# Updates of judges inquiries



## ghazi52

*SC seeks recommendations from attorney general on video leak controversy involving judge*
Haseeb Bhatti
July 16, 2019







A screengrab from a video shown by PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz at a press conference shows judge Arshad Malik (R) in conversation with PML-N supporter Nasir Butt (L). — DawnNewsTV/File

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up three petitions seeking a thorough probe into the video leak controversy involving accountability court judge Mohammad Arshad Malik.

A three-member bench — headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa and consisting of Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial — after hearing arguments from the lawyers on all three petitions, asked the attorney general to submit recommendations.

"When the Supreme Court does everything, there are objections. When we take a step back, we are asked to take notice," CJP Khosa remarked while hearing one of the petitions.

"We have to decide whether to step in or not," the top judge said, adding: "We also need to look into the judge's [Arshad Malik] misconduct. We need to see where we need to interfere"

"We will soon decide a few things," concluded the CJP, while adjourning the hearing until July 23.

Judge Malik, who convicted ousted premier Nawaz Sharif in the Al Azizia case last year, has been accused by PML-N's Maryam Nawaz and other party leaders of delivering the verdict "under pressure". Maryam has also released videos purportedly proving her claims. The judge, however, has denied being under any pressure, making counter allegations against Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N for "bribing, threatening" him.

Amid deepening political and judicial crises, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) after consultation with the apex court removed the accountability court judge last week, following which the Law Ministry temporarily barred Arshad Malik from working.

*'Judicial commission should be formed'*

The bench first heard the petition of a lawyer, Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza, filed through his counsel Chaudhry Munir Sadiq.

As the hearing commenced, the petitioner's lawyer told the bench that the video leaks scandal has raised questions about the judiciary.

He said that in her press conference on July 6, Maryam had alleged that the court was working under pressure.

"This is a sensitive matter regarding the independence and prestige of the judiciary," said Sadiq, adding: "The court should investigate the matter and determine who is responsible."

He said that all political parties, including PPP and JI, and lawyers in Pakistan have demanded an investigation into the video leaks scandal, adding that Prime Minister Imran Khan had also said that the judiciary should take notice of the matter.

Noting that there had been calls for the top judge to take suo motu notice of the controversy, CJP Khosa asked: "If we do something on the demands of people, then are we independent?"

The lawyer asked the court to form a commission to look into the matter, "even if it was just a one-person commission".

When the CJP inquired who should head the commission, the lawyer replied "a judge".

"Such a culture has been created in which if one does bad, everyone is thought to be the same," remarked the top judge. "It is said 'all judges are like this, all politicians are like this'." He then asked what the commission should look into.

"The commission should look at the truth; if the allegations are proven, then contempt of court proceedings should be initiated," the lawyer responded.


*'Search for truth'*

Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry, the legal counsel for a second petitioner Advocate Sohail Akhtar, also presented his arguments before the apex court, saying that the commission should search for truth and if contempt of court had taken place, action should be taken against those responsible.

"Since the beginning of the human race, the search for truth has been going on," remarked CJP Khosa, adding: "If we are to search for the truth, what will the judges hearing the central appeal do?"

CJP Khosa noted that if the apex court gives any order, the high court would become restricted by it. "Then how would the high court take any action?"

The counsel said that the decision would not be by the apex court, rather it would be based on the findings of a commission. "I am steering you in this direction," the top judge responded, adding: "No court can take notice on the findings of a commission."

The lawyer said that removing trust in any institution was itself a matter of basic rights, adding that judge Malik's statement should be looked at "extremely carefully".

"There is no doubt that the judge's statements are extremely extraordinary," responded CJP Khosa.

The lawyer said that if statements regarding the judiciary continued, there would be pressure on the high court to make a decision.

"A lawyer hit a judge with a chair — this is also extraordinary. A judge hit a lawyer with a paper weight, was this not extraordinary?" he asked.

Justice Bandial said that the first point was regarding the institution, adding that the judiciary would look into the matter of the judge. "Every day information regarding the matter is coming out, the dust should now settle," he said.

"We want such suggestions through which a decision can be taken without emotions."

Advocate Chaudhry asked for contempt of court proceedings to be initiated.

"Who will look into the allegations against judge [Arshad Malik]?" CJP Khosa inquired, adding: "Will the judge, against whom the allegations have been placed, look into them?"

Chaudhry said that the judiciary was being mocked because of statements and counter-statements being made on the matter. "This is why we are hearing the case," CJP Khosa responded.

The lawyer asked that the judiciary conducts an investigation on the basis of criminal and cyber [crime] laws.

"Are all cases registered in the country and all the investigations conducted done through the orders of the Supreme Court?" asked the chief justice.


*'Interference of institutions'*

Following a brief break in the proceedings, a third petitioner, Advocate Tariq Asad, personally pleaded his case. He said that a forensic audit into the video should be conducted.

"Sometimes the judge is going to Jati Umra and sometimes he is meeting [people] during Umrah," said Advocate Asad, questioning where the government and agencies were when the "meetings" were taking place.

"This is a case pertaining to the autonomy of the judiciary. Some 'others' are interfering with this institution," he said.

"You are speaking about interference in the institution, yet at the same time you are saying that the institutions should interfere," CJP Khosa replied.

The petitioner responded that institutions were interfering but they were not doing their job.

"The conduct of judge Arshad Malik makes it clear that he has been involved in corrupt practices," Advocate Asad claimed. "The prejudice of a judge fixed in one foreign decision will again go on trial."

The sort of [discussion on] television talk shows these days makes me leave the room, he told the bench.

"Instead of leaving the room, you can press one button and switch off the television," quipped the chief justice, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

The advocate also called for a one-member commission to be formed.

"The government also has the authority to form a commission but you are saying that the judiciary should form a commission," he added.

The chief justice said that the accountability court judge was a subordinate of the Lahore High Court, adding that the government had appointed him on a deputation.

He said that the authenticity of the video was of the judiciary's concern, while the rest were "public matters".

CJP Khosa said that they should also look at how a private video of an individual was recorded and how it was made public.


*Security, restricted entry*

Ahead of the hearing, the SC beefed up security on its premises.

The SC office explained that in view of the limited seating capacity in the Courtroom No 1, it has decided that the entry into the courtroom will be regulated through special security passes which will be issued by the SP (security) Supreme Court. Only the petitioners or respondents whose cases were fixed will be allowed to enter the court premises. However, advocates and journalists who regularly come for the proceedings will be exempted from passes.

No cellular phone was allowed inside the courtroom.


*Video leak controversy*

On July 6, PML-N vice president Maryam Nawaz opened a Pandora’s box with a startling claim that the judge "confessed" he had been “pressurised and blackmailed” to convict her father in the Al-Azizia reference. A video containing the judge’s alleged confession during his conversation with a ‘sympathiser’ of the PML-N, Nasir Butt, was screened during a hurriedly called presser at the party’s provincial headquarters in Model Town.

The next day, the judge had denied being under any pressure, but admitted that Nasir Butt was an acquaintance.

The controversy continued to make news as Maryam released two more video clips "in support" of the first one.

On the morning of his ouster, judge Malik gave in a letter to IHC acting Chief Justice Aamer Farooq in which he said that the videos shared by Maryam were fake. He also filed an affidavit before the IHC chief justice along with his letter.

Justice Farooq perused the letter but decided to relieve judge Malik without conducting an inquiry since he is an official of the subordinate judiciary of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

The IHC judge directed the registrar office to write a letter to the law ministry regarding relieving judge Malik of his post and repatriating him to the parent department, the LHC.

Shortly after the announcement, Maryam called for the verdict in the Al Azizia reference against her father to be declared void.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

Video Scandal case : supreme court seeks recommendations over demand to form commission.
July 16, 2019

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*FIA arrests man allegedly involved in judge Arshad Malik video leak controversy*
Shakeel Qarar
July 17, 2019





The suspect has been shifted into FIA custody on a two-day physical remand. — DawnNewsTV/File

The Federal Investigation Agency's Cyber Crime Wing on Wednesday arrested Mian Tariq Mahmood, a man allegedly involved in the video scandal surrounding accountability judge Arshad Malik.

Tariq, who was arrested from Islamabad, was presented before a civil judge, who approved his two-day physical remand. The suspect was shifted to FIA custody after the remand was approved.

Judge Malik — who had in December last year sentenced Nawaz to seven years in jail in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills corruption reference and acquitted him in the Flagship Investment case — has been at the centre of controversy since July 6, when PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz alleged that he had been "blackmailed" into giving the verdict against Nawaz Sharif.

According to judge Malik's affidavit — presented to the Islamabad High Court chief justice as a rebuttal to Maryam Nawaz's press conference — Mahmood, an old acquaintance of his, had been the one to show him a "secretly recorded manipulated immoral video [showing him] in a compromising position" that was shot while the judge was serving in Multan.

The judge said that this video was later used by Nawaz Sharif's long-time supporter Nasir Butt to blackmail him.

*The video scandal*

To substantiate her claims at the press conference, Maryam had played a secretly recorded video that she claimed featured a conversation between Nasir Butt, a man she described as a loyal fan of her father, and judge Malik.

Maryam alleged that the judge had contacted Nasir and told him that he was feeling "guilt" and "having nightmares" after announcing the "unjust" verdict against Nawaz, so he invited Nasir for a meeting at his residence, where the video was recorded.

Maryam claimed that, in the video, judge Malik had pointed out the flaws in Nawaz's corruption trial that he wanted to be conveyed to Nawaz's lawyers. The judge acknowledged that he had been "blackmailed" and "pressured" into issuing a judgement against the PML-N supremo, Maryam claimed.

The veracity of the contents of the video or any of the claims made by Maryam have not been independently verified by Dawn.com.

A day after the press conference, judge Malik rejected Maryam's allegations saying that the former premier was convicted on the basis of evidence.

The judge, in a press release issued on July 7, said that he had seen the press conference as well as the video attributed to him.

"Serious allegations were made against me; it was a conspiracy to affect my credibility as well as that of my institution and my family. Therefore, I want to present the facts.

"I am a resident of Rawalpindi where before becoming a judge, I worked as a lawyer. The individual shown in the video, Nasir Butt, is also from the same city and is an old acquaintance. Nasir Butt and his brother Abdullah Butt have met me many times at numerous instances.

"The video shown in Maryam Safdar _sahiba's_ press conference is not only contrary to the facts but it is also a despicable attempt to mesh together various instances and topics spoken about, and to present them out of context." Malik also demanded legal action against those behind the move.

The controversy continued to make news as Maryam released two more video clips "in support" of the first one.

On July 12, a petition requesting a thorough probe for determining the truth in the matter landed in the Supreme Court.

“In these circumstances and surrounding realities, it is most respectfully prayed that an inquiry may be ordered to be conducted so as to determine the truth,” argued the petition moved by Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza through Advocate Chaudhry Munir Sadiq.

The same day, the Islamabad High Court decided to remove accountability judge Arshad Malik from his post.

On July 12, judge Malik also gave in a letter to IHC acting Chief Justice Aamer Farooq in which he said that the videos shared by Maryam were fake. He also filed an affidavit before the IHC chief justice along with his letter.


*The affidavit*

In the affidavit, the judge claimed that he was offered bribes and threatened with dire consequences by PML-N representatives initially to force him into issuing verdicts in favour of Nawaz in the Al-Azizia and Flagship Investments references, and later to coerce him into resigning from his office. He said he refused to accept the bribes and give in to the alleged threats.

During the arguments stage of the references' trial, the judge said he was again approached by Janjua with a "financial offer" from Nawaz of Rs 100 million but that he refused the offer.

The offer was shortly followed by a "thinly veiled threat of physical harm and intimidation" by Nasir Butt, the PML-N 'sympathiser' who recorded the video shared by Maryam Nawaz that started the controversy, the judge claimed.

He said once he convicted Nawaz in the Al-Azizia reference and acquitted him in the Flagship reference, Butt and Janjua allegedly started blackmailing him using a compromising video of his.

In the affidavit, Malik claimed that a man named Mian Tariq, who was an old acquaintance of his, had shown him a "secretly recorded manipulated immoral video [showing him] in a compromising position" that was shot while the judge was serving in Multan.

Using "the Multan video" as a threat, Butt then forced judge Malik to accompany him to Jati Umra and tell Nawaz in person that he had convicted the PML-N supremo "under immense pressure from influential quarters", the judge claimed.

The meeting took place on April 6, but the judge said instead of saying what was demanded by Butt, Malik told Nawaz that he was convicted in the Al-Azizia reference based on merit.


*PML-N seeks annulment of Al-Azizia verdict*

After judge Malik's removal, PML-N, on July 13, requested the Supreme Court to intervene and declare the judge's decision in the Al Azizia reference against party supremo Nawaz Sharif null and void and order his release from jail.

PML-N president and opposition leader in the National Assembly Shahbaz Sharif said the decision to remove the judge and the videos related to the facts regarding his verdict against the former premier were before everyone. In this situation, he said, “the decision against Nawaz Sharif stands null and void after the removal of accountability judge Malik. Now to keep Nawaz Sharif in jail is illegal.”

The Supreme Court, on July 16, took up three petitions seeking a thorough probe into the video leak controversy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*SJC issues two notices to Justice Faez Isa*






ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) Thursday issued two show-cause notices to the Supreme Court Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly holding undeclared foreign properties and sending letters to President Arif Alvi.

Justice Isa is mandated to give his response on the show cause notice within 14 days. Sindh High Court Judge Justice KK Agha has also been served a show-cause notice forowning undeclared properties abroad. Both the show-cause notices were issued on July 16. Justice Isa has received both the show-cause notices.

A five-member bench, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, Peshawar High Court's Justice Waqar Ahmed and Sindh High Court's Justice Ahmed Ali Shaikh, will hear resume hearing of the references filed against the two judges. During the last sitting of the SJC, the court had sent notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan and other parties. The SJC is the only constitutional authority mandated by Article 209 of the Constitution of Pakistan to conduct inquiries into allegations of incapacity or misconduct against the superior judiciary members.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*'Will not take a leap in the dark': SC orders FIA to finish judge video leak probe within 3 weeks*
July 23, 2019






Accountability judge Arshad Malik. — DawnNewsTV
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to complete its probe in the video leaks controversy involving accountability court judge Mohammad Arshad Malik within three weeks, saying it wants to ascertain the truth of all allegations against the judge before proceeding in the matter.

The directions came as a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed the hearing of three identical petitions on the video scandal involving judge Malik, all seeking a directive from the apex court for the constitution of an inquiry committee or a judicial commission. The petitions have been filed by Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza, Sohail Akhtar and Tariq Asad.

Attorney General Anwar Mansoor, who was assisting the top court in deciding the appropriate course of action, opposed the petitions and the formation of a judicial commission to probe the matter, saying there was no need for its constitution because a separate forum exists to deal with such matters.

But the chief justice made it clear that the SC would examine all evidence to prevent any loss being incurred by anyone. He said the court was considering different options — the last of which would be setting up a judicial commission — but would take a decision after perusing the inquiry report.

"We will not take a leap in the dark," Justice Khosa said, observing that some people might want the apex court to rush through the matter.

The chief justice observed that the judicial commission, if constituted, can only give its opinion on the matter and not pass any judgement.

"Only the high court can give relief to Nawaz Sharif," he said, adding that the high court can order a re-trial of the Al-Azizia reference and even decide the matter itself after examining the evidence.

He regretted the fact that despite the serious allegations exchanged between different sides in the matter, no party had approached the relevant high court with an application.

The chief justice wondered whether the SC should interfere in the matter at all. "Would the intervention have any benefit or will it only generate headlines?" he asked.

One of the questions being examined by the apex court, according to Justice Khosa, was whether it was appropriate for judge Malik to visit Nawaz's residence after sentencing him.

Justice Bandial remarked that the SC had to ascertain the truth of allegations levelled by both sides while maintaining the sanctity of the court.

The bench subsequently directed the FIA to complete its probe in the matter within three weeks. The attorney general was asked by the court to ensure the inquiry is completed in a timely manner.

The attorney general earlier informed the court that the FIA had arrested Mian Tariq Mahmood, a central suspect whom judge Malik had accused of making a controversial video concerning him.

According to the law officer, Mahmood had sold the video to a man named Saleem Raza, but he (Mahmood) claimed that the cheque he received in exchange for the video could not be cashed.

