# Supereme Court warns federal govt of consequences in Justice Isa case



## ghazi52

*SC warns federal govt of consequences in Justice Isa case as Naseem falters before queries*

By Hasnaat Malik

June 4, 2020

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court cautioned the federal government on Thursday against the consequences if the federal government failed to prove its case against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

A 10-member bench of the apex court, led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was hearing Justice Isa’s petition against the reference and the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council against him.

The bench has raised serious questions over working of Assets Recovery Units (ARU) and the federal government has yet to satisfy the court on the matter.

The Centre should bear in mind the consequences in case it is unable to prove its case against Justice Isa, remarked Justice Maqbool Baqar.

Who floated the idea that the reference should be filed against the apex court’s judge, asked Justice Bandial of the federal government’s lawyer, Dr Farogh Naseem.

Meanwhile, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, observed that the federal government had alleged three offences in its reference – violation of laws pertaining to taxation, money laundering and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. However, said Justice Akhtar, there was no offence of money laundering in this case in view of the relevant laws as the properties under scrutiny were acquired in 2013.

Justice Akhtar noted that both the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act Amendments and the law pertaining to money laundering came after 2015. Instead of referring the matter to tax authorities, the ARU made a serious error in this case, he remarked.

Justice Akhtar then asked Dr Naseem to read out the recent judgement on privacy, which was passed by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court.

The federal counsel was also questioned by Justice Bandial on the accusations laid against Justice Isa.

If the tax authority finds a Rs10,000 default against the judge, would the accused judge be liable for action against Article 209, asked Justice Bandial.

Article 209 of the Constitution of Pakistan pertains to action against a judge when he has been guilty of misconduct. In the previous hearing, Justice Bandial had observed that action is initiated under Article 209 when the judiciary as an institution is injured and there is a serious element of dishonesty or corruption in his work which affects public trust in the judiciary.

On Thursday, Justice Bandial asked Dr Naseem to give the court any information which fundamentally proved that Justice Isa had committed misconduct.

He asked the federal counsel once again as to why proceedings pertaining to tax violations had not been initiated against the accused judge before the Centre filed its reference.

He further asked the federal counsel to explain to the apex court under which law it was mandatory for the accused SC judge to disclose properties of his independent family members.

In a similar vein, Justice Baqar noted that no violation of the tax law had been proven against Justice Isa. Similarly, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that judges were not above the law and the Federal Board of Revenue was free to examine their tax returns.

The bench wondered how the ARU could sidestep statuary bodies like the Federal Investigation Agency and the FBR and take action in oversight.

The court further question how the ARU could be established without legal backing. Justice Shah wondered how this could affect citizens in the absence of proper legislation.

The federal counsel argued that the ARU was formed after suo motu proceedings of apex court related to the retrieval of ill-gotten money in 2018. Dr Naseem maintained that the prime minister has residuary powers to form bodies such as the ARU, which was also part of the cabinet.

The hearing of the case was adjourned till Monday, June 8, 2020.

The federal government’s lawyer has been under hot water in the hearings of the case thus far. The 10-member bench has put forth questions for the Centre, which Dr Naseem has yet to satisfy the court on.

The Supreme Court’s queries are as follows:

1) A violation of trivial requirements of the tax law may not necessarily be misconduct in terms of Article 209. There is no allegation of corruption nor have any ingredients of money laundering been shown. So the government must show that the judge violated some legal obligation serious enough to justify Article 209.

2) The government should show some law, whether in income tax or otherwise, that imposes upon a judge the legal duty to disclose his wife & children’s assets even if they are not dependent. Or which makes a judge responsible to show a money trail for their assets due to some kind of doctrine of “sufficient connection”. But this doctrine or obligation must be established in some law and can’t just be assumed.

3) Even if assumed that the presidential reference had some defects in its procedure, wasn’t it still open for the SJC to say that well we don’t accept the reference and we file it but the material that has been brought forward is still serious enough to justify an independent suo motu enquiry of our own?

Despite being asked several times, the federal government has yet to respond to the judges on their concerns pertaining to the legal status of ARU and questions regarding malafide intent.

