ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday rejected the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa in the Supreme Judicial Council and accepted his petition seeking the reference’s dismissal.
“[The reference] is declared to be of no legal effect whatsoever and stands quashed, and in consequence thereof the proceedings pending in the Supreme Judicial Council against the Petitioner in CP 17/2019 (including the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2019 issued to him) stand abated,” read the court’s short order.
The SJC had initiated the proceedings over Justice Isa’s alleged non-disclosure in wealth returns of three London properties acquired on lease in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015.
A ten-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case, reserving the verdict before it was announced after 4pm.
The case was wrapped up after Justice Isa’s spouse provided the money trail pertaining to her foreign properties and the Federal Board of Revenue provided its input on the matter.
Justice Isa, in his petition challenging the reference, had requested that the apex court declare that the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) formed by the government to look into the properties had no legal standing and therefore the actions taken by the unit with regard to the reference against him and his family are illegal.
The petition had contended that no proper research was ever conducted and the property details gathered were simply the product of online surveillance.
After the verdict was announced, former attorney general Irfan Qadir, speaking to Geo News, said that mala fide intentions and misunderstanding are two different things.
“Malafide intentions are made when there is substantial evidence, but misunderstanding took place in this case because properties were not declared and some people were of the opinion that non-declaration of the wife’s assets was misconduct.
“After Justice Isa’s wife clarified in court that her husband had no link with the [London] properties, the reference was rendered baseless and which lead to its dismissal,” said Qadir.
The petitioner’s lawyer, Munir A Malik, concluded his arguments in court by saying that the federation had “gotten on the wrong bus” in the case.
Malik urged the court to dismiss the reference against the judge. He said that a website had been used to search for properties in London. The lawyer told the court that if one wanted to search properties in London, he/she had to pay for the privilege.
He said that the website sends a payment receipt to the relevant person who uses it to search for properties, via email. He said that British-Pakistani lawyer Zia ul Mustafa, who had searched for Justice Isa’s alleged assets, had received three copies of the high commission’s verified properties.
“Copies of politicians’ properties searched were attached as well [in documents submitted],” he said. “If the government provides receipts as well then it will be revealed as to who searched for the properties,” he added.
Malik said that if the search for the properties was conducted by the ARU, then it should provide receipts. He said that it seemed as if the ARU had only facilitated the search.
“The government only wants to remove the author of the Faizabad dharna case,” noted Malik.
The court, while expressing satisfaction over the statement, told her that in order for the matter to be examined on merit, she would have to approach the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) or the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), and a decision in that regard would be given by the tax authorities.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that they had no jurisdiction to hear the matter on merit. The judge advised her to present her all documentary proofs to the aforementioned forums as those were competent to decide her case.
“We felt that you have sufficient documents to present and I am sure that you will be heard properly; therefore, I wish you present these documents before the relevant forums,” Justice Bandial told the lady.
“Why was I not asked earlier and I waited for 13 months while my son was subjected to harassment in London,” Carerra questioned. She said that she was not asking for any privilege, but she should be treated as an ordinary citizen in Pakistan.
Justice Bandial concurred that she should be treated with respect and dignity, adding that she was a brave lady and hoped that she would be able to address her matter effectively.
“I must tell you one thing, we, as judges, are answerable for our actions in private and public life; therefore, we are much more accountable than other people, as we are holding other people accountable,” Justice Bandial told Justice Isa’s wife. “This not just a trial of your husband and your, but a trial of our institution,” he added.
Justice Maqbool Baqar remarked that what was going on in the country in the name of accountability would also be looked into. He said destruction (of institutions) was under way in the country in the name of accountability and they would write (in the verdict) on that subject also.
SJC can review anyone’s performance: Naseem
Justice Baqar asked if the SJC could review the performance of the president to which the federation’s lawyer, Farogh Naseem, said that it (Council) has the authority to review anyone’s performance.
Later, the court directed Naseem to submit before it in a sealed envelope the record of the 2018 tax returns filed by Carerra.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial told Farogh Naseem that the lady had also complained about the FBR’s attitude, to which the counsel for the federation submitted that if the complaint was proved true, it could be directly lodged with the prime minister.
Meanwhile, Farogh Naseem submitted before the court that Khalid Ranjha, Irfan Qadir, Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, and Sohail Mahmood, who were to represent president, prime minister, as well as other respondents, have adopted his arguments; hence they will not be arguing before the court.
At this, the court adjourned the hearing for Friday (today) wherein Munir A Malik, counsel for Justice Qazi Faez Isa, was to argue in rebuttal.
Read more: Justice Qazi Faez Isa questions Shehzad Akbar’s appointment as ARU head