The hearing of the petitions was adjourned for three weeks.

*The scandal*

The matter of the video had surfaced earlier this month after PML-N vice-president Maryam Nawaz released a secretly filmed clip that showed judge Malik telling a man — identified by her as Nasir Butt — that he had been "blackmailed" and "pressured" to issue a verdict against Nawaz Sharif that landed the former prime minister in jail in the Al-Azizia reference.

In a rebuttal, Malik said that Butt had forced him to make the aforementioned claims by using a “secretly recorded manipulated immoral video [showing him] in a compromising position”, which was shot in Multan, as a threat.

Judge Malik had already been removed by the Islamabad High Court on July 12 over the scandal following weeklong consultations, including with the Supreme Court.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1495736/w...-finish-judge-video-leak-probe-within-3-weeks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa to challenge presidential reference in SC*







ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa is likely to challenge the presidential reference against him in the Supreme Court by invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution, sources confided to The News.

Justice Isa is facing the presidential reference in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). Justice Isa held a detailed discussion with senior lawyer and former attorney general for Pakistan Munir A Malik about what potential legal option could be adopted to defend his case.

Malik has recently returned from California, US to plead the case of Justice Isa. Sources confirmed that after thorough deliberations, Malik advised Justice Isa to invoke Article 184(3) of the Constitution and challenge the reference in the Supreme Court.

Senior lawyers, including Hamid Khan, Kamran Murtaza, Ali Ahmed Kurd, Rashid A Rizvi and other prominent lawyers may be included in Justice Isa’s panel.

President Arif Alvi had filed references against Justice Isa and Justice KK Agha of Sindh High Court, alleging that they owned properties in London but they did not disclose them in their tax returns.

Justice Isa however rejected the allegations saying the properties were owned by his children. Since the filing of reference, lawyers have extended maximum support to Justice Isa. Majority of legal wizards have advised Justice Isa to invoke Article 184(3) of the Constitution. They were of the view that a test case of 2007 of former Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry verses President Pervez Musharraf was available wherein a 13-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday quashed the presidential reference against Justice Chaudhry on the basis of mala fide intentions.

It is to recall that both Justice Chaudhry as well as other petitioners, including the Supreme Court Bar Association and Pakistan Bar Council, had also challenged the presidential reference filed with the Supreme Court against him.

Later on, a larger bench quashed the reference, declaring that it [the reference] was filed on mala fide intentions. The SJC has conducted its three hearings and issued a show cause notice to Justice Isa.

However, sources said after deliberating with Munir A Malik he will soon file a petition with the Supreme Court invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Meanwhile, three eminent lawyers have moved a resolution to the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) requesting to file a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa on the grounds that it was filed on mala fide intentions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

ISLAMABAD: Senior Judge of the Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who is facing a presidential reference, has sought guidance of prominent lawyer Munir A Malik to defend himself in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Justice Faez Isa the other day filed replies in the SJC to two show-cause notices on the non-disclosure of family’s foreign properties in the wealth statements and writing letters to the president.

President Arif Alvi had filed references against Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice KK Agha of Sindh High Court, alleging that both the judges did not disclose their foreign properties in the wealth statements. Justice Faez Isa had already rejected the allegations, saying the properties in London were in the name of his children who are living there as well. The SJC, the forum established under Article 209 of the Constitution for the accountability of judges of the superior courts for misconduct, after conducting three hearing in the presidential references had issued two show-cause notices to Justice Faez Isa seeking his replies in 14 days. After filing his replies, Justice Faez Isa contacted senior lawyer and former attorney general Munir A Malik, seeking his guidance how to proceed further to defend himself in the presidential reference.

Munir A Malik, who has recently returned from abroad, confirmed that Justice Faez Isa had approached him and sought his guidance. "Justice Faez Isa had contacted me, sending the copies of the replies he had submitted to two show-cause notices in the SJC," Munir A Malik told The News. He said that Justice Faez Isa had sent him copies of his replies by post.

“Let me go through this then I will give my opinion what could be done to proceed with further," Munir A Malik said.

He said that after going through the said replies in detail, he will meet Justice Faez Isa and will give his opinion as to what legal option could be adopted for his defence in the instant matter. It is pertinent mention here that Justice Faez Isa is also considering to file a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the reference by invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa smells a rat in presidential reference*
Nasir 
August 08, 2019





Justice Qazi Faez Isa challenged in the Supreme Court on Wednesday the filing of a presidential reference against him, wondering if it was moved by a proxy with mala fide intention to achieve a collateral purpose. — Photo courtesy Supreme Court website/File
ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa challenged in the Supreme Court on Wednesday the filing of a presidential reference against him, wondering if it was moved by a proxy with mala fide intention to achieve a collateral purpose.

Drafted and filed by Justice Isa himself under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the 71-page petition sought a declaration that the in-camera hearing on the references by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) was without lawful authority and in breach of the fundamental rights.

“This petition is not just about a judge but sends a signal to all, that they too will be subjected to the same treatment if they persist in acting independently and decide cases according to the Constitution and the law by disregarding vested interest,” said Justice Isa, himself a Supreme Court judge, in the petition. It also sought a restraining order against the SJC till the disposal of the petition since the references undermined the independence of the judiciary.

While rebutting the allegations of possessing properties in the United Kingdom in the name of his wife and children, Justice Isa criticised the “unreasonable conduct” of SJC Secretary Arbab Mohammad Arif, who happens to be the Supreme Court registrar, and asked why Barrister Mirza Shahzad Akbar, chairman of the Assets Recovery Unit, and Zia-ul-Mustafa Nasim, the ARU’s legal expert, were carrying out the functions of bureaucracy when they were not civil servants.

In his 71-page petition, the judge wants SC to declare in-camera hearing on references by SJC without lawful authority

“To the best of petitioner’s knowledge both these gentlemen are not civil servants; they are also not bound by the rules of confidentiality applicable to the civil servants,” Justice Isa contended, adding that those not in the service of Pakistan could not be assigned functions of the executive.

The petition wanted to know about the political affiliation of the two gentlemen, especially with the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf or its coalition partners, wondering whether both acted independently. “By whom these two gentlemen have been employed? What were the terms and conditions of employment of these two gentlemen? Are both Pakistani, foreign or dual nationals? What were the past and present political affiliations of the two gentlemen and what were the income status, wealth tax status and history of the two with supporting documents, before and during the present employment?” it asked.

The petition alleged that the SJC secretary had discriminated against Justice Isa by granting every conceivable advantage to the government and two complainants [of private reference]. It said the secretary did not disclose to the SJC that a large number of complaints/references — long before the two references against Justice Isa — were still pending and listed both references out of turn before the council. “As per normal procedure, the rule of first-in-first-out applies and the earlier matters must be listed and decided before subsequent ones, unless of course on account of some urgency,” the petition argued.

It said the SJC did not direct an out-of-turn hearing of the two references, alleging that the secretary, who is a government servant on deputation, must have been pressurised to list both references before all other pending ones. Thus without seeking an order from the council and without giving any reason, the normal procedure was not followed by the SJC secretary when Article 10A guaranteed due process.

The petition asked if the SJC had the jurisdiction to consider the conduct of judge’s wife, examine her income tax history and applicability or non-applicability of Income Tax Ordinance 2001.

_Published in Dawn, August 8th, 2019_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alibaz

I suspect he is not finding way out in SJC and now he intends politicizing the issue. Qazi needs to reply what has been alleged and who knows he himself is the smelly rat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*SC reserves verdict on petitions regarding judge Arshad Malik video scandal*
.August 20, 2019
,




A screengrab from a video shared by PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz shows judge Arshad Malik (R) in conversation with PML-N supporter Nasir Butt (L). — DawnNewsTV/File
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on three identical petitions on a video scandal involving accountability court judge Arshad Malik. The petitions seek a formal directive from the apex court for the constitution of an inquiry committee or a judicial commission.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, heard the case. Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Director General Bashir Memon were also present to argue the matter.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Khosa discussed the interim report submitted by the FIA director general earlier today. The top judge observed that the case concerned two videos — one through which the judge was blackmailed, and the other which was aired at Maryam Nawaz's press conference.

The bench, however, raised questions about the authenticity of the videos in question. The chief justice noted that judge Malik had already admitted that the "objectionable video" was real. "But how will the video, which was shown in the press conference, be proven as authentic?" he asked.

"The report says that the audio of the video was recorded separately. During the press conference, the video also had subtitles. It seems like someone has tampered with the video," the chief justice observed.

The attorney general told the bench that a forensic examination of judge Malik's "objectionable video" had been carried out but said that it would be "very difficult" to ascertain the authenticity of the clip that was shown in Maryam's press conference, because it was taken from YouTube.

Justice Khosa said that experts should be consulted to find out if a forensic examination of the video can be done.

*Judge Malik's appointment*
Chief Justice Khosa also noted that as per the interim report, Nasir Janjua, one of the main suspects in the case, had said he had been instrumental in the judge's appointment. The chief justice asked if the individual who had taken the final decision to appoint judge Malik had come forward, to which the attorney general responded in the negative. He told the top court that Malik had been posted to the accountability court on March 13, 2018.

"This would mean that after the Panama Papers verdict [was issued in July 2017], the government at the time had appointed judge Arshad Malik," the chief justice observed.

The chief justice then inquired if any complaint, saying that the video was being used to someone's benefit, had been submitted. The attorney general answered in the negative.

"This video can only benefit someone if it is produced [as evidence] in a case," Justice Khosa remarked.

The attorney general said that neither Tariq Mahmood nor Janjua, the "two important characters" in the scandal, were in the country. He added that "everything cannot be said in an open court".

*'Judge Malik's behaviour shamed all judges'*
The top judge also asked why Malik had not been relieved of his duties and sent back to Lahore until now, stating: "By not sending Arshad Malik to Lahore, [he] is being provided protection."

The attorney general said that Malik had been stopped from leaving due to the ongoing investigation.

"What kind of a judge visits a person he has convicted? The judge's behaviour has caused shame to all [other] judges," Justice Khosa said.

"Why are you taking this matter lightly? The judge himself is admitting he had connections with that family.

"We can look into the matter, as far as his [Malik's] character is concerned. You [the AG] investigate if a forensic examination of the video can be carried out," Justice Khosa said.

*Video leak case*
Maryam had in July come out with explosive claims regarding the accountability judge who convicted and sentenced her father Nawaz Sharif in the Al Azizia corruption case. She had aired a video at the press conference where she made those claims and said that the entire judicial process had been severely compromised.

The video in question had shown the accountability judge who sentenced Nawaz Sharif to prison in the Al Azizia reference, judge Arshad Malik, allegedly speaking to a PML-N supporter about the case.

Following her press conference, other PML-N leaders had also accused judge Malik of delivering the verdict "under pressure". The judge, however, denied being under any pressure, making counter allegations against Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N for "bribing and threatening" him.

Amid deepening political and judicial crises, the Islamabad High Court, after consultation with the apex court, had removed the accountability court judge on July 12, following which the Law Ministry had temporarily barred Arshad Malik from working.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*IHC repatriates judge Arshad Malik to Lahore High Court for disciplinary proceedings*
Inamullah Khattak
August 22, 2019





Former accountability court judge Arshad Malik. — DawnNewsTV
The Islamabad High Court on Thursday repatriated former accountability court judge Arshad Malik, who is at the centre of a video leak scandal that grabbed headlines last month, to his parent department, the Lahore High Court, for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.

The IHC on July 12 had removed Judge Malik from his post amid a controversy surrounding a leaked videotape showing his purported confession that he had been “pressurised and blackmailed” to convict ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia corruption reference.

The judge had denied the allegations, saying there was no pressure on him to convict Sharif and that the videos shown by PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz of his alleged confession at a press conference were "fake and based on lies".

A notification issued by the IHC today stated that the disclosures and admissions made by Judge Malik in his press release issued on July 07 — a day after Maryam's presser — and in an affidavit he submitted to the IHC on July 11 to deny the allegations against him, prima facie "constitute acts of misconduct and violation of the code of conduct, which warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him".

Due to the above reasons, the notification further said, the IHC chief justice has issued orders to place Judge Malik under suspension and repatriate him to the LHC with immediate effect, "for disciplinary proceedings to be conducted in accordance with law".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*SC admonishes judge Malik for misconduct; says video of no legal use to Nawaz unless verified by IHC*
Haseeb Bhatti
August 23, 2019





A screengrab from a video shown by PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz at a press conference shows judge Arshad Malik (R) in conversation with PML-N supporter Nasir Butt (L). — DawnNewsTV/File
The Supreme Court on Friday wrapped up a set of petitions on a video leak scandal involving former accountability court judge Arshad Malik.

"We find that it may not be an appropriate stage for this court to interfere in the matter of the relevant video and its effects" since the video may have relevance to a criminal appeal presently sub judice before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the judges said in the detailed verdict.

The verdict, authored by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, noted that five main issues needed to be attended by the top court; among them was the possible impact of the video — if proven to be authentic — on the ruling by judge Malik in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills corruption reference that had put away former premier Nawaz Sharif last year.

Separately, the Lahore High Court (LHC) formed a committee to proceed with an inquiry against judge Malik.

The top judge, in the Supreme Court judgement, had heavily reprimanded judge Malik for his conduct.

"His admitted conduct emerging from that press release and the affidavit stinks and the stench of such stinking conduct has the tendency to bring bad name to the entire judiciary as an institution," the judgement read.

"His sordid and disgusting conduct has made the thousands of honest, upright, fair and proper judges in the country hang their heads in shame," the CJP said.

The five issues addressed by the top court are as follows:

*1. Relevant forum for consideration in Nawaz case*

The first issue that the SC said needed to be discussed was regarding the relevant forum or court which could presently attend to the video for any "meaningful consideration" in the Nawaz case.

The chief justice noted that following conviction and sentencing by a trial court, an appeal submitted by Nawaz against the conviction was pending before the IHC.

Therefore, the court said that there "cannot be two opinions" that the IHC could alone at present "maintain, alter or set aside such conviction and sentence on the basis of the evidence brought on the record".

"Any commission constituted by the government or by this court, any inquiry or investigation conducted by the police or by any other agency and any probe into the matter by any other institution or body can only render an opinion in the matter of the relevant video which opinion is treated by the law as irrelevant and it cannot per se be treated as evidence for the benefit of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in his appeal pending before the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad."

"The relevant video cannot be of any legal benefit to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif unless it is properly produced before the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in the pending appeal, its genuineness is established and then the same is proved in accordance with the law for it to be treated as evidence in the case," the verdict read.

*2. Establishing video as 'genuine piece of evidence'*

The judgement said that with the advancement of science and technology, it was now possible to conduct a forensic examination to determine whether an audio tape or a video was genuine and whether it had been edited, doctored or tampered with.

It was noted that judge Malik had "asserted" that the conversation mentioned in the video had been "distorted and twisted". The verdict added that as it had become easy to alter videos and audio tapes, it had become increasingly unsafe to rely on them as evidence without a forensic examination, audit or test.

"The standard of proof required in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt and any realistic doubt about an audio tape or video not being genuine may destroy its credibility and reliability."

*3. If genuine, how will video be proven before court of law?*
The judgement listed numerous requirements in order to prove an audio tape or a video before a court of law.

Among others, the requirements include:


No audio tape or video can be relied upon by a court until the same is proved to be genuine and not tampered with or doctored


A forensic report prepared by an analyst of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency in respect of audio tape or video mentioned in the petitions is per se admissible in evidence


Accuracy of the recording must be proved and satisfactory evidence has to be produced so as to rule out any possibility of tampering with the record


The person recording the conversation or event has to be produced and must produce the audio tape or video himself


An audio tape or video produced before a court as evidence ought to be clearly audible or viewable


The source of an audio tape or video becoming available has to be disclosed

According to the judgement, an appellate court can take additional evidence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

"It goes without saying that in such a case the relevant video may be taken as (additional) evidence only after complying with the requirements detailed above for proving a video before a court of law," the judgement read.

*4. Effect on the Nawaz case*
According to the judgement, if the high court arrives at the conclusion that the trial process and the evidence recorded during the trial were not affected by the conduct of judge Malik, then the IHC would have the option "either to reappraise the evidence itself or and decide the appeal on its merits after reaching its own conclusions [...] or to remand the case to the trial court for re-deciding the case after hearing of arguments of the parties on the basis of the evidence already recorded".

