The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing in the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa in relation to his assets in London.
A 10-member larger bench 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.
In response to the federal government’s counsel Dr Farogh Naseem’s argument that Justice Isa has not provided the money trail for the properties of his family members, Justice Bandial observed that there is no allegation of corruption or money attained through illegal means against Justice Isa. He noted that undeclared foreign property comes under the purview of the tax law, and asked Naseem to explain legal reasons on the basis of which Justice Isa is bound to disclose his family properties. Justice Bandial asked whether the accused Supreme Court judge had carried out any misconduct. He further said that the reference cannot be filed on tax violation and the case came under the purview of Article 209 of the constitution of Pakistan – which pertains to action against a judge when he has been guilty of misconduct. Justice Bandial observed that Justice Isa had declared income enough to purchase these properties in 2008-2009.
The federal government’s lawyer maintained that proceedings were initiated against a judge in India when the properties of his family members were not declared.
However, Justice Bandial asked Dr Naseem to point towards Pakistani law which puts a legal obligation on the accused judge to disclose properties of his family members. During the arguments the government’s counsel claimed that the Federal Board of Revenue did not begin inquiry against Justice Isa ‘out of fear’, and that they refused to act until conclusion of the Supreme Judicial Council’s proceedings against the judge.
Justice Maqbool Baqar inquired what prompted the federal government to file the reference against Justice Isa. He observed that there was a concern by the petitioner that the reference was filed because certain quarters were unhappy with one of the verdicts authored by Justice Isa. Review petitions were also filed against the ruling of Justice Isa and questions of misconduct were raised.
Justice Baqar further asked whether the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) had checked the credentials of the journalist, Abdul Hameed Dogar, who had first given the information on these properties of the apex court’s judge’s family.
“Have you asked who gave him this information and what was his background,” he asked. Many things happen through the divine in this country, he observed. Farogh Naseem replied that Dogar has refused to disclose his source, and argued that sources are big assets for journalists, which they never disclose.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned Dr Naseem’s argument that Justice Isa has revealed everything except the source of funds to purchase these flats and how those funds were transferred to the United Kingdom. Justice Shah asked why Justice Isa should have to reveal the money trail.
Tell us which law bounds him to reveal the source of these funds, he asked, adding that the petitioner is maintaining that his family members are independent and they should be approached about the source of funds. He further asked the federal counsel to furnish details of complaints of individuals which are received by the ARU against public office holders and the actions which are initiated against such. The federal lawyer read out the Supreme Judicial Counsel’s show-cause notice stating that Justice Isa had filed the reply over the notice therefore his petition against the reference is not maintainable. The court adjourned the hearing till today.
