if there was any error made in the judgment review. Justice Isa contended that no petitioner, including Waheed Dogar, was given an opportunity to present his arguments.

The petitioner alleged that efforts were being made to remove him as a judge of the apex court because he had delivered the judgment in the Faizabad sit-in case. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until Monday.