The chief justice said that they did not want to comment further on these aspects as the choices available to the IHC was within the jurisdiction and discretion of the high court, and they could exercise such choices on the basis of the facts found and the conclusions the court reaches.

*5. Conduct of judge Arshad Malik*

The top court said that judge Malik's conduct had the tendency to bring a "bad name to the entire judiciary as an institution".

"His admitted conduct emerging from that press release and the affidavit stinks and the stench of such stinking conduct has the tendency to bring bad name to the entire judiciary as an institution," the judgement read.

"His sordid and disgusting conduct has made the thousands of honest, upright, fair and proper judges in the country hang their heads in shame," the CJP said in the written verdict, adding that they hoped that the Lahore High Court would initiate the appropriate departmental disciplinary proceedings against judge Malik.

Concluding the verdict, the SC bench noted that it may not be the appropriate stage for the top court to interfere in the matter, particularly because the video may have relevance to a criminal appeal pending before the IHC.

"A criminal investigation is already being conducted into the matter by the Federal Investigation Agency, some other offences or illegalities under some other laws referred to by the learned attorney general might also entail inquiries or investigations by the competent agencies or fora and any probe into the matter by a commission to be constituted by the government or by this court may end up only with an opinion which may have no relevance or admissibility in the relevant appeal pending before the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad," the judgement read.

*'Is govt protecting judge?'*

Last month, at an explosive press conference, Nawaz's daughter and PML-N leader Maryam had shared a video containing an alleged confession by judge Malik that he had been pressurised and blackmailed to convict her father in the Al-Azizia reference.

Judge Malik, however, denied the allegations.

As the video controversy continued to make news with Maryam releasing two more video clips "in support" of the first one, the IHC removed judge Malik from his post in July. On Thursday, the IHC repatriated him to his parent department, the LHC, so that disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him.

The petitions filed by Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza, Sohail Akhtar and Tariq Asad had sought the constitution of a probe committee or a judicial commission to look into matter.

A three-member bench of the apex court, comprising Chief Justice Khosa, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the petitions.

Malik's repatriation to LHC on Thursday came on the heels of the SC's August 20 hearing in which the court had termed the conduct of the judge "shameful" and asked why the law ministry had not transferred him back to the LHC.

The apex court had observed that it appeared that the law ministry was giving refuge to the controversial judge.

_Read: Is govt protecting video tape scandal judge, wonders CJP_

The top court had reserved its verdict on the petitions after an assurance was extended by Attorney General Anwar Mansoor that Malik would be repatriated to the LHC.

*LHC forms inquiry committee*
Chief Jusitce of the LHC Sardar Shamim Khan has summoned a meeting of the court's administrative committee on August 26 to discuss the future course of action against judge Malik, public relations officer Arif Dar said.

Malik had reported back to the LHC today, Dar said, as per the orders issued by the Islamabad High Court.

The LHC registrar said that Malik will face an inquiry pertaining to the controversial video released by Maryam Nawaz. The inquiry will be conducted in light of the Supreme Court verdict issued today.

*Video leak controversy*

On July 6, Maryam opened a Pandora’s box with a startling claim that the judge "confessed" he had been "pressurised and blackmailed" to convict her father in the Al-Azizia reference. A video containing the judge's alleged confession during his conversation with a 'sympathiser' of the PML-N, Nasir Butt, was screened during a hurriedly called presser at the party’s provincial headquarters in Model Town.

The next day, in a press release, the judge had denied being under any pressure, but admitted that Nasir Butt was an acquaintance.
Acting IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq summoned the accountability judge twice and then directed him to submit an affidavit to explain his position.

Judge Malik in his affidavit had said that he had been blackmailed by PML-N supporters because of an “immoral video” and admitted that he had met Nawaz at his Jati Umra residence and Hussain Nawaz in Saudi Arabia.

Justice Farooq decided to relieve Malik without conducting an inquiry since he was an official of the subordinate judiciary of the LHC. He directed the registrar office to write a letter to the law ministry regarding relieving judge Malik of his post and repatriating him to the parent department, the LHC.

Shortly after this decision was announced, Maryam called for the verdict in the Al Azizia reference against her father to be declared void.

Meanwhile, judge Malik lodged a complaint with the Federal Investigation Agency which arrested an accused namely Mian Tariq Mehmood on a charge of recording an “immoral video” of the judge.

Judge Malik, in Dec 2018, had handed the ousted premier seven years in jail in the Al-Azizia reference. He, however, had acquitted him in a second reference related to Flagship Investments.

Nawaz is currently incarcerated at Kot Lakhpat jail while his sentence in the Avenfield corruption reference — which he was convicted in on July 6 last year — has been suspended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa petitions Supreme Court to constitute full court bench to hear reference*
Haseeb Bhatti
August 26, 2019





Justice Isa in his petition expresses distrust in Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa — who is currently facing a misconduct reference filed by the president against him in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) — has in a new application requested the Supreme Court to constitute a full court bench to hear his petition against the SJC's proceedings.

In support of his argument, Justice Isa has contended that the SJC "expressed bias" against him in its verdict on Reference 427 (a second petition) and has therefore lost its credibility to give him a fair hearing.

*Justice Isa contradicted by the CJP*
The SJC had, last Monday, dismissed a misconduct reference against Justice Isa filed by a petitioner who had accused the justice of acting inappropriately by writing to the president and leaking those letters to the media.

The SJC in its decision had noted that though Justice Isa had admitted the writing of three letters to the president, there was nothing to show he had also leaked them to the media.

Further, "The purpose or the contents of such letters might appear to some to be oblique or objectionable, but such letters were merely private letters not shown to be meant or intended to be read by anybody other than the addressee and those to whom they had been copied," the verdict had read.

However, in the same verdict, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had contradicted a key position taken by Justice Isa in the said letters regarding his ignorance of the petition filed against him.

Justice Khosa stated that he had personally provided Justice Isa an opportunity to read the reference before the latter wrote to the president.

After the reference was received, "The respondent judge was [...] contacted by the chief justice [...] with a request to come over to the chief justice’s chamber, which the respondent judge was kind enough to do. The chief justice then informed the respondent judge about receipt of the reference from the president and asked him to read the same for his information. The respondent judge then sat down and read the entire reference and took his time in doing so."

While reading the allegations against him, Justice Isa had asked for a paper and pencil for taking notes, which were supplied to him by the chief justice personally, according to the judgement.

The decision had noted that, "The three letters written by [Justice Isa] to the president clearly stated that till the writing of those letters, the respondent judge did not know whether any reference had actually been filed by the president against him or not and in any case he was unaware of the contents of and the allegations levelled in any such reference, if filed.

Yet the aforementioned meeting of Justice Isa with Chief Justice Khosa "shows that the respondent judge not only knew about filing of the reference against him but also about the actual contents thereof and the allegations levelled therein before he had started writing successive letters to the president on the subject, professing his ignorance about the same", the verdict had noted.

*Justice Isa wants full court to hear reference instead*
Perhaps in reaction to this statement, Justice Isa in his new petition argues that the Supreme Judicial Council and its members be deemed no longer competent to hear the presidential reference against him.

Justice Isa has also requested the court to direct the SJC to dismiss the reference in question on the basis of the complainant's failure to establish the allegation made against him, while striking down everything else (including the statement contradicting his stance) from the order.

He has also sought that the Supreme Court block the SJC's order from being published in any legal publication, and if it is, then his application against it should also be published.

Justice Isa also seeks that the court initiate or direct the appropriate action be taken against the complainant of Reference number 427, including the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against him.

Justice Isa argues that his application "raises very important constitutional questions" about the freedom of the judiciary, the formation of an independent viewpoint by the president of Pakistan, obtaining the Federal Cabinet's approval and matters of surveillance and the manner and method of collecting evidence against a judge of the Supreme Court, and should therefore be heard by the full court.

He has argued that a judicial precedent for constituting a bench comprising the full court is already available in _Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry versus the President of Pakistan_.

*The references against Justice Isa*
A reference had been instituted in May this year against Justice Isa accusing the judge of concealing his properties in the United Kingdom, allegedly held in the name of his wife and children. The judge subsequently wrote three letters to President Arif Alvi, which were eventually leaked to the media, asking him to confirm whether the reports were true.

The judge had complained that selective leaks of the reference to the media amounted to his character assassination, thus jeopardising his right to due process and fair trial. He had also sought a copy of the reference.

Later, a lawyer from Lahore, Waheed Shahzad Butt, had filed a second reference before the SJC against Justice Isa for writing the said letters and leaking them to the media. In this second reference, filed under Article 209 of the Constitution, the judge was accused of violating the Code of Conduct for judges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Presidential reference: Justice Isa had offered resignation to CJP*

Listen










ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court’s senior judge Qazi Faez Isa disclosed on Monday that he had offered his resignation in an "off the record meeting" with Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa soon after President Arif Alvi sent a reference against him (Justice Isa) to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for allegedly holding undeclared offshore assets.

Justice Isa made this revelation in a petition seeking establishment of a full court bench to hear all petitions saying that the Supreme Judicial Council chairman and its members are biased towards his case.

The petition was filed by Justice Isa in his personal capacity with the Supreme Court on Monday. ”Sir, without having your [CJ Khosa] confidence I would not want to continue as a judge. Sir, I am giving you a blank cheque to ask for my resignation if you have any doubt about my integrity,” Justice Isa stated in his 31-page petition.

"The chief justice reposed confidence in the petitioner [Justice Isa] and said it was not for him to ask for the petitioner's resignation," the petition further read. Justice Isa further disclosed when he was leaving the chamber, the chief justice told him that "this meeting was off the record."

The petitioner (Judge Isa) further revealed as he came away from the first meeting with the impression that the chief justice had had serious reservations about the maintainability of the complaint filed against him.

About "off the record meeting," Justice Isa further revealed that the chief justice called the petitioner [Judge Isa] on the intercom and asked the petitioner to see him (first meeting) at this time the petitioner had no inkling that a complaint had been filed by the president against the petition.

The chief justice received the petitioner with courtesy in his chamber and once both had sat down, the chief justice reached out for one of the two large brown envelopes lying on the table in front of him, retrieved the documents from one of them and handed them to the petitioner.

The petitioner glanced through the documents and was shocked to read the utterly false allegations. Justice Isa briefed the chief justice over properties of his children and wife, during off the record meeting, and then he (chief justice) queried, "Whether a presidential reference can be dismissed without hearing it?"

On the role of chief justice of Pakistan/chairman of the SJC, Justice Isa says he has nothing but respect and regard for Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and benefited from his rich experience and expertise in criminal matters.

"It is, therefore, all the more puzzling that his lordship has disrespected, disparaged, denigrated and castigated the petitioner in the strongest of terms (as mentioned in paragraph 4 and 10 herein [Reference 427 order]. It is respectfully submitted that the language used by the chief justice/chairman in the council's order sadly demonstrates his lordships bias and prejudice towards the petitioner," further read the petition.

Justice Isa also mentioned the SJC's order stated that "dragging the prime minister and his different spouses and children into the matter through such letters was in bad taste, to say the least in his petition.

"It was the prime minister, who was dragging the petitioner's only spouse of over 36 years and his two adult children into the matter and not the other way around. The petitioner's wife and adult children were illegally surveilled, Pakistan's intelligence apparatus was deployed and public funds were also misused.

The personal data records and documents of the petitioner wife's and adult children were probed, examined, scrutinised, dissected and analysed, including the confidential record maintained by the Nadra, FIA, Passport and Immigration Office, FBR and Ministry of Interior.

The harvested mismatched information and documents were then used to paint half truth and put together a false reference. The order overlooks the said misdeeds of the prime minister and instead expresses all its sympathy for the prime minister," page 9-10 of the petition further stated.

Justice Isa also revealed that he "straight away and without any hesitation acknowledged that he knew of the three properties which were owned by this wife and adult children and that the petitioner had no concern with them.

The petitioner then said to the chief justice, “Why should I disclose the properties of my wife and children in my wealth tax statements, there is no requirement to do so' or words to this effect).

Since the complaint relied upon section 116 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and as this provision was reproduced in the reference, the petitioner read it aloud, which stated that such disclosure is required only if a notice is sent by the commissioner and then too disclosure is only required to be made of the properties of a dependent spouse and dependent minor children.

Then chief justice examined the said provision himself and enquired whether the petitioner had received any notice from the commissioner and the petitioner stated that he had not."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Judge Arshad Malik made OSD after suspension from Islamabad accountability court*

September 14, 2019






Former accountability judge Muhammad Arshad Malik. — DawnNewsTV/File
Former accountability judge Muhammad Arshad Malik — suspended last month over the video leak controversy — was posted as an officer on special duty (OSD) at the Lahore Sessions Court on Saturday.

A notification to this effect was circulated by the registrar after approval by the chief justice of the Lahore High Court.

The Islamabad High Court on July 12 had removed Judge Malik from his post amid a controversy surrounding a leaked videotape showing his purported confession that he had been “pressurised and blackmailed” to convict ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Al Azizia corruption reference.

The judge had denied the allegations, saying there was no pressure on him to convict Sharif and that the videos shown by PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz of his alleged confession at a press conference were "fake and based on lies".

Judge Malik, on December 4, 2018, had handed ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif seven years in jail in the Al Azizia Steel Mills corruption reference. He, however, had acquitted him in a second reference related to Flagship Investments.

Following the controversy, the Islamabad High Court had repatriated him to the LHC, his parent department, for disciplinary proceedings.

A notification issued by the IHC on August 22 stated that the disclosures and admissions made by Judge Malik in his press release issued on July 7 — a day after Maryam's presser — and in an affidavit he submitted to the IHC on July 11 to deny the allegations against him, prima facie "constitute acts of misconduct and violation of the code of conduct, which warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him".

According to the notification, due to the above reasons, the IHC chief justice had issued orders to place Judge Malik under suspension and repatriate him to the LHC with immediate effect, "for disciplinary proceedings to be conducted in accordance with law".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*CJP orders new 10-member bench to hear Justice Isa's petition against presidential reference*

September 20, 2019






Supreme Court's Justice Qazi Faez Isa. — Photo Courtesy SC website
Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa on Friday ordered the formation of a full 10-member bench for the hearing of Supreme Court judge Qazi Faez Isa's petition regarding the presidential reference instituted against him.

Headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the 10-member bench will conduct a hearing on Justice Isa's petition on September 24 at 1pm.

The new bench will also include Justice Maqbool Baqir, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Ameen Ahmed.

Earlier, Justice Isa had objected to a seven-member bench hearing the reference and had filed a petition requesting the formation of a new, full bench along with an expedient hearing to address his petition.

A reference had been instituted in May this year against Justice Isa, accusing the judge of concealing his properties in the United Kingdom allegedly held in the name of his wife and children. After news of the reference hit TV screens, the judge wrote multiple letters to President Arif Alvi, asking him to confirm whether the reports were true.

Subsequently, another reference was filed by a lawyer from Lahore over the judge’s act of writing to and seeking information from the president, accusing him of violating the code of conduct for judges.

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), however, quashed the second reference as it did not find the matter "serious or grave enough to constitute misconduct sufficient for his [Justice Isa's] removal from the exalted office of a judge of the Supreme Court".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Three suspects released in video leak case to face trial*

September 26, 2019





File
ISLAMABAD: The three suspects released by the judicial magistrate of Islamabad in the judge’s video leak case have to face trial as a cybercrimes court has ruled that the order for their discharge from the case “does not amount to acquittal”.

Nasir Janjua, Mahar Ghulam Jilani and Khurram Yousaf have been accused of pressurising former accountability court judge Arshad Malik to acquit former prime minister Nawaz Sharif after showing him his immoral video.

Four officials of the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) cybercrimes wing had on Sept 2 arrested the suspects, but the investigation team concluded that they were not involved in the crime. Subsequently, judicial magistrate Saqib Jawad had ordered their release.

However, the judge of the prevention of electronic crime court in the order sheet declared that “the discharge order of Sept 7, 2019, of the three accused is an administrative order and does not amount to acquittal”. The judge directed the prosecution to proceed in the case against the suspects.

Judge Arshad Malik, who was suspended over the video leak controversy, had on Sept 11 filed a complaint against the four FIA officials — cybercrimes wing director Afzal Mehmood Butt, assistant directors Kaleemullah Tarrar and Farooq Latif and sub-inspector Fazal Mahboob — over poor investigation.

The FIA had on Sept 23 informed the cybercrimes court that the FIA director general not only transferred the inquiry from the cybercrimes wing to the counterterrorism wing but disciplinary proceedings had also been initiated against the agency’s four officers.

Legal experts, however, point out that Section 8 of the FIA Act 1973 provides indemnity to its officials for “exercising any power to perform any function”.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Judge Arshad Malik, who didn’t join probe, levels fresh allegations*







ISLAMABAD: In a shocking move, Judge Arshad Malik has claimed through an application that the Federal Investigation Agency’s probe team and key accused had wilfully established a nexus to destroy his video scandal case.

The FIA team conducted an extremely shady investigation where the three key accused got a "clean chit" from the judicial magistrate. “I have just come to know, to my shock and dismay that instead of objective, independent, professional and thorough investigation, theinvolvement of three accused in the commission of (or aiding or abetting the commission of) offences disclosed by the contents of the FIR, the members of the investigation team, obviously and patently, acting in collusion with the said three accused, submitted an application ostensibly under Section 169 PrPC in the court. Nasir Janjua, Ghulam Jilani and Khurram Yousaf were neither found involved in making audio or immoral video of complainant judge Arshad Malik nor have publicly exhibited, displayed and transmitted,” judge Arshad Malik wrote in his application submitted to Director General FIA Bashir Memon.

"The discharge and release of three accused [Nasir Janjua, Ghulam Jilani and Khurram Yousaf] named in Paragraph No I hereof caused and obtained solely on the basis and on account of the section 169 CrPC Application submitted through the two members of investigation team is unlawful, erroneous and contrary to and violative of my rights as complainant and also appears to be tainted by mala fides of and collusion between the members of investigation team and three accused in question," added the application, exclusively made available to this correspondent.

The development came at a time when DG FIA Bashir Memon has gone on long leave and the new FIA team headed by Babar Bakht is going to submit its fresh report on the case to the Cyber Crime Court Islamabad on Monday (today).

Judge Arshad Malik, who is an OSD now, further wrote in his application, “It is apparent from a bare perusal of the section 169 CrPC application that specific details of the manner and scope of the investigation carried out by the investigation team was not shared with and explained to the learned judicial magistrate Islamabad, which was an essential pre-requisite, before procuring the release of the three accused in question.

It is also apparent that the undersigned being complainant was neither taken into confidence nor provided any prior notice or any opportunity to comment on the proposed filing of the section 169 CrPC application, which is patent violation of the fundamental rights of the undersigned and his legally enforceable rights qua complainant.”

Judge Arshad Malik, who did not appear before FIA team despite repeatedly served notices as sources told this correspondent, wrote in his application that section 169 CrPC application was prepared and moved surreptitiously and the decision to seek release of the three accused in question was concealed from the undersigned (qua complainant) intentionally and so as to unduly and unlawfully favour the said three accused.

“The intentionally misleading contents of and improper motive behind the section 169 CrPC application is also established by the statement therein that, during investigation Nasir Janjua, Ghulam Jilani and Khurram Yousaf were neither found involved in making of audio or immoral video of complainant judge Arshad Malik nor have publicly exhibited, displayed and transmitted, as this particular charge and allegation has been attributed to other accused in the FIR and a different role and involvement has been expressly attributed to the three accused,” stated judge Malik’s application submitted to DG FIA days after the accused were released by the magistrate.

The judge further claimed that the investigation team failed to conduct a proper, objective and comprehensive investigation into the real questions and issues arising from and in his complaint and also failed to duly and properly interrogate the three accused with reference to the specific role attributed to them in the FIR. It is apparent that the investigation team has simply accepted the verbal denial and orally taken version and stance of three accused without any critical analysis or any other corroborating evidence or substantiating material which is against the basic norms of investigation in such matters and which it is submitted also betrays the bias of the members of the investigation team in favour of the three accused,” he added.

His said his application discloses the commission of serious offences including inter alia, blackmail, criminal intimation as well as an underlying concerted conspiracy to interfere with the administration of criminal justice by employing the subjective video as a basis.

“However, the investigation team by apparently simply accepting the oral denial of the individuals has failed to perform its duties and functions in accordance with law and as a result thereof the fundamental rights of the undersigned complaint have been violated. Additionally, my [judge’s] legal right to seek prosecution of all involved in the offense arising from the contents of the FIR has been unlawfully and unreasonably stifled, all with the object of unduly favouring persons nominated in the FIR itself, the contents of which are hereby reiterated and reaffirmed by the judge. The judge said he had lost all confidence in the investigation team consisting of Afzal Mahmood Butt, Fazal Maabd and Farooq Latif.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*SC larger bench for early hearing of 17 petitions challenging presidential reference against Justice Isa*
October 08, 2019






Justice Qazi Faez Isa.— Photo courtesy of the SC
A 10-member larger bench of the Supreme Court — led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial — on Tuesday turned down a plea by the counsel of Justice Qazi Faez Isa seeking deferment of the hearing of his petition against a presidential reference for two weeks; instead adjourning the hearing till October 14.

The larger bench had today resumed hearing a set of 17 petitions challenging the presidential reference against Justice Isa. Justice Bandial, while turning down the plea, said that a member of the bench has to travel out of the country after two weeks.

Justice Bandial said that for now the court is only listening to the arguments surrounding maintainability of the petitions.

Attorney General Anwar Mansoor today also submitted his reply to the petition filed by Justice Isa. The court directed the attorney general to provide a copy of his reply to all petitioners in the case.

Munir A. Malik — the counsel for Justice Isa — argued in court that while the petition says that allegations against his client were based on malafide intentions, there was no mention of the point in the reply to the petition.

Justice Bandial reminded Malik that the case had already been deferred because of his illness. He added that two judges had also detached themselves from the bench because of the petitioner's objections. "This was a painful process," he said.

Justice Bandial noted that the case is one of its kind. Munir responded that the case is a trial of the entire judiciary.

Justice Bandial further said, "The matter is also important for this institution [judiciary], [so] we have to examine the record produced in the court."

Malik argued that the judge and his family members were spied upon. "A campaign was launched against my client," he said.

Justice Bandial asked the counsel to elaborate his allegation with the help of the background of the case.

Malik responded that his client had passed a verdict which was disliked. "Following the decision, a well deliberated campaign was launched against my client," he added.

"Three properties were purchased overseas when the petitioner was chief justice of the Balochistan High Court," Justice Bandial noted, asking if that wasn't the case.

Malik responded, "The entire nation is looking to this bench, so why hurry?"

"I want the 10-member bench to safeguard this institution," he added.

Justice Bandial said, "We are trying to hear the case as soon as possible."

"We are here to hear cases. Let us know if you want a prolonged deferment of the case," he said. The head of the bench further said that an "honourable friend" from his "community" has been accused so the bench wants to hear out the matter post haste.

He asked Munir to submit his arguments in response to the replies to the petition as soon as possible.

Raza Rabbani, who has also petitioned the court, also asked to be heard. He said that he has additionally highlighted the 2005 rules in his plea while some points in the petition were the same as in other applications.

Justice Bandial replied to Rabbani that the court will listen to him on his turn after the counsel of the central petitioner in the case completes his arguments.

Senior counsel Rasheed A. Rizvi, representing the Sindh High Court Bar Association before the apex court, raised an objection saying that the court at this point was neglecting 15 other petitioners.

"This is a case, not a cake in which everyone ought have a share," Bandial responded to Rizvi.

He added that the bench has to get on with hearing the case. He said that Rizvi will be provided a copy of the reply submitted by the attorney general.

Bilal Manto, another senior counsel and a petitioner in the case, said that he has already submitted an application seeking answers about the establishment of the Supreme Judicial Council. He said he has also sought record of the proceedings in the council. "I won't be able to present arguments without access to the record," he said.

"Your request will be considered at a later stage," Justice Bandial said.

A reference had been instituted in May this year against Justice Isa, accusing the judge of concealing his properties in the United Kingdom allegedly held in the name of his wife and children. After news of the reference hit TV screens, the judge wrote multiple letters to President Arif Alvi, asking him to confirm whether the reports were true.

Subsequently, another reference was filed by a lawyer from Lahore over the judge’s act of writing to and seeking information from the president, accusing him of violating the code of conduct for judges.

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), however, quashed the second reference as it did not find the matter "serious or grave enough to constitute misconduct sufficient for his [Justice Isa's] removal from the exalted office of a judge of the Supreme Court".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*UK properties are benami, Justice Isa is ostensible owner: PTI govt tells SC*

October 10, 2019

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that Justice Qazi Faez Isa was the ‘ostensible owner’ of three foreign properties as his family members purchased the assets at a time when they had no independent source of income.

The assertion was made in the government’s response – submitted by Attorney General of Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan – on a set of petitions challenging the presidential references against Justice Isa.

“The petitioner’s spouse and children own expensive properties in the United Kingdom which were purchased in the year 2004 and 2013 at a time when they had no independent source of income of their own,” reads the reply.

“The inescapable conclusion which follows is that the properties are _benami _and that the petitioner is the ostensible owner,” it continues.

The response states that the presidential reference filed in the Supreme Judicial Council only sought an inquiry to ascertain whether Justice Isa’s conduct in “in owning the properties, though ostensibly, is free from financial impropriety”.

“The simple and straightforward answer to this query would have been to disclose the source of funds employed to purchase the properties, the mode and manner of acquisition of foreign exchange and its transfer to UK,” it continues.

The government’s response states that instead of providing answers, Justice Isa “took a very evasive stand and started vilifying and castigating the complainant”.

“The complainant may not be a symbol of propriety but as a judge, the petitioner [Justice Isa] should have a displayed such a character,” added the response.

The government maintained that the information provided by the complainant was admitted by the petitioner as well “therefore, instead of assassinating the character of the complainant”, Justice Isa should come forward with the information.

Furthermore, the government stressed that the mere filing of a reference by President Arif Alvi cannot be visualised as a threat to the independence of the judiciary. “There is no shred of evidence to establish that any of the Constitutional functionary has acted with slightest of malafide.”

According to the government, the president deliberately omitted the names of Justice Isa’s spouse and children to “keep them out of the controversy”.

Citing Article 248 of the Constitution, the government argued that the president and prime minister of the country have immunity and are not answerable to any court, including the SC, for acts done in exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices.

The reply also stressed that Article 48(4) of the Constitution states that advice tendered to the president by the premier shall not be inquired into by any court.

Finally, the government has denied “all allegations, insinuations, asperations” put forth by Justice Isa and the country’s bar associations and councils alleging the presidential references were filed out of malafide intent and for ulterior motives.

The presidential references

In May, presidential reference was filed in the Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Isa alleging non-disclosure of assets in his wealth statement. In his reply, the top judge maintained that he was neither answerable for the assets of his wife nor adult offspring nor was he under obligation to disclose any information concerning them.

Challenging the allegation, Justice Isa said the presidential references are filed under “malice, ulterior motives and to achieve a collateral purpose and to humiliate, subjugate and browbeat the judiciary, destroy the judiciary’s independence and make the judiciary subservient to the executive by subverting the Constitution.”

In his constitutional plea, Justice Isa also sought a stay in the SJC proceedings against him till the matter was decided in the top court. The council, however, maintains that the proceedings are immune from a judicial review under Article 211 of the Constitution.

In another petition seeking a full-court, Justice Isa had underscored that the ‘possibility’ of the judge being swayed over a personal advantage is a ground for recusal under Article 4 of the Code of Conduct of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Pakistan. Consequently, Justice Masood and Justice Ahsan recused themselves from the bench.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Law has 'safeguards' regarding investigations against judges, Justice Isa's lawyer tells court*
October 15, 2019

The legal counsel of Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday called into question the credibility of Waheed Dogar, the 'complainant' who had first written to the government's Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) alleging that the judge owned property abroad that had not been disclosed in his (Justice Isa's) asset statements.

The complaint had culminated in the government filing a reference against Justice Isa.

A 10-member larger bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, had today resumed hearing petitions filed by Justice Isa challenging the presidential reference against him.

Advocate Muneer Malik, who is representing Justice Isa, questioned how legal proceedings could be launched against a judge on the basis of the complaint filed by Dogar.

He argued that there are "certain safeguards" in the law regarding investigations against judges.

"The complaints were received, evidence was collected and references were filed each at different times," Malik noted.

"Do you mean to say that the investigation against the judge was initiated without due process?" Justice Maqbool Baqar, member of the bench, asked.

Malik told the Supreme Court that Dogar had written to the ARU in April soon after Justice Isa issued his verdict in a case pertaining to the Faizabad sit-in.

"The letter [written by Dogar] does not have a phone number or address and does not mention any property that belongs to Justice Qazi Faez Isa," Advocate Malik pointed out, reading out the letter for the court.

"What is the Asset Recovery Unit and why is it in the Prime Minister Secretariat?" Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, also part of the bench, asked.

"Can you tell the court about the legal status of the Assets Recovery Unit?" Justice Baqar inquired. Malik only offered that "there is no civil servant in the ARU".

"According to you, the investigation [against Justice Isa] began because of the [actions of the] Assets Recovery Unit?" Justice Baqar asked.

Malik said that the ARU, after receiving the complaint, had written to the law minister on May 10 asking for his position on the matter. He added that ARU officials had also met with Federal Investigation Agency officials on the same day. During that meeting, the name of Justice Isa's wife and her Spanish nationality had surfaced for the first time, Malik said.

"Her name came up because of a visa request," Justice Bandial noted. "Justice Qazi Faez Isa's wife had been granted a five-year visa."

"But how did Dogar know her name?" Malik argued. Malik insisted that the identities of Justice Isa's wife and their son had been brought forth for the first time after Dogar's letter.

The lawyer also questioned the solidity of Dogar's accusation against the judge. "Dogar obtained the documents [provided as evidence against Justice Isa] after an online search for London properties," the lawyer claimed.

"Can you take data from London's land authority online?" Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wondered.

"You can find out about plots but you cannot find out who they belong to," Malik responded.

"The question is, how was the information regarding the property gathered?" Justice Bandial said, to which Malik answered: "The information was gathered by stalking the petitioner and his family."

"Do you want to say that the FIA and FBR (Federal Board of Revenue) had provided all the information to Dogar?" Justice Bandial asked.

Malik said Dogar had also informed the ARU about Justice K.K. Agha's dual nationality and the property owned by the judge, but failed to provide any documentary evidence.

The lawyer argued that Dogar seemed to be a "fake appellant".

"Are you saying that Dogar is a proxy [for another complainant]? The logic is not understandable," Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked.

"Dogar is not a trustworthy man, I am telling you this about his credibility," Malik responded.

Justice Bandial asked if Justice Isa had ever given money to his wife as a gift. "I can let you know after confirming this," Malik said.

"We will have the answer to that question," Justice Bandial said.

The court subsequently issued notices to the respondents of the fresh constitutional petitions filed against the Supreme Judicial Council's proceedings in the matter.

The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday.


*Justice Isa's petition*

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.

The top court judge denies the allegations and has claimed that they are being levelled against him in order to attack him and his family.

In a rejoinder submitted to the top court on Sunday, Justice Isa claimed that the government wanted a subservient judiciary. The government’s team first painted a target on the petitioner’s back but when it did not work, they stooped to target his family and exposed them to danger, the rejoinder filed by Justice Isa in response to government allegations said, adding that this was a demonstrable fact showing malice, mala fide, ulterior motives and victimisation.

He further said that the law of benami set out a number of tests to establish benami ownership, but in the present case not even a single component was met. There was not an iota of evidence to prove that the petitioner judge had paid for the purchase, let alone established that. No reason was ever given why the petitioner judge would resort to buying properties in the name of his wife and adult-children, the rejoinder questioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa case: Full bench dissolved due to 'non-availability' of Justice Mazhar Alam*
October 21, 2019






Justice Umar Ata Bandial says a request will be sent to top judge for constitution of another bench. — Reuters/File
A 10-member full bench of the Supreme Court hearing a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa was dissolved on Monday after one of the judges became inavailable.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who was heading the bench, said as the judges congregated that the bench had been dissolved due to the non-availability of Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel.

"The matter of constituting a new bench is being sent to the chief justice," Justice Bandial said.

Justice Isa's counsel, Munir A. Malik, requested again that a full court bench be formed to hear the case, to which Justice Bandial reminded him that it is up to the chief justice to constitute a bench however he sees fit.