A senior lawyer, who witnessed full court proceedings over the last two days, believes that the federal government is struggling in this case. If the apex court quashes the reference on the basis of malafide in law and facts, then responsibility might be fixed against government functionaries, and Centre would have to face dreadful consequences.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/223535...s-justice-isa-case-dr-naseem-falters-queries/

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.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

SC is trying really hard these days to throw the Reference away in order to save one of their Own Crooked Colleague. The same guy who gave Clean chit to Sharif Clan in Hudabya Paper Mill case those who know about that case know hoe important that case was.

They will save him by using some technicality even though he has already accepted the Properties Belong to his Wife and children. Judiciary is very cheap and morally corrupt in Pakistan the guy who blackmailed the Accountability Court Judge was given Bail that guy probably has a Lot of Dirt on a lot of judges.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## El Sidd

Dr. Strangelove said:


> SC is trying really hard these days to throw the Reference away in order to save one of their Own Crooked Colleague. The same guy who gave Clean chit to Sharif Clan in Hudabya Paper Mill case those who know about that case know hoe important that case was.
> 
> They will save him by using some technicality even though he has already accepted the Properties Belong to his Wife and children. Judiciary is very cheap and morally corrupt in Pakistan the guy who blackmailed the Accountability Court Judge was given Bail that guy probably has a Lot of Dirt on a lot of judges.



That still does not mean a witch hunt with private investigation firm to start. 

Subsequent supreme court chief justice have encouraged the government more than once to initiate the judicial reforms to no avail.

There are serious technical and other problems with this case despite the glimpse into the lives of the elite judges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

So the "untouchables" are ganging up against a democratically elected government?
And while they question even the president, they don't like one of the ministry of justice employee, a judge, to be questioned.
What a rule of law .
اب دھمکیاں دینے پہ آ گئے ؟

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Imran Khan

anyone thin a mafia like judges will take action against thier own member are living in fools paradise . judges are unite and one mafia gang .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## El Sidd

Brass Knuckles said:


> They think ka agar aik ka ehtsab hoskta ha to dosron ka bhi hoskta isliye bachana chahtay hain. Money trail da Kar case karda



Uth gayi hukoomat.

Government is basically accused of spying on the judges. It is not government's job to hire private investigation firms to see who is living where and how. There are state entities available for that through due process. 

The swiss cheesecake of a case that it has built up is more akin to sabotage of intent rather than an actual attempt at curbing corruption.


----------



## El Sidd

Brass Knuckles said:


> Government pa ilzam laganay ki bajaye judge ko hisab daina chahiye. Agar judge sahab murder kardain and government ka pass spying sa us waqiya ki video aajaye. To government ko spying par punish karoga ya murderer ko?



Ye to supreme judicial council hi decide karegi case ka wazan dekh kar.

hukoomat judiciary se hisaab nahi le sakti. ye khilaaf e qudrat hai


----------



## El Sidd

Brass Knuckles said:


> Agar judge sahab murder kardain



to police kia aloo gosht galane ke liye papeetay lene gayi hai?



Brass Knuckles said:


> government ka pass spying sa



government ko spy karne ki ijazat nahi qanoonan.



Brass Knuckles said:


> To government ko spying par punish karoga ya murderer ko?



ye tamam hukoomati machinery chor kar private investigation firms hire kis qanoon se ki hain. ye sawal hai. jawab hai to miyan naseem ko bol kar jama karwaden



Brass Knuckles said:


> Yeh saray technical issue Hain. Agar aap awam sa pochain to wo kahain ga aap hisab dekar hakomat ko ghalat sabit kardo. Itni simple si baat ha.



qanoon kehta hai innocent till proven guilty. 

ye konsi insaf hukoomat hai jo pehle mujrim Dekhti hai phir jurm ka tayyun karti hai phir hisaab mangti hai.

ye koi kangaroo mulk nahi. takneeki etebaar se pm cm sugar mafia ka sarghana hai. pakra hai usko FIA ne?


