The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the federal government’s council how can President Arif Alvi and Prime Minister Imran Khan approve a presidential reference based on ‘false legal advice’, cautioning the federal government against the consequences if the Centre failed to prove its case against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
A 10-member bench of the apex court, led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard Justice Isa’s petition against the reference and the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council against him. “Telling you in a lenient way that this legal mistake can have consequences,” warned Justice Muneeb Akhtar, and asked former law minister Barrister Farogh Naseem to tell him about the ‘brilliant’ person who advised the president and prime minister to approve the reference against the SC judge.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar observed that the federal government has alleged three offences in its reference – violation of laws pertaining to taxation, money laundering and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. However, he said, there is no offence of money laundering in this case in view of the relevant laws as the properties under scrutiny were acquired in 2013. He noted that both the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act amendments and the law pertaining to money laundering came after 2015. Instead of referring the matter to tax authorities, the ARU made a serious error in this case, he remarked, and then asked Naseem to read out the recent judgement on privacy, which was passed by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court.
The federal counsel was also questioned by Justice Bandial on the accusations laid against Justice Isa. “If the tax authority finds a Rs10,000 default against the judge, would the accused judge be liable for action against Article 209,” asked Justice Bandial. He asked Naseem to give the court any information which fundamentally proves that Justice Isa has committed misconduct. He asked the federal counsel once again as to why proceedings pertaining to tax violations had not been initiated against the accused judge before the Centre filed its reference. He further asked the federal counsel to explain to the apex court under which law it was mandatory for the accused SC judge to disclose properties of his independent family members.
In a similar vein, Justice Baqar noted that no violation of the tax law had been proven against Justice Isa. Similarly, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that judges were not above the law and the Federal Board of Revenue was free to examine their tax returns. The bench wondered how the ARU could sidestep statuary bodies like the Federal Investigation Agency and the FBR and take action in oversight. The court further questioned how the ARU could be established without legal backing. Justice Shah wondered how this could affect citizens in the absence of proper legislation.
The federal counsel argued that the ARU was formed after suo motu proceedings of apex court related to the retrieval of ill-gotten money in 2018. He maintained that the prime minister has residuary powers to form bodies such as the ARU, which is also part of the cabinet.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the court had earlier inquired that how many public office-holders have faced the same legal action. To which, Naseem said that he has made a note of the question. Justice Mansoor noted that the government’s counsel has also failed to explain how the Assets Recovery Unit acquired the authority to question a judge. The hearing of the case was later adjourned.