This will be the second time that the chief justice will be requested to reconstitute the bench hearing the petitions regarding presidential references against Justice Isa.

Initially, a seven-member bench was constituted to hear the petitions but, following the recusal of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, a request had been sent to the chief justice to reconstitute a bench to hear the case. The top judge had then constituted the current 10-member bench.

*Lawyers question 'urgency'*

Members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) expressed reservations over the development, saying that they "cannot see justice being delivered".

Talking to the media after the court's proceedings, PBC lawyers said that the bench had been dissolved because of the absence of one judge. They added that there was no ground to reconstitute the bench as, according to a Supreme Court order, a bench that begins hearing a petition is supposed to hear the entire case.

They said that all petitioners were present in the court and no one had expressed reservations over the current bench. The lawyers announced that they will raise objections over the bench that will be constituted next.

"[We] don't understand the urgency [being shown] in this case," senior lawyer Ali Ahmed Kurd said outside the court.

Another senior lawyer, Hamid Khan, said the proceedings can wait if a judge is unavailable. He added that the 10-member bench had already been formed and the chief justice "does not have the authority" to constitute another bench.

"If this happens, it will be an unconstitutional step," Khan said.

Former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association Rasheed Rizvi, while talking to reporters, said: "From the first day, it seems like these judges cannot wait to pass a verdict within two hours. Do they want to issue a verdict before someone's retirement?

"There is a judgement [which says] that once a bench is formed, it cannot be dissolved. The conduct of these judges clearly shows that there will be no justice," he accused.

PBC Vice President Amjad Ali Shah said that all petitioners who have filed appeals in connection with the presidential references against Justice Isa were present in court today for the hearing, yet the bench was dissolved due to the absence of one judge.

"We will have objections to any other bench except this one," he declared. "We want this bench to hear the case. [It] has [already] held two hearings," he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa’s counsel says inquiry violates SJC’s mandate*


–SC judge’s counsel says prior approval of federal cabinet is mandatory before submission of presidential reference

–Demands quashing of reference on the basis of ‘mala fide intent’ by executive authorities

–Justice Isa offers to provide details of surveillance operation against his family members

ISLAMABAD: The counsel for Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday contented that the government’s initiation of inquiry against the Supreme Court (SC) judge had violated the mandate of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as only the latter was allowed to probe a sitting judge.

As the full court bench headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the presidential reference against Justice Isa, Munir A Malik, the counsel for the SC judge, argued that President Dr Arif Alvi should have sent the reference to the federal cabinet for approval before the administration was allowed to investigate the judge.

He contended that this equates to targeting the judiciary, therefore, the reference must be dismissed based on “mala fide intentions”. He also said that SJC should have taken these aspects into consideration before proceedings were initiated on the reference.

SURVEILLANCE OPERATION:

Justice Isa’s counsel also told the court that his client has offered to submit a sealed affidavit explaining how he was aware of his family being under surveillance.

To this, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Anwar Mansoor Khan said that the apex court was not allowed to record evidence under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

Justice Bandial, however, said that as the petitioner has accused the executive authorities of mala fide intentions, he was now trying to provide evidence for it.

Justice Isa’s counsel said that the government never declared how it gathered information on the SC judge. He added that a private agency based in the United Kingdom (UK) was hired to track Justice Isa’s activities there during the past decade.

“I cannot say what mode of surveillance was employed. Emails could have been hacked, or phones tapped, or the defence attache may have obtained secret information related to the UK properties,” said Malik.

He further said that this was evident from the way the government attached the entire travel history of the judge and his family in its reply to the court.

He argued that the relevant authorities issued notices to his client, seeking declaration of assets and tax returns for the period between 2015 to 2018. He added that the mentioned documents had already been submitted.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar replied that the court cannot establish mala fide intent on the basis of interferences.

Justice Bandial said that the apex judicial body could not simply dismiss a presidential reference against as a judge as it was bound to conduct a proper inquiry.

The counsel then quoted the judgement of the apex court in the case of former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, wherein the top court had dismissed the presidential reference against him on the basis of mala fide intent.

He added that the top court has the power to conduct an ordinary judicial review of the conduct of executive authorities in relation to a reference against a judge. “The SJC’s conduct can be reviewed on the basis of the principles laid down by the top court in the Iftikhar Chaudhry case,” he added.

The court adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday.

It is worth mentioning here that 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 wealth returns. Justice Isa has contested that claim, saying he is not a beneficial owner of the flats — neither direct nor indirect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa’s petition: *
*SJC can’t throw away presidential reference, says SC*

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Umar Ata Bandial maintained on Tuesday that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) could not throw away the presidential reference filed against SC judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The Supreme Court was informed that the government had engaged private security agencies for tracing out the record pertaining to activities of Justice Qazi Faez Isa in the United Kingdom during the past 10 years as well as finding out details of his family properties.

A 10-member full court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial resumed hearing into identical petitions, challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly owning properties abroad but he did not disclose them in his wealth returns.

Continuing his arguments, Munir A Malik, counsel for Justice Qazi Faez Isa, submitted as to what was themode of surveillance, whether it was made through phone tapping or hacking of emails of the family members of the petitioner or a protocol officer was assigned the task to inquire into the properties, he cannot say in this regard.

“But I have instructions from my client who was prepared to put before the court an affidavit under seal wherein, he could explain in detail as to how he and his family members were subjected to surveillance,” Munir A Malik offered.

“I would object to the sort of arguments and the way the learned counsel for the petitioner is submitting before the court which is hearing a petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution”, Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan interrupted after rising to the rostrum.

He contended that evidence cannot be produced before the court during the instant matter, being heard under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The AG submitted that there was another forum where evidence could be placed before it. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, however, observed that prima facie the petitioner has made allegations that the presidential reference had been filed against him on mala fide intentions.

“Let the counsel for the petitioner establish the facts regarding mala fide”, Justice Bandial told the Attorney General. Munir A Malik, however, questioned as to how complainant Abdul Hameed Dogar had got exact address of properties of his client despite the fact that he had never been to London.

Justice Munib Akhtar, another member of the bench, observed that the learned counsel was just drawing inference from the incidents but not relying on facts to establish the mala fide. The counsel, however, contended that even the federation has never given any explanation as to how it got the details regarding London properties.

He submitted that head of Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) had dispatched a letter on May 20, 2019 to Federal Law Minister for conducting an inquiry. “Once the reference is filed before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), what business of conducting an investigation is meant for,” Malik questioned adding that the collection of evidence is the job of the Council but not in the domain of ARU.

He submitted that the judiciary should be insulated of victimisation by the executive while discharging its functions. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned as to how investigation was conducted without bringing into the notice of the president and prime minister. Justice Maqbool Baqir observed that only the Supreme Judicial Council is mandated to conduct an inquiry into the misconduct of a judge.

Munir A Malik while replying to a court query said that the collection of material is to be authorised by the president but before filing a reference in the Supreme Judicial Council.

Justice Munib Akhtar asked the learned counsel whether the Supreme Court could send the matter to the Supreme Judicial Council to which Munir A Malik replied that the jurisdiction of the Council is very limited and matter related to mala fide, coram non judice, etc were beyond the scope of Council but the apex court, however, has the jurisdiction to review it.

Coram non judice is used to indicate a legal proceeding that is outside the presence of a judge (without a judge), with improper venue, or without jurisdiction. On the question of maintainability, Munir A Malik cited the apex court judgment, delivered in former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry case, wherein a presidential reference against the former chief justice of Pakistan was quashed by the top court on the basis of mala fide intent.

The learned counsel read out observations given by the court on pages 82 and 85 of the instant judgment and submitted that the apex court has the authority to carry out an ordinary judicial review of the conduct of executive authorities in relation to a reference against a judge.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until next Monday. Justice Umar Ata Bandial praised Munir A Malik for presenting his arguments and raising important law points. Earlier, during the course of the proceedings, Munir A Malik in pursuance of the court’s earlier order, gave a complete travel history of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and his family members while coming to Pakistan as well as visiting United Kingdom.

Bilal Manto, counsel for one of the petitioners, came to the rostrum and recalled that in his petition, he had sought some data regarding the volume of complaints so far decided by the Supreme Judicial Council.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, however, told the counsel that his application relates to the administrative as well structure of the Council, however, he said that at present the court is focusing on the main petition, filed by the learned judge of the apex court but assured the counsel that the court would look into his application later on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*President, premier, law minister be made parties in Justice Isa reference case, counsel argues in SC*

November 04, 2019





Justice Qazi Faez Isa. — File screengrab courtesy of DawnNewsTV
Munir A. Malik, the counsel for Justice Qazi Faez Isa, on Monday pleaded the Supreme Court to order President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal Minister for Law and Justice Farogh Naseem to join a case pertaining to a presidential reference against Justice Isa.

The counsel told the full court, consisting of 10 Supreme Court judges and headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, that the president, "instead of applying his mind to the reference", acted upon the advice of the prime minister in violation of the Constitution. The remark was made while the court hears multiple petitions against a presidential reference against Justice Isa.

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. Justice Isa has contested the allegation, saying he is not a beneficial owner of the flats — neither directly nor indirectly.

"The president took an unconstitutional step while not using his Constitutional power," Justice Isa's counsel said, adding that the president has already "confessed" to acting upon the advice of the prime minister.

The counsel, while delivering his arguments, reiterated that the reference was based on "mala fide intentions". The counsel said that the three office holders should be made part of the proceedings because it was necessary to make all accused of mala fide intentions behind the reference a party in the case.

He also repeated another objection that the reference was filed without approval from the federal cabinet.

The counsel argued that although, under Article 248, the prime minister and ministers can not be made answerable to any court, they are bound to act in accordance with the Constitution and the law. He added that therefore there is no impunity for anyone who takes unconstitutional and illegal steps.

When asked to point out the mala fide intentions 'apparent' in the reference, he said the president's decision to act upon the prime minister's advice was 'unconstitutional'.

During the hearing, Justice Faisal Arab asked if it was mentioned in the reference that the president has not applied his mind to the reference? Justice Manzoor Ali Shah asked whether "applying the mind" mean that all evidence in the reference should be collected under supervision of the president? The judge also questioned that under which law the material against Justice Isa was collected.

Munir A. Malik argued that the president should have "applied his mind" to know how the material was collected.

Talking about the scope of the apex court and the Supreme Judicial Council, the counsel said that the SJC was bound to hear the reference. It cannot review the aspect of intentions, he added. The counsel said that the apex court can be approached instead to fix the issue of intentions or ambit of powers.

The hearing of the case has been deferred till tomorrow [Tuesday].

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*SJC issued notices to Justice Isa on points not raised in reference, SC told*

November 4, 2019

ISLAMABAD: There are allegations that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) harbours a bias towards Justice Qazi Faez Isa as the forum exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing show-cause notices on points which were not raised in the presidential reference against the apex court judge.

This was stated by Justice Isa’s attorney, Muneer A Malik, during Monday’s Supreme Court hearing as the 10-judge full-court, led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference against Justice Isa.

Malik was responding to Justice Bandial’s observation regarding the apex court’s jurisdiction under Article 184 (3).

The latter said that remedy under Article 184 (3) was not open to everyone as, after the SC judgment in the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case, the affected judge can now make a request to the SJC for a public hearing.

However, Malik said the situation in this particular case was also extraordinary as this was only the second time in Pakistan’s history that a full bench was hearing the case of an SC judge.

Justice Isa offers details on surveillance operation against him and his family

Regarding presidential immunity under Article 248, Malik said the same cannot apply to presidential acts which are without jurisdiction, malafide, and coram non judice.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, while comparing the Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry case with Justice Isa’s case, noted that in the former there were specific, direct and serious allegations of mala fide against then-president Pervez Musharraf.

In Justice Isa’s case, he said, there are general allegations against the referring authority. “You have to give specific and direct incidents which could establish mala fide against executive authorities,” said the judge.

Malik stated that he is attributing mala fide in law towards the president as he acted unconstitutionally on the advice of the prime minister and sent a reference against the SC judge.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned under what law was material collected to file a reference against the apex court judge.

“If the material was collected illegally, then it means the judge’s privacy guaranteed under Article 14 has been violated.”

Justice Maqbool Baqar asked whether the issuance of a show-cause notice by the SJC bars the SC from entertaining the judge’s petition against the council’s proceedings.

Malik, while referring to the Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry judgement, contended that there was no constitutional bar under Article 211 if the reference is based on malafide, illegal and non coram judice.

Justifying Justice Isa’s decision to approach the SC, his attorney stated the SJC cannot strike down the presidential reference but the apex court can do the same in view of the principal laid down in the Iftikhar Chaudhry case.

The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

ARU chief has no powers to collect evidence, SC told

ISLAMABAD: The office of the Assets Recovery Unit’s (ARU) chairman does not fall under the definition of the “service of Pakistan” since the individual concerned is a special assistant to the prime minister, argued Advocate Babar Sattar before a 10-judge full court of the Supreme Court on Tuesday during the hearing of a set of challenges to the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

“The ARU is not a department established under the law and at best it can be said that it was set up under an executive order,” Babar Sattar said, citing rules dealing with the service of Pakistan.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial heads the full court.

Babar Sattar, who was on his legs for the second consecutive day, was trying to establish that the exercise of collecting material by ARU was not done under any authorisation.

The ARU chairman should not be treated as an officer of the federal government, the counsel stressed, but hastened to add that it was for the federal government to explain to the court the department’s legal status.

Referring to Section 216(p) of the Income Tax Ordinance (ITO), Mr Sattar argued that no court or authority, including the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), can ask for information regarding tax returns or wealth statement of Justice Isa’s wife, especially when she was not a public servant.

The real dispute at hand, the counsel argued, was that material placed before the President was not substantial enough to convince him that the allegations made against the judge were sufficient to become a reference on misconduct.

Quoting excerpts from the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act as well as the Money Laundering Act, Babar Sattar contended that none of the machinery available under these statutes was ever set in motion for collection of evidence against the judge or any report from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) was called to establish violation of foreign exchange regulations.

Justice Bandial observed that the code of conduct for judges dealt with impropriety and conduct, emphasising that this code was not meant to protect judges only, but to safeguard the judiciary as an institution.

The code of conduct was invoked in the Justice Isa case and the allegation of misconduct levelled against him for not disclosing the source of funds for acquiring properties in Britain, Justice Bandial explained.

But the counsel retorted that under the code of conduct, the judge has to be blameless in the eye of certain laws and it was not right to indulge in mudslinging just because “12 people stood up and pointed fingers” at the judge.

Justice Bandial advised Mr Sattar not to formulate arguments that he cannot substantiate by citing case laws.

The lawyer explained that the SJC cannot determine the civil rights of a judge and cited the money laundering act to argue that only the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU) can examine allegations of money laundering since it was founded under the law.

But none of the reports prepared by FMU was before the President when he formed his opinion. Thus the president has drawn an inference against the judge without any material to establish breach of the foreign exchange act or money laundering laws, he contended.

Since the doctrine of sufficient connection (for drawing inference) has no place in the constitution or recognised by the code of conduct or any law, no duty or obligation of disclosing assets owned by his wife and children could be placed on the judge.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar wondered whether this doctrine existed in the country’s laws, but the counsel repeated that this doctrine had no place in Pakistan.

Referring to a letter of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to the ARU chairman, the counsel argued that the Income Tax Ordinance (ITO), 2001, did not vest any advisory jurisdiction upon any officer.

The counsel referred to different sections of ITO to state that tax officers enjoyed jurisdiction of assessment, revision and appellate authority to impose penalties, but no advisory jurisdiction.

Justice Maqbool Baqar asked Mr Sattar whether disclosure of unauthorised tax returns was an offence or not.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar explained that it was a criminal offence and the offender can go to jail for almost a year.

He observed that since public servants can park assets in the name of their spouses, the authorities can establish reasonable nexus between an official and the spouse.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel whether the President, before invoking Article 209 of the constitution, can ask the complainant to provide further evidence so that SJC proceedings be initiated against the judge or he can put the entire government machinery to work for the collection of evidence.

The counsel explained that the idea behind Article 209 was to protect the tenure of a judge and that the President cannot ask for launching a fishing expedition.