----------



## Pandora

These judges are a joke who are merely trying to release him based on technicalities like breach of privacy and other sshit. In reality it is an open and shut case where His family acquired assets beyond means in UK London which includes 3 properties. If it was anyone else they would have released strung him up by now but not these untouchable piece of shit judge. We seriously need to revamp our judicial system or forget hope of ever reviving our country socially and economically.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## El Sidd

Brass Knuckles said:


> Mtlab murder par murderer ki bajaye police ko punish krna chahiye? Government to sirf itna poch rhi ha yeh assets kaisay banaye. Unko batana ha Kahan sa paisay aye



pulsi train hoti hain crime ko preempt karne me. ye bas ap ek pulsi ho jo intezar karke phir tamgha lete ho.

government kis hasiyat se poch rahi hai bas ye bhi bata den. NAB ne bola? FIA ne bola? FBR ne bola?

ye corruption soonghne ki kala sirf hukoomat ke pass nahi


----------



## El Sidd

Brass Knuckles said:


> Government jis haisiyat main bhi poch rhi ha agar judge sahab ka pass money trail hota to da chukay hotay. Adalat ki mrzi punish karay ya nhi awam inko jaan chuki ha.




Awam knows everyone is corrupt. 

They don't vote for the judges. The government was drunk on power when they made this reference.


----------



## koolio

It's plain and simple, just provide the damn money trail rather going in circles, the judiciary in Pakistan is a cancer that needs a complete overhaul.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghazi52




----------



## ghazi52

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


June 11, 2020

https://tribune.com.pk/story/224046...y-court-surveillance-malice-justice-isa-case/





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

*In disciplinary proceedings, judge, not wife, is asked about source of income: Farogh Naseem*










ISLAMABAD: Barrister Farogh Naseem on Thursday said that the word misconduct was not intentionally defined in Article 209 of the Constitution or any relevant documents.

During the hearing of Justice Faez Isa case, he referred to a judgment delivered by Justice A R Cornelius PLD 1962 wherein it was held that if there was a violation of law by a judge, it would be misconduct.

At this, Justice Maqbool Baqir observed in on lighter note that he should not be a bad boy. He cited an observation of the Indian Supreme Court that ‘a judge is a public servant and his office is a public trust’. “But I must say that in Pakistan, the office of the judge is not only public, but also a sacred trust,” Farogh Naseem contended.

He said the oath of a judge was a complete subjugation to the Constitution and his behavior should be proper and he should not engage in any public controversy. Farogh Naseem read out Articles 3 and 5 of the Constitution adding that the apex court or the Supreme Judicial Council had to determine whether a misconduct had been made or not.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, observed that the Constitution was unique and instead of relying on other laws pertaining to misconduct, ‘we should interpret the constitutional meaning of misconduct’.

Farogh Naseem submitted that the Constitution did not make distinction between dependency and independence of a spouse, adding that there was a close proximity between husband and wife hence a judge was required to disclose the properties of his wife.

To substantiate his argument, he submitted that when a judge dies, his widow receives pension even if she is financially independent. “But you will have to establish before us that the petitioner’s wife is not independent,” Justice Maqbool Baqir asked Naseem.

Farogh, however, contended that ‘we are in disciplinary proceedings and such proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council, the wife is not asked but the petitioner judge. He said that in Pakistan all judges are politically exposed persons, adding that military and judicial officials both fall in that category.

“Until now the petitioner judge has not yet disclosed the properties of his spouse,” Naseem contended. He recalled that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had also stressed in Panama case that he should not be asked for the properties of his children and said since his children were independent, therefore, they should be asked for.

“But the question is that whether you have asked the wife about her source of income?” Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asked the federation counsel to which Naseem repeated that when there were disciplinary proceedings, he will not ask the wife but the petitioner judge.

He further submitted that both the judges and their wives could not avail themselves of the tax amnesty scheme 2018. He also referred to the State Bank of Pakistan Regulations about customs as well SEP Regulations regarding the public office-holders, politically exposed persons as well as anti-money laundering regulations of SEP besides citing Article 63(1) (o) (p) etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cash GK

El Sidd said:


> Uth gayi hukoomat.
> 
> Government is basically accused of spying on the judges. It is not government's job to hire private investigation firms to see who is living where and how. There are state entities available for that through due process.
> 
> The swiss cheesecake of a case that it has built up is more akin to sabotage of intent rather than an actual attempt at curbing corruption.


Oh pain oh pain. Lol ...why you always sitting on fire..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

Cash GK said:


> Oh pain oh pain. Lol ...why you always sitting on fire..



i hope you are fine too


----------



## maithil

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271347925155753984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271347928913915905
Looks like government was getting out of the world judicial advice by law ministry while filing the case. Interesting days ahead.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------

