Purchase of properties in UK: Bench asks govt to answer if Justice Isa had legal connections to money trail

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the government to answer the question whether Justice Qazi Faez Isa had any legal connections regarding money trail for purchasing properties in the United Kingdom (UK).

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, directing to initiate tax proceedings against the spouse and children of Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The court directed Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman to submit answers on the next date of hearing Monday April 26 to its three questions earlier posed to Justice Qazi Faez Isa if he had any legal connections regarding the money trail for purchasing properties in the United Kingdom (UK).

It is pertinent to mention here that the court had asked three questions from Justice Qazi Faez Isa to whether he had any relation with the foreign accounts of his spouse Sarina Isa or not.

Second, whether Justice Isa had any link with the transactions made in foreign currency accounts of his spouse and the third question was as to whether the expenses incurred for the purchase of the property had nothing to do with him (Justice Isa).

Justice Qazi Faez Isa, however, had refused to answer these questions saying if answered, it will be tantamount to weakening his case. In his 10-page written reply, the petitioner judge had said that if he submits to them and answers them, he will effectively be endorsing a patent illegality and undermine his own case that nothing can be added to the Reference. He had further submitted that it is not appropriate to introduce the report at the stage of hearing of the said review petitions and if he responds to the queries, it will become Reference, Rejoinder, SJCs questions, his wife and children, FBR, Chairman FBR’s report, Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) empowered to proceed against him on the basis of the report and said questions.

Meanwhile, on Friday, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman, while continuing his arguments, submitted that there was no error on the face of the record and the judgment delivered by the apex court, sending the matter of Mrs Sarina to FBR was the right decision and it was in accordance with the law and the Constitution.

He said that Mrs Sarina Isa was provided full opportunity to hearing before sending the matter to the FBR. Assisted by Sohail Mahmood, Additional Attorney General, Aamir Rehman, contended that under Article 187 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has full jurisdiction to issue directions, orders, decree in order to do justice even without hearing to the party.

He recalled that the court, without hearing to the concerned people, gave its order for conducting forensic audit of the Housing Societies case. In exercise of Article 187, even a direction can be issued in the absence of the party, the law officer submitted adding that Article 187 recognizes the inherent powers of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Supreme Court invokes the said article for the settlement of disputes adding that it has also the jurisdiction to give deadlines for completing an inquiry in any matter aimed to decide a matter so early.

The remand to the Federal Board of Revenue was not an adverse order and the Supreme Court possesses ample jurisdiction to the case for proper adjudication. So the court had sent the matter to the FBR in accordance with law for examining the matter.

The law officer said that the FBR has submitted its report before the Supreme Judicial Council and the information given to the council cannot be set aside. Aamir Rehman said that the counsel for the petitioner had also pleaded before the court that the matter be referred to the FBR.

“I object to this lie of the law officer as my counsel had never told this before the court,” Justice Qazi Faez, sitting with his spouse and daughter, suddenly stood up in an aggressive manner and said the law officer was totally wrong.

“Please sit down and relax”, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik told Justice Isa, saying the court was noting down the points of the law officer. “Time for noting down points has gone now,” Justice Isa added.

“It is my prerogative to argue before the court and its up to the court either to accept it or not but not the petitioner judge,” Aamir Rehman submitted Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the law officer that the reference filed by the court against the petitioner judge has been quashed by the court and the government has also not filed a review against the court’s judgment, then how the court could listen to him.

“What is your locus standi whereby we should hear you and what is your role”, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah further asked adding that the law officer’s assistant to the court is good no doubt but how the court could hear him. Aamir Rehman replied that he will answer the question asked by his lordship.

Advancing his arguments on Article 187 of the Constitution, Chaudhry Aamir Rehman cited some judgments like Pir Sabir Shah wherein the powers of apex court under Article 187 of the Constitution were not disputed. Similarly, he said that timeline and deadlines have been issued to concerned quarters in many cases.

