What's new

‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
58,489
58
91,866
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court


Haseeb Bhatti
March 8, 2021



Justice Qazi Faez Isa claimed that he was being public slandered with propaganda against him through controlled media. — Photo: SC website/File


Justice Qazi Faez Isa claimed that he was being public slandered with propaganda against him through controlled media. — Photo: SC website/File

Justice Qazi Faez Isa said on Monday that he was being slandered and that propaganda targeting him was being broadcast through "controlled" media.

The judge made these remarks in the Supreme Court during a hearing on an application moved by him, seeking live telecast of court proceedings of the review petition in his case.
In his petition, Justice Isa said the move to broadcast the proceedings live would bring more transparency and discipline in the court’s conduct.

A 10-judge SC bench, presided by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, is hearing the petition.

"I am being publicly maligned. Propaganda is being spread against me through controlled media," said Justice Isa. He claimed that the government had "destroyed" the media and would now set its sights on social media platforms such as YouTube.

He said if live coverage was allowed of his case then it would be clear for all to see what is "just and true".

"They are afraid of truth and justice. They are scared," the petitioner judge said.

Justice Bandial asked the Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman about the remarks of Justice Isa on restrictions on the media. The AAG responded that while the court had always spoken about the freedom of the media, it had never ruled that live coverage of court proceedings was the right of the media.

Rehman said the federal government had declared Justice Isa's application as inadmissible, adding that "[court] proceedings in review petitions cannot be requested for live coverage," adding that Section 184/3 of the Constitution could not be applied to review cases.

"No new stance can be taken in review cases. The law mentions hearings in an open court," Rehman said, adding that there was nothing in the law about airing those hearings in the media.

Live broadcast, the AAG said, was the right of the media and not any individual's, adding that no media house had requested permission to broadcast live from the court.

"Does freedom of expression mean live broadcast?" Rehman asked.

To this, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said technology had aided the court in many matters and helped to create ease, citing the example of hearings via video link.

"The federal government should not tell us what to do. Live broadcast is [under] the authority of the court, not of the federal government," said Justice Shah.

The AAG responded that it was the stance of the government that live telecast was not a judicial concern but an administrative matter of the SC.

Justice Munib Akhtar observed that if the government did not have the authority to tell the court about the matter then no one else did either, saying "the hearing is still being held in open court."

The AAG said there was a difference between the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings and judicial proceedings, noting that the former involved general debate, while the latter were technical and did not use common language.

"We are living in a global village. We have to keep up with the world," remarked Justice Shah, saying there was "nothing secret" about court proceedings and "the Supreme Court is the court of the people of this country."

He said the people could not be stopped from watching court proceedings if they wished to and they should be able to know if any lawyer or judge misbehaved. "The world should know what we are doing," he added.

"There is no use in sitting while sticking your neck in the ground like an ostrich."

The AAG argued that in-camera hearings "have been held many times".

Justice Akhtar noted that six judges on the bench were not present and without hearing them, the court could not give the order for live broadcast since all other judges would be bound by it. "Hearings are conducted in open courts so justice is seen to be done," the judge remarked.

The AAG argued that ensuring that justice is seen to be done did not mean that people saw the decision being made but rather that the decision should be "impartial".

The hearing was adjourned until March 17.



'Best interest of justice'

In his application filed in February, Justice Isa had sought a directive that the state-run Pakistan Television Corporation be directed to broadcast live proceedings of the hearings of his review petitions in the case against him.

In the application, he pleaded the apex court to order the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to issue written instructions to all private channels that they could not be restrained from broadcasting or live streaming the court proceedings.
Justice Isa said the prayer had been made in the best interest of justice and that court proceedings were broadcast in a number of countries.

During a hearing last week, Justice Bandial had asked the AAG to inform the court what steps the government would take for live broadcast of the present hearing.

The AAG informed the court on Thursday that the federal government would obviously oppose the plea for live telecast, but could have responded had notices been issued to it.



 

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 26, 2018
2,503
5
2,631
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court


Haseeb Bhatti
March 8, 2021



Justice Qazi Faez Isa claimed that he was being public slandered with propaganda against him through controlled media. — Photo: SC website/File


Justice Qazi Faez Isa claimed that he was being public slandered with propaganda against him through controlled media. — Photo: SC website/File

Justice Qazi Faez Isa said on Monday that he was being slandered and that propaganda targeting him was being broadcast through "controlled" media.

The judge made these remarks in the Supreme Court during a hearing on an application moved by him, seeking live telecast of court proceedings of the review petition in his case.
In his petition, Justice Isa said the move to broadcast the proceedings live would bring more transparency and discipline in the court’s conduct.

A 10-judge SC bench, presided by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, is hearing the petition.

"I am being publicly maligned. Propaganda is being spread against me through controlled media," said Justice Isa. He claimed that the government had "destroyed" the media and would now set its sights on social media platforms such as YouTube.

He said if live coverage was allowed of his case then it would be clear for all to see what is "just and true".

"They are afraid of truth and justice. They are scared," the petitioner judge said.

Justice Bandial asked the Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman about the remarks of Justice Isa on restrictions on the media. The AAG responded that while the court had always spoken about the freedom of the media, it had never ruled that live coverage of court proceedings was the right of the media.

Rehman said the federal government had declared Justice Isa's application as inadmissible, adding that "[court] proceedings in review petitions cannot be requested for live coverage," adding that Section 184/3 of the Constitution could not be applied to review cases.

"No new stance can be taken in review cases. The law mentions hearings in an open court," Rehman said, adding that there was nothing in the law about airing those hearings in the media.

Live broadcast, the AAG said, was the right of the media and not any individual's, adding that no media house had requested permission to broadcast live from the court.

"Does freedom of expression mean live broadcast?" Rehman asked.

To this, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said technology had aided the court in many matters and helped to create ease, citing the example of hearings via video link.

"The federal government should not tell us what to do. Live broadcast is [under] the authority of the court, not of the federal government," said Justice Shah.

The AAG responded that it was the stance of the government that live telecast was not a judicial concern but an administrative matter of the SC.

Justice Munib Akhtar observed that if the government did not have the authority to tell the court about the matter then no one else did either, saying "the hearing is still being held in open court."

The AAG said there was a difference between the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings and judicial proceedings, noting that the former involved general debate, while the latter were technical and did not use common language.

"We are living in a global village. We have to keep up with the world," remarked Justice Shah, saying there was "nothing secret" about court proceedings and "the Supreme Court is the court of the people of this country."

He said the people could not be stopped from watching court proceedings if they wished to and they should be able to know if any lawyer or judge misbehaved. "The world should know what we are doing," he added.

"There is no use in sitting while sticking your neck in the ground like an ostrich."

The AAG argued that in-camera hearings "have been held many times".

Justice Akhtar noted that six judges on the bench were not present and without hearing them, the court could not give the order for live broadcast since all other judges would be bound by it. "Hearings are conducted in open courts so justice is seen to be done," the judge remarked.

The AAG argued that ensuring that justice is seen to be done did not mean that people saw the decision being made but rather that the decision should be "impartial".

The hearing was adjourned until March 17.



'Best interest of justice'

In his application filed in February, Justice Isa had sought a directive that the state-run Pakistan Television Corporation be directed to broadcast live proceedings of the hearings of his review petitions in the case against him.

In the application, he pleaded the apex court to order the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to issue written instructions to all private channels that they could not be restrained from broadcasting or live streaming the court proceedings.
Justice Isa said the prayer had been made in the best interest of justice and that court proceedings were broadcast in a number of countries.

During a hearing last week, Justice Bandial had asked the AAG to inform the court what steps the government would take for live broadcast of the present hearing.

The AAG informed the court on Thursday that the federal government would obviously oppose the plea for live telecast, but could have responded had notices been issued to it.



Does he have any izzat left that he will be slandered ?
 

Enigma SIG

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 20, 2009
3,643
2
4,474
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
He should resign and pursue the case against him. Why is he still holding his position from where he can influence the outcomes of the cases?
 

TNT

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 2, 2019
4,094
-1
6,546
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
This judge is gone complete nuts. Its dangerous to keep such a guy as a judge. He should be removed somehow and not allowed to become CJ.
 

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
58,489
58
91,866
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
'Justice Asif Saeed Khosa stabbed me in the back,' says Justice Isa during SC review hearing

Haseeb Bhatti
April 15, 2021



Justice Qazi Faez Isa. — SC website/File


Justice Qazi Faez Isa. — SC website/File

Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa alleged on Thursday that former chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa had betrayed him and "stabbed" him in the back.

Justice Isa made the remarks during a hearing of the review petitions filed against the June 19, 2020, apex court judgement about the presidential reference against him. Justice Umar Ata Bandial presided over the 10-judge SC bench which conducted the hearing.

"The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has murdered justice," Justice Isa said, adding that President Dr Arif Alvi "did not bother" to reply to three letters of his and that he hadn't even received a copy of the presidential reference filed against him.

He said despite that, noise and voices against him had started on the media and "fifth-generation warfare" was initiated against him and his family.

"Former chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa stabbed me in the back without listening to my stance," Justice Isa remarked. He also said that although retired Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had been his friend, "I was saddened at his decision. He is the government's favourite personality today."

Justice Muneeb Akhtar observed that the two judges were retired and asked Justice Isa to refrain from "making accusations" against them, while Justice Maqbool Baqar asked him to present his arguments in the case.
"Is Faez Isa not a judge of this court? Are the names of [Justice] Azmat Saeed and [Justice] Asif Saeed Khosa too sacred?" Justice Isa asked in response.
The reference filed against Justice Isa by the government in May 2019 alleged that he had 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 had contested the allegation, saying he was not a beneficial owner of the flats — neither directly nor indirectly.

Justice Isa's wife, Sarina Isa, had said in a letter to the president in November that the reference against Justice Isa was shown to her husband by retired Justice Khosa before forwarding it to the SJC. “My husband told Justice Khosa that the properties were not his and he had no concern with them,” the letter had said.

According to the letter, Justice Khosa had observed, “How then is the reference maintainable?”, but then “something changed” and he decided to convene the SJC, allegedly without taking Justice Isa into confidence.

It said Justice Khosa had repeatedly sent for then-attorney general (AG) Anwar Mansoor Khan, who, after the reference was filed, allegedly asked Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior and Accountability Shahzad Akbar to provide him Sarina's tax returns.

“The AG and workers of a political party joined hands and Justice Khosa obliged them by asking for the money trail and the source of funds for purchase of the London properties,” the letter stated.

Likewise, Sarina had said in her letter, Justice Azmat Saeed had heard another reference against Justice Isa six working days before his retirement, confident that it would conclude before he retired.


'The FBR has not sent me a notice'

Justice Isa said during today's hearing that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had not sent him a notice to date. He emphasised that his children and wife were not under his care, adding that they had also not been under his sponsorship when they bought the properties in London and "like [Prime Minister] Imran Khan, my wife did not hide her property."

"The Niazi Services case was not sent to the FBR [but] in my case, the court acted with distinction."

Justice Isa further said the total value of his London properties was not equivalent to even "one F-6 plot", referring to a sector in Islamabad.

Justice Isa also hit out at Law Minister Farogh Naseem, saying he had made accusations against him and his wife and that "the respect of the court is not important for him (Naseem) but his ministry is."

"Farogh Naseem came to the rostrum and kept lying," Justice Isa added.

He said the SJC had initiated action against him at a time when he had taken his summer vacation and been affected by personal matters.

"The decision to send the case to the FBR was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Article 184(3) is for the protection of fundamental rights [and] the order of the FBR notice to my daughter and son does not fall under the category of fundamental rights."


'They want to remove me'

"They want to remove me from the post of a SC judge," said Justice Isa, adding that the reason was his verdict in the 2017 Faizabad sit-in case.

"Doomsday was unleashed upon me after the verdict of Faizabad sit-in case."

He said that apart from Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan chief Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi, "everyone else" had submitted review petitions against the judgement, citing the PTI and Muttahida Qaumi Movement — with the former claiming "I am not eligible to be a judge".

"I am not really qualified to be a judge because I am talking about fundamental rights.

"I will fight to the last drop of blood. I will not give up," said Justice Isa.

He also criticised Akbar and said that the adviser had not denied any allegations against himself. Justice Isa said that Akbar should "be in jail yet he is at an important office".

"I don't understand whether we are living in a democracy or in a dictatorship," he said.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom