Supreme Court’s Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on Monday observed that there is no proof that the spouse and children of Justice Qazi Faez Isa are his dependents.
A 10-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 Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Amin Ahmed heard Justice Isa’s petition challenging the presidential reference filed against him over alleged non-disclosure of assets in his wealth statement.
The reference filed against Justice Isa alleges that he acquired three properties in London on lease in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015 but did not disclose them in his wealth returns.
During the course of the proceedings, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah observed that there is no proof that the spouse and children of Justice Qazi Faez Isa are his dependents.
Justice Yahya Afridi questioned whether the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) served any notice to the Supreme Court judge over non-disclosure of three foreign properties.
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah said it is not established how the complainant got addresses of the foreign residences.
Court questions whether FBR served any notice to SC judge over non-disclosure of foreign properties
Justice Isa’s counsel, Muneer A Malik, while reading out the contents of the reference, said the government did not allege that these are benami properties. He said the government has only alleged that Justice Isa has violated tax law and did not disclose assets of his spouse in his wealth statement. A calculated media trial against the judge by leaking information related to the reference is going on, he said, and also tried to establish that the entire information has been collected through surveillance.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar responded that there is nothing concrete to establish the claim. He asked Malik whether the judge visited abroad in the recent past and stayed there. He said it is not a case of ordinary litigant but a matter related to a fellow judge and the entire Supreme Court is under trial.
At the start of the hearing, Hamid Khan, the counsel for bars councils, requested the full court to adjourn the case until next week on account of SCBA annual elections and some lawyers facing difficulties in reaching the top court due to the upcoming Azadi March. The court, however, rejected Hamid Khan’s plea for adjournment over objections raised by the attorney general.
The hearing of the petitions filed against the presidential reference was later adjourned until Tuesday (today).