Instead of formulating a reference against the judge, at best FBR could have issued show cause notice to the spouse to explain why offshore properties were not disclosed and then could have issued an order for reassessment of the returns and in case the spouse was not satisfied, she could have challenged the reassessment order.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Judge video scandal case: IHC mandated to announce its decision, says SC*







ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of former prime minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif’s petition, seeking review of its August 23 verdict in a video scandal case involving former accountability court judge Arshad Malik.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the review petition filed by Advocate Khawaja Harris on behalf of Nawaz Sharif.

Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that the apex court’s remarks will not influence proceedings of the video scandal case currently being heard by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). He said the earlier judgment stated that the high court was empowered to make its own decision without being influenced by the apex court’s verdict. He observed that Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris’ arguments were repetitive, as the Supreme Court had already debated and decided on them in the August 23 verdict.

Justice Khosa further remarked that an impression was being created that the IHC’s powers were restricted. “This happens when the judgment is not thoroughly read,” he added. The chief justice said the IHC was mandated to announce its decision in the video scandal case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Faez Isa raises questions on eligibility of Shahzad Akbar's appointment as ARU head*







Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Friday questioned the eligibility of Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Accountability Shahzad Akbar's appointment as the head of the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) and for public office.

A 10-member judge bench, led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, will resume hearing the case on June 2, which was earlier scheduled to be taken up on March 30. The apex court had postponed the hearing due to the coronavirus pandemic.

On the last hearing on February 24, the federal government had sought a three weeks' adjournment in the case.

The Supreme Court judge has raised 15 questions in a rejoinder submitted to the apex court in a case pertaining to the offshore properties owned by his family members which were not declared in his tax returns.

Justice Isa has challenged the presidential reference filed against him in the Supreme Judicial Council and filed a petition in the SC saying the case was based on mala fide intent.

The judge questioned Akbar’s eligibility to be appointed as ARU chief and the procedure adopted for his appointment.

“Who appointed Shahzad Akbar?” he asked.

“Did the government announce the vacancy in newspapers or were applications sought for the appointment of the chairman of the Asset Recovery Unit?”

Justica Isa, in his rejoinder, also sought to know whether Akbar's appointment was made through Federal Public Service Commission and if answers to these four questions are in negative, then how he had been appointed as the ARU head.

He also asked authorities to share the terms and conditions of his job.

“Is Shahzad Akbar a Pakistani or does he hold dual nationality?” asked Justice Isa.

Seeking information about SAPM’s tax details, the SC judge asked why he has not made anything public about his family members and the nationality they hold.

“What’s his income tax and wealth status and from when he started submitting his tax returns?”

In another question, Justice Isa asked about the bank details, properties and assets owned by the prime minister’s assistant.

Justice Isa also demanded the information about the assets owned by SAPM Akbar’s family and whether he has declared these in his returns or not.

The SC judge said that ARU is an illegal entity and the money spent on it is a ‘theft’ of public money and the unit collected the information about him through unlawful means.

He also contended that former attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan, Law Minister Farogh Naseem and SAPM Akbar were in contempt of court.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa case: Farogh Naseem says FBR didn't take action over 'fear' of consequences*







ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan resumed hearing on Wednesday in the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa in relation to his assets in London.

A ten-member larger SC 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 today.

The apex court looked into the petitions by the Supreme Judicial council today, where during the arguments the government’s counsel Farogh Naseem claimed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not begin inquiry against Justice Isa, out of fear.

During the arguments, Naseem said that in 2019, Waheed Dogar sent the complaint to the Assets Recovery Unit and wrote a letter as well regarding the properties in London.

“Tell us, who gave permission to Dogar to conduct inquiry into the matter?” said Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, asking how did the ARU launch an inquiry in the issue.

To which, Naseem responded that the ARU has the support of the law, and after 1988, the record of every property in London is open.

Justice Atta Bandiyal said that the apex court judge is not facing an allegation of corruption, but of not revealing his assets in London.

“Justice Isa’s wife and children also didn’t declare the London property,” said the government’s counsel.

Naseem continued that despite the judge hailing from an affluent family, the record does not show agricultural tax on the land.

“Why did the FBR not take action in the case?” said Justice Maqbool Baqir.

“The FBR was scared if they acted against a judge, they will be facing legal action,” said Naseem.

In yesterday's hearing, Barrister Farogh Naseem faced objection for his representation of the government in the presidential reference.

Naseem had earlier tendered his resignation to represent government in the case agaisnt the judge.

The reference filed against Justice Isa alleged 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 wealth returns.

In February this year, the Supreme Court (SC) had directed the federal government to explain in court whether the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) was empowered to conduct an inquiry against a sitting judge of the apex court.

The results of the inquiry, later placed before President Arif Alvi, had resulted in a presidential reference filed against Justice Isa back in May 2019. Justice Isa had been accused of failing to disclose assets belonging to his wife and children in his tax returns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*British Pakistani lawyer Zia-Ul-Mustafa Nasim at the centre of Justice Qazi Faez case*











LONDON: A British Pakistani lawyer who moved from London to Pakistan to work as a legal expert with the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) is at the centre of the on-going Justice Qazi Faez Isa case being heard by a 10-member larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The SC bench is headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprises of 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.

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) initiated the proceedings against Justice Isa on allegations that he purchased three properties in London in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015 — but did not allegedly disclose them in wealth returns declared in Pakistan.

The apex court judges have heard that property details of Justice Isa’s family members were obtained by Barrister Zia-ul-Mustafa Nasim.

Barrister Nasim's name appears on papers submitted before the bench as the person responsible for sourcing the reports on Justice Isa’s children through a UK-based tracing firm.

The court has heard that the British-born lawyer was appointed as an expert in international law to help the ARU, a specialised body tasked with identifying and retrieving the ill-gotten money of Pakistani nationals stashed abroad.

Nasim’s name appears as respondent number nine in the list while other respondents include the President, Prime Minister, Attorney General, Law Minister, and Mirza Shahzad Akbar, head of the ARU.

Documents produced in the SC this week show that the selection board had recommended Nasim, while Prime Minister Imran Khan approved his appointment as Justice Isa has challenged his role in the reference against him.

On his Twitter account, Barrister Nasim describes himself as currently “working at the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU), Prime Minister Office Islamabad, specialist in Extradition Law, Civil, Criminal & Sovereign Asset Recovery”.

Who is Zia Nasim?

Zia Nasim is the son of Hafiz Muhammad Nasim who was Imam at Cricklewood and Acton Mosque in North West London. Hafiz Nasim is a well-known British Muslim community figure and his family runs a real estate business in the local area.

Nasim did his graduation from the University of London and the UK Bar Council website shows he did his bar in 2001 from Lincoln’s Inn. He had also worked as a ‘Legal Consultant’ with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for a few years during the PPP and PML-N tenures but later returned to the UK where he practiced with senior barrister Alun Jones QC.

He remained involved in Swiss cases against Asif Ali Zardari for some time as well and advised Pakistani authorities. He assumed charge with ARU in January 2019 after PTI government came into power.

A few months ago, Geo News had reported that Barrister Nasim accompanied Shahzad Akbar during his visits to the UK to discuss ongoing cases with British authorities. He has attended meetings with Shahzad Akbar at the Home Office, National Crime Agency (NCA), and Pakistan High Commission (London).

Nasim has also been involved in bringing back the frozen funds of a leading Pakistani businessman and the extradition case of Ishaq Dar, the former finance minister of Pakistan.

Documents in the court confirm that Barrister Nasim instructed the tracing agency in the UK to locate details of people living at the properties of Justice Isa’s family members.

Hiring tracing agencies in the UK is legal and services of such firms are acquired routinely and these firms operate within legal means. Most of these firms are run by retired police officers, former detectives, and lawyers.

These firms use publicly available data and deep search methods to find details of what they call 'targets'. In the past, the same firms have been accused of hacking private information of the subjects. The hacking scandal that led to the closure of Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World originated from the excesses done by the private detective agencies.

There’s no suggestion that any illicit means were used to obtain details of Justice Isa's children.

A source at Pakistan High Commission said that the ARU didn’t use services of the high commission for hiring the detective firm and no communication was made as such. It’s believed that Zia Nasim used his own means to hire the firm.

London properties

According to a report submitted in the court by the ARU, Justice Isa’s wife Zarina Montserrat Carrera, who moved to Pakistan after getting married to him, owns one property under her name. Carrera bought a two-bedroom flat on Kendal Street on 10 October, 2011 against the estimated price of £300,000. The flat is on the sixth floor of the apartment block.

Carrera and her son Arsalan Isa Khosa bought a house jointly in March of 2013 for the price of £245,000 in Walthamstow, East London. The title deed shows that the transaction went through on 27 March, 2013. 40 Oakdale Road, E11, is free of mortgage.

Justice Khosa’s daughter Sehr Isa Khoso and Zarina Montserrat Carerra bought an East London house for the price of £270,000 on 28 June, 2013. 50 Coniston Court on Kendal Street is a leasehold property.

According to an investigation by this reporter, Justice Isa’s wife Carrera is half Spanish and has always had a Spanish passport. His son Arsalan holds a doctorate from Birkbeck University and daughter Sehr is a trained Barrister — she is a British national and married to a British national professional.

Both Arsalan and Sehr have lived and worked in the UK for decades.

In a separate report, Barrister Zia Nasim has told the court that he was “instructed to provide details of current and former residents living at the three properties”.

The report to the SC says that a tracing agency agent from ‘Find UK People’ was instructed to undertake a search and provide a detailed report on the resident at the three subject properties from official sources.

It added that the firm was able to provide these details after acquiring data from various sources including electoral roll and information from Credit Reference Agency.

The UK Land Registry record shows that searches on all three properties were made on 23rd April 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Isa's petition hearing adjourned until June 11*

By Hasnaat Malik
June 8, 2020
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2238503/1-justice-isas-petition-hearing-adjourned-june-11/





Justice Qazi Faez Isa. 

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing of Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s petition, against a presidential reference, until June 11 due to non-availability one member of the bench.

A 10-justice full court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial did not assemble to hear the case on Monday.

Later a court staff member announced that the case was adjourned until June 11, as one member of the bench quarantined himself and retested for Covid-19.

The member took the precautionary step after his driver tested positive for the virus.

The apex court is seized with nine petitions moved by Justice Isa, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Abid Hasan Minto, Abdul Basit, who heads the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, Muhammad Asif Reki, the President of Quetta Bar Association, the Sindh High Court Bar Association, the Balochistan Bar Council and the Sindh Bar Council.

Justice Isa is currently facing a misconduct reference filed by the president against him in the Supreme Judicial Council.

Final arguments are presented in the case, with the federal government’s attorney facing a tough time in the court.

Timing is very significant in the case as summer vacations are going to start from the third week of June and will run through September.

A senior government official believes that if the court resumes the hearing on Thursday, then the proceedings will be concluded before the summer vacations.

On the other hand, petitioner bars want the conclusion of the proceedings before the start of vacations. Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Abid Saqi ruled out the possibly that the government would convince any judge to dismiss the Justice Isa petition.

A debate has started among lawyers as to who will get the benefit due to a delay of a couple of months in the proceedings. It is unlikely that the government counsel, Dr Farogh Naseem, will try to conclude the case early; otherwise, he cannot take oath as law minister again.

Senior lawyers, however, believe that a delay by a couple of months will raise doubts on the apex court.

A PTI lawyer on the other hand admits that the scenario of long adjournment is best suited for the federal government that seemed to struggle in defending the presidential reference while presenting the arguments during the proceedings held last week.

A section within the federal government has started advocating the idea of withdrawing the presidential reference against Justice Isa to avoid any “dreadful consequences”.

Sources said Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Javed Khan was not hopeful about the reference’s sustainability in view of the judges’ observations.

The AGP conveys his opinion to the relevant quarters, especially the prime minister, after each hearing of the case.

However, a federal cabinet member told_ The Express Tribune_ that there were no chances of withdrawing the reference.

“Prime Minister Imran Khan is insisting that if he could provide the money trail of his London flat, then should an SC judge be spared,” he revealed. “The prime minister is not concerned about the consequences in case the presidential reference is quashed.”

Senior PTI lawyers believe that the government’s legal team is not conveying the gravity of the situation to the premier and relevant quarters. He, however, stated that they are not satisfied with legal team performance.

Another lawyer has already recommended the federal government to withdraw the reference now on the grounds that the matter had been referred to the FBR. If the revenue body finds anything against judge and his family, the government will have the option to file a fresh reference against him. That will be a win-win situation for both, petitioner judge and the federal government, he adds.


Read m

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

*SC asks Centre's lawyer to satisfy court on surveillance, malice in Justice Isa case*

June 11, 2020







Justice Qazi Faez Isa (left) and former law minister Farogh Naseem.


Justice Maqbool Baqar reminded the Centre’s counsel on Thursday that a prior democratically elected government had been sent packing on charges of surveillance of judges.

A 10-member full bench of the Supreme Court was hearing Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s petition against the federal government’s reference against him.

The bench – headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial – directed the government’s counsel, Dr Farogh Naseem, to satisfy the court on allegations of mala fide intent, and to assist the court on the point of surveillance.

The petitioner has made allegations of mala fide intent and surveillance carried out of him and his family.

Justice Bandial said that if mala fide intention is established it would end the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council. “Since 1960, any act tainted with malice ends jurisdiction,” he said, noting that mala fide intent would also bring ulterior motives in question.

The court observed that if malice is proved, the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council would be quashed.

He asked again as to what value would any material hold if it was collected through illegal means.

During the hearing, Dr Naseem argued that the petitioner’s entire defence was based on his spouse and children being independents, that he is not bound to disclose their properties, and that it is not misconduct.

The federal lawyer argued that the word ‘misconduct’ was not defined in the Constitution of Pakistan or in any relevant documents.

Dr Naseem referred to a judgement by the Supreme Court in 1962 wherein, he said, it was stated that if there was a violation of law by a judge it would be misconduct.

He brought up the example of the Indian apex court, which he said has declared that the office of the judge is one of public trust. Even in Pakistan, he added, the office of the judge is of sacred trust in light of Islamic jurisprudence.

The federal lawyer said the relationship of the wife was one of close proximity as she is a partner and therefore the judge is bound to disclose the properties of his wife. The widow of a judge receives pension even when she is financially independent, he said.

Dr Naseem said that it was at the discretion of the Supreme Judicial Council to state what is misconduct and what is not.

He brought up the example of the Panama case wherein, he said, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had given the argument that his children were independents and they should be asked about the purchase of Avenfield properties. Both the judges and their wives cannot avail the tax amnesty scheme 2018, said Dr Naseem.

The bench noted that in this case nobody has asked the wife about her properties.

Even in cases of the National Accountability Bureau it is the owner of the property who is first asked to explain the source of income, remarked Justice Sajjid Ali Shah.

However, Naseem said that when disciplinary proceedings are initiated then it is the judge who should be asked about the undeclared property first. He also referred to Articles 224, 205 and 63 wherein it can be inferred, he said, that the judge is accountable for the act of independent wife.

However, Justice Bandial noted that judges have a constitutional code of conduct, asking how the statutory laws were relevant for judges.

The hearing has been adjourned till tomorrow.

The apex court is seized with nine petitions moved by Justice Isa, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Abid Hasan Minto, Abdul Basit, who heads the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, Muhammad Asif Reki, the President of Quetta Bar Association, the Sindh High Court Bar Association, the Balochistan Bar Council and the Sindh Bar Council.

Final arguments are being presented in the case, with the federal government’s attorney facing a tough time in the court. It remains to be seen whether the case is resolved before the court breaks for summer vacation.

Justice Isa is currently facing a misconduct reference filed by the president against him in the Supreme Judicial Council.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

June 12, 2020

*Justice Faez Isa case: Establish wife’s dependency on petitioner judge, says Supreme Court*









ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Thursday sought the federation counsel’s assistance in the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth returns.

The federation counsel’s assistance was sought on allegations of malice connected with the surveillance of the judge and his family as well as collection of material allegedly collected illegally for filing a presidential reference.

A ten-member full court – headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial – resumed hearing on a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference filed against the judge.

Justice Maqbool Baqir, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah are the other members of the bench. Justice Umar Ata Bandial told the federation counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem that malice was very important in the case, as according to the petitioner judge he and his family was subjected to covert surveillance.

Justice Maqbool Baqir asked Farogh Naseem that he should keep in mind that a democratically elected government had been sacked on charges of surveillance of judges.

“The crux of the instant hearing is that an allegation has been made by the petitioner judge that certain actions have been taken with malice,” Justice Bandial told Naseem. The judge observed that if mala fide intention was established, then it would end the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Furthermore, Justice Bandial also told the counsel that if material or evidence was collected illegally for filing of the reference, then he will have to explain as to how the evidence could be relied upon for establishing the case.

Justice Maqbool Baqir told the counsel that it was the basic allegation made in presidential reference that the petitioner judge had violated Section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance. “You have to establish before us that the judge has violated the law,” Justice Baqir told Naseem. “It’s my promise that I will provide full assistance to the court in this regard,” Naseem replied. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Friday).


----------



## ghazi52

June 13, 2020


*Justice Faez Isa case: Judges accountable, not above law, says SC*

June 13, 2020







ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Friday observed that superior court judges were not above the law and were more accountable than anyone, but they should be treated in accordance with the law.

A 10-member full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing on a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth returns.

The other members of the bench included Justice Maqbool Baqir, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

The court again asked the federation’s counsel to answer the questions raised by the petitioner judge about malice as well as covert surveillance and abstain from unnecessary arguments.

Justice Maqbool Baqir clarified that the Supreme Court had never said that the superior court judges were above the law adding that judges were more accountable than anyone else but they should be dealt with in accordance with the law.

The judge said it was a wrong impression that a judge could not be held accountable adding that judges were answerable but they should be treated in accordance with the law.

“Today I am conveying on behalf of brother judges that we are not above the law, but we should be treated in accordance with the law as well”, Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the federation counsel whether women as citizen of the country had no rights and whether they could not acquire separate properties.

“How this jump was made that if a husband is a judge of the Supreme Court then he will be required to disclose the properties of his spouse?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Farogh Naseem. He further asked whether a husband could not get the pension of his judge spouse.

Farogh Naseem, however, reiterated that as there were disciplinary proceedings in the Supreme Judicial Council against the petitioner judge, he was required to answer about his spouse’s properties. He further contended that there were no proceedings of tax matter before the Supreme Judicial Council.

He further submitted that apart from other maters raised in the reference, the point of money trail had also been raised. Justice Maqbool Baqir, however, told the federation counsel that when he will be able to establish that the instant London properties were purchased from the income of the petitioner’s judge, then the question of money trail would arise.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the prime question was that as to how a judge was answerable for the act of his spouse.

Justice Maqbool Baqir observed that there were educated women, who were financially independent adding that often financially independent women do not know about the second marriage of their husbands.

The remarks of Justice Baqir drew laughter in the courtroom at which Justice Bandial immediately made it clear that he said it on a lighter note.

Meanwhile, Farogh Naseem submitted before the court that he would argue on the point of malice, covert surveillance as well as collection of material, evidence by the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) on the nest date of hearing at which the court adjourned the hearing until Monday, June 15.


----------



## ghazi52

*SC adjourns Justice Qazi Isa’s petition till today*

The Frontier Post
June 15, 2020

ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearing of Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s petition challenging the presidential reference filed against him over alleged non-disclosure of assets in his wealth statement till Tuesday.

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 Munib Akhtar, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case regarding the proceedings of Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez 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 wealth returns.

During the course of proceedings, Advocate Munir A Malik, counsel for the petitioner, submitted a written reply before the court. 

Barrister Farogh Naseem, counsel for the government, said he would give arguments on the misconduct before the court. He said the Iftikhar Chaudhry case did not apply to the present case. The Judicial Council’s show cause notice could not be challenged, he added. 

He said the judge’s misconduct could not be limited to any violation of the law. The judge’s wife was part of his family, and both did not disclose the London properties, he added. 

He said Article 63 of the Constitution did not make any distinction regarding the dependency of the wife. In Britain, action was taken against a judge for writing a letter to the bar by his wife. The Constitution of Pakistan was unbiased, he added.

Farogh Naseem argued it was a punishable offense not to disclose one’s property or that of his or her spouse. Under Article 63, a National Assembly member had lost his membership for not declaring his assets, he added. 

He said Justice Qazi Faez Isa declared his income as a lawyer in 2008.

Justice Maqbool Baqar asked the counsel to prove that the judge had given the amount to his wife to buy the property.

Farogh Naseem said the question as to who should explain how the property was bought, had not been answered till date.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the wife could be a dependent. Whether it was the husband’s responsibility to to inform if his wife had received anything from her parents, he asked.

Justice Maqbol Baqar remarked that a building could not be erected on a wrong foundation.

Farogh Naseem said the assets of the wife were more than the income. Upon this, Justice Mansoor inquired as to which forum would determine if the assets of the wife were more than the income. The counsel replied that under the law, the husband had to give the answer.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the case was related to the ownership of properties as the reference mentioned money laundering and foreign exchange transfers.

However, Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the allegations in the presidential reference were to be reviewed by the Judicial Council.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked about the record which showed that the wife’s assets exceeded her income.

During the hearing, Justice Bandial remarked that a mechanism had been in place in the country since 1990 under which there was no accounting. The allegation was how the London properties were purchased, he added, and asked the public prosecutor to satisfy the court on Article 10A. Concerns mentioned in the presidential reference were related to the resources for purchase of property, he added.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked if it was admitted then the Judicial Council would ask all the judges about taxes. Farogh Naseem replied in the affirmative, saying that the Judicial Council could review the judge’s tax returns.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked what would happen if the FBR said that the wife had acquired the properties from her own resources.

Addressing the lawyer, Justice Maqbool Baqir said that his case was regarding violation of Article 116 of the Tax Act.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether it was possible for the FBR to ask the wife for sources, to which Farogh Naseem replied that if the FBR asked and the wife replied, the case would be over.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah again asked the counsel why he was insisting that the answer should be given by Qazi Faez Isa. Farogh Naseem replied that the Council could take a disciplinary action against the judge. It was not possible for the children of a government servant employee to drive a Rolls-Royce car. “Our main issue is from what resources these properties were purchased. Violation of Article 116 is a small point,” he added.

He said a judge was sent home in India for not explaining the amount of Rs 600,000. 

Justice Maqbool Baqar said that complete material was presented during the proceedings against the judge in India.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether the judge could get his wife’s tax record from the FBR. If the FBR did not give the wife’s record to the judge due to confidentiality, how would he face a disciplinary action, and what would happen if the FBR refused to give the husband the wife’s statement or tax information.

Farogh Naseem said that he would give a detailed answer to the question. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked him to answer the question now. Farogh Naseem replied that he had to look at the relevant laws and then he would be in a position to respond. 

Justice Bandial directed Forough Naseem to take note of the question, acknowledging that if a judge was questioned, the whole institution would be questioned.

Farogh Naseem said the people’s trust in the judiciary was very sacred. The judicial authority rested with the judge, who was highly respected in the society, he added.

He said the judge was very powerful in the society and the people had blind faith in a judge of the Supreme Court. Public confidence in the judiciary should not be hurt as independence of judiciary was very important, he added. 

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned whether he acknowledged that the case was about the independence of the judiciary, to which Farogh Naseem said that it was also a case of independence of the judiciary.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked under which law the Council could ask the judge about his wife’s property, to which Forough Naseem said that he would answer all the questions.

Justice Bandial remarked that the court did not have much time. He inquired whether the private life of a judge included the lives of his wife and children.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that if the judge was not above accountability then the government was not above accountability either. If the judges were accountable then the government was also accountable, he added. 

Farogh Naseem said that action could be taken against the government and that it was not above accountability. The properties belonged to the judge’s wife, but the government seemed to be in the trial, he added. 

Justice Maqbool Baqar remarked that if maliciousness had been proved, it could have dangerous constitutional implications.

Addressing the government’s counsel, Justice Bandial said now he had deviated from Article 116 of the Tax Act, now he was talking about public opinion and the general impression of the judge.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that if the wife could not satisfy the FBR, then the case of concealment of assets would be made against her. How would all the blame fall on the judge, show the law that if the independent wife failed to disclose the resources then the burden would fall on the judge, the law of disciplinary action could not be changed, he added.

Farogh said it was very important not to explain the purchase of property, here the judge’s wife and children had expensive properties in London, the impression would be wrong that the judge was not explaining the property of the wife.

Justice Maqbool Baqar said according to the law, the wife and the children should be questioned how they had bought the property.

Farogh Naseem said the judge did not express ignorance about the purchase of the property.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked Farogh Naseem how long it would take to complete the arguments. Also keep in mind that the court was aware of the powers of the Council and a judge could not be challenged on general perception, he added. 

He said the real question was the means of purchasing the property as no allegation of corruption and dishonesty were levelled.

He said that all the bars of the country, including the Pakistan Bar and the Supreme Court Bar had come to the defense of the judge. According to the Bar Council, the judge had not been charged with malpractice or corruption, he added.

Farogh said the judges were also accountable. It might take him two more days to give arguments. Upon this, Justice Bandial said that it did not seem that he would be able to complete the arguments in two days. Later, the case was adjourned till 9.30 am Friday when Forough Naseem would continue his arguments.


----------



## ghazi52

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday dismissed 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.


----------



## ghazi52

*PBC now has misgivings about ruling in Isa case*

Justice Isa is slated to become the Chief Justice of Pakistan in 2023.


ISLAMABAD: A day after the Supreme Court announced its verdict in the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) — one of the petitioners — was on Saturday having second thoughts and may file a review petition against a part of the judgement.

Soon after the announcement of the judgement by a ten-judge full court, the PBC had issued a call to observe “Yaum-e-Tashakkur” on Monday (June 22) to celebrate the victory of the cause of the rule of law, the constitutionalism and the independence of the judiciary.

But PBC vice chairman Abid Saqi on Saturday told _Dawn_ that after a threadbare discussion among the members of the council, the PBC had decided to challenge paragraph 9 of the short order which the full court had announced.

“We have strong reservations against that part of the order since we believe it is illogical,” he explained.

Through paragraph 9, the majority judgement consisting of seven judges had ordered the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) chairman to furnish a report to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) secretary, who happens to be the registrar of the Supreme Court.

The report so furnished will consist of details of the proceedings conducted by the commissioner inland revenue after seeking explanation from the wife and children of Justice Isa about the nature and source of the funds for the three properties in the United Kingdom namely No. 40, Oakdale Road, London E11 4DL; No. 90, Adelaide Road, London E10 5NW; and No. 50, Coniston Court, Kendal Street, London W2 2AN.

The secretary would then place the report before SJC chairman who would lay it before the council to consider any action, order or proceedings, if any, in relation to the petitioner judge as the council might determine, the order had stated.

The receipt of the report, the laying of it before the council and the action/proceedings, if any, or orders or directions, if any, as might be taken, would be deemed, for the purposes of Article 209 of the Constitution, to be in exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction, the judgement had explained.

The order had also stated that if within 100 days from the date of this judgement, no report was received by the SJC secretary from the FBR chairman, he would inform the chairman of the council accordingly and might be required to explain why the report had not been sent.

If no reply is received, the secretary will bring such fact to the attention of the SJC chairman who may direct that the matter be placed before the council for consideration or action as the council may determine.

The action/proceedings, if any, would be initiated by the SJC for purposes of Article 209 of the Constitution, in exercise of suo motu, the judgement had explained.

Asked whether the PBC should not wait for the detailed judgement, Mr Saqi replied that the review petition would be filed as soon as possible in view of the time line provided in the judgement otherwise it would be of no use.

Meanwhile, a senior lawyer on condition of anonymity opined that the order to refer the matter to the FBR was correct since it was meant to remove the stigma of misconduct within a certain time period otherwise it would remain dangling over the head of Justice Isa.

The statement recorded by the wife of Justice Isa before the full court explaining the source of funds for the properties suggested that the family had enough documents to prove the point that the wife had the resources to acquire properties in the foreign country, he said.

Besides the wisdom behind the directive was also to establish what the judges of the full court highlighted on a number of occasions during the hearing that the judges were not above the law and amenable to the accountability, the lawyer said.

In the minority judgement, Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Yahya Afridi had observed that one of the pivotal constitutional values was independence of judiciary and reiterated that “in our constitutional democracy, neither the petitioner judge, nor any other judge, or any individual or any institution, is above the law”.

The doors of the constitutional forum i.e. the SJC were always open, either on its own motion or for anyone who had a genuine and a bona fide grievance, amenable to the jurisdiction of the council against a judge of the constitutional court, the minority judgement had stated.

At the same time, it was equally important that a judge like any other citizen of Pakistan enjoyed the inalienable constitutional right to be treated in accordance with law, it had said. These fundamental values were to be protected at all cost to uphold the majesty and supremacy of the constitution and to honour the people of Pakistan who had adopted and given to themselves this constitution, the judgement had said.

_Published in Dawn, June 21st, 2020_


----------



## ghazi52

*Justice Qazi Faez Isa's spouse files subtle elements of her property in FBR*






https://nation.com.pk/NewsSource/online
July 09, 2020

Companion of Justice Qazi Faez Isa has recorded subtle elements of remote properties in Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) within the light of Preeminent Court (SC) 10-member seat choice.

According to points of interest of seaward properties recorded by her in FBR she had appeared her three London based properties in her final year assess return.

Cash was sent to remote nation legitimately to buy these properties.

The record recorded by companion of Justice Qazi Faez Isa in FBR contained points of interest of salary earned by her amid her work in Karachi American School, points of interest of property sold out in Karachi, record relating to property acquired in Karachi and charge paid on this property, subtle elements of bank accounts with respect to dollars, pounds sent overseas , points of interest of lease collected from London properties, subtle elements of agribusiness arrive talented by father and points of interest of horticulture arrive found in Dera Murad Jamali and Naseer Abad.

In the answer recorded by life partner of Equity Qazi Faez Isa in FBR she has taken the supplication that almost 700000 pounds were sent to remote nation through Standard Chartered Bank Account.

Her spouse has nothing to do with her property acquired in London.

The subtle elements of her all bank exchange is accessible with central bank.


----------



## ghazi52

*Arshad Malik failed to prove he acted under duress: inquiry report*









LAHORE: An inquiry that resulted in removal from service of an accountability court judge Arshad Malik on charges of misconduct held that the judicial officer was unable to establish that he acted under “duress or intimidation”, caused by sympathisers of Nawaz Sharif.

He had convicted the former prime minister in one of the two NAB references in the federal capital.

The 13-page inquiry report, also available with The News, says, “There appears to have been no evidence that the accused-officer went in fear of death or serious bodily injury, nor was any attempt made to show that the accused-officer could not escape from the persons concerned.”

Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem of Lahore High Court had held the inquiry, as assigned by the LHC administrative committee.

The inquiry judge had recommended imposition of major penalty on district & sessions judge Arshad Malik, who, during his posting as presiding judge of an Islamabad accountability court, convicted Nawaz Sharif in Al-Azizia reference and handed down seven-year jail term to him. He had acquitted the former premier in Flagship reference.

The LHC administrative committee, in its July 3 meeting, approved the removal of the judge from service in the light of the inquiry report.

“The accused-officer led no evidence in rebuttal that whatever done by him was a result of intimidation or duress,” it holds, adding that the judicial officer took inconsistent pleas as, in his press statement, he claimed to have been blackmailed. But, on the other hand, he claimed that the decision of the references was free from any influence, coercion or threats.

The plea of duress is based on blackmailing on account of objectionable video film of the judge and serious threats extended by Nasir Butt etc., as highlighted by his affidavit and the written defence, but the judge never communicated to the authority for such blackmailing or intimidation, either orally or in black and white, adds the report.

It further says, “The accused has not established through some evidence that he was so terrorised that he acted entirely against his will. It means he admits that he has committed the crime, but prays to be excused from the punishment for the consequences of crime by the reason of duress.

“Also, the evidence seemed to show that the accused-officer had voluntarily joined criminal organisation, knowing of its business and one who does this has no cause for complaint if he is debarred from the defence of duress.

“Had there been a per chance single meeting of the accused officer with any of the persons mentioned above, the position could have been different. But meetings/ visits of the accused at different places and at different times that, too, during the pendency of the above references and after decision of the cases, do not indicate that those meetings were result of intimidations, coercion or duress, rather reflect upon his willingness,” the report added.

The inquiry report says that the record established that the acquaintance of the judge and his frequent meetings with individuals including Mehar Nasir, Nasir Janjua and Nasir Butt (the alleged sympathisers of Nawaz Sharif) were always with certain demands concerning the accountability references. The record proved that the judge was always accessible to them.

This is also a fact that the judge, even after the decision on the references, visited Jati Umra and met Nawaz Sharif as well as his son Hussain Nawaz when the judge had gone to perform Umrah. As per the judge's written defence, Nasir Butt met him for preparation of grounds of an appeal against the sentence in Al-Azizia reference.

The accused reviewed the grounds of appeal to be filed against the judgment, rendered by himself.

“The accused-officer had gone with his family to perform Umrah, but once again, Nasir Butt, established contact with the accused-officer and he met Hussain Nawaz in Madina, which reflected that it was not a meeting by chance or by the way, but was a pre-planned meeting,” says the report.

It notes that the judge, in his written defence, said he was offered Rs500 million by Hussain Nawaz for tendering resignation. The accused-officer also admitted that he had acquaintance with Mian Muhammad Tariq, maker of the fabricated video, during his posting in Multan from 2000 to 2003.

“The above acts of the accused were contrary to clauses 7, 30 and 31 of the Revised Code of Conduct,” the inquiry judge held.

He further says, “The accused-officer has taken inconsistent pleas, for example, in his press release on the one hand, he claimed to have been blackmailed, but on the other, it was mentioned in the last paragraph that the decision of those references was free from any influence, coercion or threats.”

The commission of act was not denied by the accused-officer himself rather claimed to have acted under duress and he nowhere claimed or asserted that he had no intention to commit such act or that any of his dependent apprehended serious violence or serious bodily harm.

The inquiry judge rules, “I am satisfied that the defence duress has not been established and in circumstances, the charge of misconduct is proved.”

However, the Lahore High Court (LHC), meanwhile, made it clear that no inquiry report on the issue was released to the press.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had accused judge Malik of convicting Nawaz in Al-Azizia reference under duress. On July 6, 2019, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz had shown some video clips of judge Malik at a press conference. She had claimed that in the video the judge admitted before Nasir Butt that he convicted Nawaz unjustly as there was immense pressure on him.


----------



## ghazi52

*Govt challenges two sections of Income Tax Ordinance : 
Justice Faez Isa case*


July 14, 2020







ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Monday challenged two clauses of the Income Tax Ordinance, which guarantee confidentiality of tax record of any individual, saying that during the present times, confidentiality and privacy cannot be sought in respect of financial or property matters.

In 108-page written arguments submitted in the Supreme Court, government’s counsel Farogh Naseem said that sections 198 and 216 of the 2001 Ordinance “ex facie violate the fundamental right of information guaranteed under Article 19-A of the Constitution and the fundamental right of due process guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution.”

Earlier, Justice Qazi Faez Isa had contended before a 10-judge full court that his tax records and that of his wife were unauthorisedly scrutinised by the functionaries other than the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in violation of sections 198 and 216 of the 2001 ordinance.

Under Section 198, if a person discloses information, he can face up to one year jail term and fine of up to Rs500,000. The Section 216 also bars disclosure of information by a public servant. The government, however, contended that any confidentiality and privacy could not be sought in respect of income, financial or property matters during the present times.

“It was because of this that in India an analogous to our Section 216 was repealed as far back as 1964,” the arguments said. Farogh said that it was a fundamental right of a citizen of Pakistan to know the details of income and assets of public servants, holders of public office and those who were in the Service of Pakistan. “Therefore, the court is invited to read down sections 198 and 216 of the 2001 Ordinance, so as to hold that they are not mandatory in nature.”

“This argument is without prejudice to the parent argument that in view of Section 216(3)(p) of the 2001 Ordinance, the petitioner cannot seek any refuge in respect of his tax records, in the context of the matter,” the government counsel said.

The arguments said that Justice Isa as a public servant, was subject to “investigation”. “Section 216(3)(p) provides that nothing in Section 216(1) shall preclude the disclosure of any particulars which may be required by any officer or department of the federal government or of a provincial government for the purposes of investigation into the conduct and affairs of any public servant.”

However, Dr Farogh Naseem added that the term “investigation” was not used in the sense in which it had been used in the Criminal procedure Code (CrPC).


----------



## ghazi52

*SC registrar returns govt review petition against Justice Isa verdict with objection*


The Registrar Office objected that a review could not be conducted twice for the same case.
The government said it will not be deterred by the objection and shall ‘re-file the petition in due course of time.’

Syed Ahmed
26 May 2021









*The Registrar Office of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Wednesday returned a review petition filed by the government against the apex court’s April 2021 verdict on review petitions in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case with an objection.*

The Registrar Office objected that a review could not be conducted twice for the same case.

Reacting to the development, the Ministry of Law & Justice issued a statement, saying,

“Against the order of the majority in the review petitions of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others dated [April 26], the Federation of Pakistan on [May 25, 2021] preferred a Curative Review Petition on which certain objections were raised by the Office of the Supreme Court.”

The Ministry’s statement asserted that the government will not be deterred by the objection and shall ‘re-file the petition in due course of time.’ This move will be in accordance with the law, after addressing the Registrar Office’s objections.

In April this year, Justice Isa won a case that set aside SC directives. The SC had previously directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to conduct an inquiry into three UK properties in the name of Justice Isa’s wife and children.

After a legal battle spanning over two years, the apex court overturned its June 19, 2020 verdict, by a majority vote of six to four.

Previously, the presidential reference against Justice Isa was cast out by the SC as ‘invalid’ in June 2020.

The reference filed by the government of Pakistan in May 2019 had alleged that Justice Isa acquired three properties in London on lease in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015.

However, the apex judge, in line to become the chief justice of Pakistan, had not disclosed these assets in his wealth returns. In a petition of his own, Justice Isa pleaded before the apex court that;

“The powers that be wanted to remove him from his constitutional office by hook or by crook”, reported Dawn.

At the time, Justice Isa had claimed that President Arif Alvi had not formed his own independent opinion before filing the presidential reference against him.

Days after its judgment on the review petitions, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed, decided not to proceed any further against Justice Isa. This came on the backdrop of the 26th April SC verdict, reported Dawn.

It is pertinent to mention that Justice Isa is in line to become the next CJP on September 18, 2023.


----------



## ghazi52

*SC rules misread before filing of ‘curative review plea’ in Isa case, says registrar*

Nasir Iqbal
May 28, 2021








This file photo shows Justice Qazi Faez Isa. 

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court registrar’s office, while returning the government’s “curative review petition” in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case on Wednesday, ruled that the federation had misconceived the Supreme Court Rules of 1980 when it moved a set of five petitions.

In its order, the institutional branch of the Supreme Court explained that the “curative review petition” was an application which provides information to initiate “suo motu” proceedings under Articles 184(3), 187, 188 and 189 of the Constitution, read with Orders 26 and 33 of the Supreme Court rules.

The president, the prime minister, the law minister, PM’s adviser Shahzad Akbar and the Federal Board of Revenue are among the petitioners.

The objection by the court’s office explained that the present case amounted to a second review petition. It was thus not entertainable under Order 36, Rule 9 of the Supreme Court rules, which states that after the final disposal of the first application for review, no subsequent application for review will lie to the court and consequently will not be entertained by the registry.

Meanwhile, the vice chairman of Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Khushdil Khan, and the chairman of PBC’s executive committee, Muhammad Faheem Wali, have cautioned the government against filing another review petitions against the April 26 judgement in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case. “The legal fraternity will not hesitate to launch a countrywide agitation to oppose the government’s attempt tooth and nail.”

Khushdil Khan and Faheem Wali condemned the government’s decision to file the curative review petition, saying the objections raised by the registrar’s office were valid.

In a statement, the Pakistan Bar Council alleged that the role, conduct and activities of the president, the prime minister and the federal law minister were aimed at undermining the independence of the judiciary and the democratic process.

The Pakistan Bar Council said it would not allow the government to succeed in its “nefarious design to target the independent judiciary”.

The registrar’s office had stated in its objection that “suo motu case” had been mentioned on the title page of the petitions, but in the subject column it was referred to as the “curative review petition”.

The government, while filing a set of five petitions, had moved a separate application seeking two weeks for filing of paper books, but after an initial scrutiny, the registrar found the petitions to be suffering from a number of deficiencies.

Moreover, the power of attorney of the petitioners, namely the president and others in favour of the advocate on record, were not properly executed, the registrar observed. “Scandalous language was used on five occasions in various pages of the petitions.”

The petitioner failed to issue proper notices to the respondents, including Justice Isa, while filing the petitions and hence the request for more time cannot be granted and the case was being returned in its original form, the registrar’s office stated.

_Published in Dawn, May 28th, 2021_


----------



## ghazi52

*Apex Court adjourns Justice Shaukat’s appeal till Wednesday*



The Frontier Post










ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the appeal of former judge of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui till Wednesday.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Ju-stice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard the case seeking setting aside of Report/Opinion of Supr-eme Judicial Council and Notification Issued by Min-istry of Law dated 11.10.-2018.

Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan, responding to Siddiqui’s counsel Advoc-ate Hamid Khan submitted that the government will n-ot submit answer in this ca-se, however the reply wo-uld be submitted after ma-intainability of the petition.

Hamid Khan informed the bench that his client is retiring on June 30th. Hamid Khan said that Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had challenged the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council to not hold inquiry in open court.

The Supreme Court quashed the Supreme Judicial Council decision, he added.

He said that the Supreme Court ruled only against the jurisdiction of the Judicial Council. The Supreme Court granted relief only after accepting the petition, he added.

Justice Bandial said that there was a difference between understanding and declaring a petition admissible.

Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan said that it was also important to look at the basis on which the application was deemed admissible.

Hamid Khan said that the inquiry against Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui was conducted unilaterally.

Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s position was not heard nor was he given an opportunity to present witnesses, he added.

Justice Ijaz said that the former judge made a speech and what he stated could not be denied.

Hamid Khan said that this was the fourth reference against Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

Justice Sardar Tariq said that the first three references were dismissed but the facts were acknowledged in the present reference.

Justice Ijaz asked whatever the reality, such a speech on a public forum would be fair to a judge? A serving judge in a public speech accused the Chief Justice and the institutions, he added.

Hamid said that It was not a public gathering but it was a lawyers’ ceremony. Chief Justice and other judges also address the gathering of lawyers, he added.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked Hamid Khan whether he was talking about former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry?

He said that that former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry always read a written speech and never made any accusation.

Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry never crossed constitutional limits in his speeches, he added.

Justice Ijaz said that he had a very simple question, if the judge had any reservations, could he say such a thing in the public gathering?

Hamid Khan said he should also be given access to fundamental rights under Article 209.


----------



## ghazi52

*Supreme Court to hear Shaukat’s appeal today*


by The Frontier Post










ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court on Monday will take up the petition of sacked judge of Islamabad High Court Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui challenging the notification of the President terminating his service.

A five-member larger bench headed by Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah will hear the petition on Monday.

Shaukat had filed an application in the Supreme Court on April 28, requesting for fixing his case at the earliest, as he was going to retire on June 30.

Shoukat Aziz Siddiqui had challenged before the apex court the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), recommending his removal from his post for misconduct as well as a notification of the government issued on Oct 11, 2018, terminating his service.

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) had recommended the removal of Islamabad High Court judge, Justice Shaukat Siddiqui from his office for leveling serious allegations against state institutions, including the judiciary and the premier state intelligence agency, during a speech at the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi.

SC to take up govt petition against SHC decision: Supreme Court on Monday will take up federal government’s petition against the judgment of Sindh High Court (SHC) deeming the sugar commission and its report unlawful.

A three-judge special bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed and comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan will hear the federal government pension tomorrow (Monday).

Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Khan, on behalf of the federal government, filed a petition against the ruling on August 17.The Supreme Court on September 2, 2020 had allowed the federal government appeal and suspended the SHC judgment against the inquiry commission report on sugar mills. The court had also issued notices to the sugar mills owners.

The SHC on August 17, 2020 had quashed the fact-finding report and the issued notifications constituting the commission of inquiry.


----------



## ghazi52

*Ex-judge Shaukat Aziz denies maintaining ties to army officers*


Haseeb Bhatti
June 8, 2021






Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui


Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, a former judge of the Islamabad High Court, on Tuesday denied any links with any officer in the army, with his lawyer telling the Supreme Court that a top intelligence officer had allegedly himself visited the judge at the latter's residence.

The former judge's remarks came as a five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial resumed hearing an appeal instituted by Siddiqui against his removal from office.

Justice Siddiqui was removed from the high judicial office on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209 of the Constitution for “displaying a conduct unbecoming of a judge” when he delivered a speech at the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi, on July 21, 2018.

The former judge had accused certain officers of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of interfering in the judiciary’s affairs. He alleged that the accused “manipulate the formation” of benches in high courts. The former judge had also blamed the judiciary for allegedly undermining democratic norms in the country.

During the hearing, senior counsel Hamid Khan, who is pleading Siddiqui’s case, argued that his client had been "deliberately targetted" by some forces.

He said under the Constitution, the SJC was bound to conduct the inquiry against a judge itself and examine all the record and testimonies.

Khan said Siddiqui had been removed in 2018 with mala fide intent after SJC issued him a show-cause notice.

"While the SJC has the authority to conduct an inquiry against a judge, it cannot dismiss him," the lawyer argued.

Khan recalled that Justice Siddiqui had submitted a reply, the same year, to the show-cause notice issued to him.

Siddiqui, in reply to the notice, said that "General Faiz Hameed [current DG ISI] came to his residence", the lawyer told the court, adding: "Gen Faiz asked [Siddiqui] to withdraw the order for the removal of encroachments from [outside] the ISI headquarters and green belts."

At this, Justice Bandial remarked that it was "surprising" that the ISI chief had made such a demand from Siddiqui.

"You were dismayed at something else and you insulted your own institution and the chief justice," the judge said while addressing Siddiqui, who was present in the court.

"You are accepting yourself that you had meetings with the DG," Justice Bandial told him. "You met him twice; you had relations with him."

This prompted Justice Siddiqui to stand up in his seat and reply, "I have no relations with anyone in the army," adding that he was residing in Islamabad along with his family "despite all kinds of threats".

Justice Bandial assured the former judge that members of the court knew that he was an "honest person".

Siddiqui then said he had delivered the speech that led to his ultimate sacking "to reduce the pressure" on judges.

"Unfortunately, I have been under pressure since December 2015," the former judge said, alleging that former chief justices Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khosa "had always wanted to show me the door".

"We don't want to hear your speech," Justice Bandial replied, saying Siddiqui had "started naming names".

Justice Bandial told Siddiqui that he was "angry at the ISI" but had resorted to disrespecting the judiciary.

"You should have worked for the protection of your institution. Think of the institutions that work for the protection of the judiciary," he said.

Siddiqui's counsel Khan said: "The bar too works for the protection of the judiciary."

Justice Bandial replied that although the bar was always present for the assistance of judges, "with due respect, the bar has its own policy according to which it functions".

"It was due to the bar's criticism that Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman resigned. The bar often gets emotional," the judge added.

The hearing of the case was adjourned indefinitely.

*Application for early hearing*

In Wednesday's hearing, the SC had wondered why the appellant (Siddiqui) had entertained senior intelligence officers at his residence, that too three times.

“Please consider this question that not one but three times senior ISI officers came to you,” Justice Bandial had told Siddiqui. The observation came when his counsel Hamid Khan said the former judge had no choice in the matter as the officials had come to his house.

“We as judges live isolated from the world,” Justice Bandial had said, and asked the counsel to assist the court in determining the difference between the freedom of speech available to common citizens and judges.

The case was adjourned indefinitely after a preliminary hearing on June 2.

The hearing of Siddiqui's appeal was then fixed for June 7 after the former judge moved a fresh application seeking its early hearing. However, the case could not be taken up on Monday because one member was not available, and it was subsequently rescheduled to Tuesday.

The single-page application submitted by Justice Siddiqui had pleaded that the matter was of public importance and required speedy adjudication by the court.

Under normal circumstances, an indefinite adjournment does not bother a petitioner, but it assumed significance in this case since Shaukat Siddiqui is due to retire on June 30.

“The petitioner seeks indulgence of this court for the early fixing of the titled petition in the interest of justice,” his application said, requesting that the case be fixed for June 7.


----------



## ghazi52




----------



## ghazi52

*Another REFERENCE against Justice Qazi Faez Isa? Code of conduct for Judges*
Siddique Jaan

Jun 22, 2021


----------