“The recent is the Panama case wherein the apex court gave directions for completing the investigation in given time,” Aamir Rehman submitted adding that procedural requirement does not come while the apex court issued the order under Article 187 of the Constitution.

“Your lordship had sent only to FBR an issue to settle and nothing more”, Aamir Rehman submitted. He also cited the apex Malik Asad case. The law officer said that Article 187 is very powerful and its an inherent power exercised by the Supreme Court. Justice Umer Ata Bandial asked the law officer as to whether it is necessary for the judgment to mention Article 187. “When the court has jurisdiction to do so, then there is no need to mention it”, Aamir Rehman replied.

Another point when Additional Attorney General argued on, Justice Qazi Faez Isa again retaliated, saying look the law officer is again telling a lie and repeatedly saying this as well. “Please do a favour, Mr Aamir Rehman is a thorough gentleman (Shareef Aadmi hey), let him argue please we request you,” Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik told Justice Isa.

“Only I am a bad man,” Justice Isa replied. “But you should be patient and let the law officer argue,” Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik said. “Actually, my opponent is a member of this court and a big personality, that’s why I am being interrupted repeatedly,” Aamir Rehman said. “I am not a big personality but being targeted”, Justice Isa replied.

“For God sake, Qazi Sahib please sit down,” Justice Manzoor Malik told Justice Isa. “You should only address the court and continue your arguments,” Justice Umer Ata Bandial asked the law officer. “Your rhythm is good and we appreciate it but please be concise,” Justice Maqbool Baqir told Aamir Rehman. “Qazi Sahib we have all the record and we will examine it, so don’t worry,” Justice Maqbool Baqir told Justice Isa.

Aamir Rehman submitted that the petitioner judge had said that London properties belong to his spouse and he had submitted in writing that his spouse should be asked for source of income. Similarly, the law officer said that Mrs Sarina Isa had given a statement to the court through video link. At this, Justice Isa again stood up but Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik immediately intetrupted and asked him to sit down.

Aamir Rehman said that Mrs Sarina had questioned as to why has no one asked her from the beginning and why the FBR had not contacted her. At this, Sarina Isa, sitting with her spouse Justice Isa, immediately rose and objected to the point of the Additional Attorney General and said this was not a part of the record and it was just a statement she had given through video link. “And if my statement is being quoted here, then the video should be run in the court,” Mrs Sarina Isa said.

“Mohtarma please sit down,” Justice Maqbool Baqir told Mrs Sarina. Aamir Rehman submitted that a report of FBR has been submitted to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) and it’s a piece of information which cannot be quashed.

“No information can be withdrawn and even if it is withdrawn, it remains intact,” Additional Attorney General said. Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that a fact is a fact and it cannot be destroyed but for the determination of the fact the court can ask for it.

When Justice Umer Ata Bandial asked the Additional Attorney General to address on the next date of hearing, the question asked by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Qazi Faez Isa again rose and asked as to why the law officer was being given so much time. “How much time we had given to you”, Justice Bandial asked Justice Isa. “We had heard you on April 13, 15, 19 but despite that you are saying this,” Justice Bandial told Justice Isa.

Meanwhile, Justice Umer Ata Bandial, while addressing the Additional Attorney General, said Mr Aamir Rehman please keep in mind that this a unique case of its kind adding that some 11 years back, a similar case came before this august court. “We heard the arguments of the parties with an open mind and we have to ensure that decision is made on merit,” Justice Bandial told Additional Attorney General.

“We have not read the FBR report and you have argued that the Supreme Court can give directions as enshrined in Article 187 of the Constitution,” Justice Bandial added. Justice Bandial told the law officer that they had asked Justice Isa three questions pertaining to his link with the foreign currency account of his spouse. The court also asked Additional Attorney General to address those three questions on the next date of hearing and adjourned the hearing until Monday April 26.

Again Justice Isa rose and asked the bench as to the case was being adjourned instead of continuing for an hour more. “This is the month of Ramazan and today is Friday,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked.