ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 102,793
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
Justice Isa’s wife seeks PM Imran’s removal
Sarina Isa says Imran Khan is judged by a different yardstick by the apex court
Hasnaat Malik
December 01, 2020
Prime Minister Imran Khan.
ISLAMABAD: Sarina Isa, the wife of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, has prayed that the Supreme Court should remove Imran Khan from the office of the prime minister over the alleged non-disclosure of assets and tax cheat.
Mrs Isa, who has filed a review petition against the June 19 majority judgment, requiring verification by tax authorities of three properties in her and children’s name, on Tuesday submitted additional grounds in the apex court.
She submitted a long list of charges — (i) he is a tax cheat, (ii) did not disclose his three children’s assets when they were minors in his returns, (iii) illegally accessed and obtained the petitioner’s legally protected records maintained by the FBR, NADRA, FIA and SBP and more — to justify her plea for the disqualification of the prime minister.
She raised questions over the money trail provided by the prime minister regarding purchase of land at Bani Gala, noting he “is judged by a different yardstick by the apex court”.
She stated that the June 19 judgment “is contrary to the apex court’s judgment in Imran Khan’s disqualification case.
"Comparing Mr Imran Khan’s documents with the petitioner’s regarding their respective properties, there is a great difference, a chalk and cheese difference.
“The petitioner produced verifiable documents, including her own bank documents. Mr Imran Khan spun a tale: his divorced wife (Ms Jemima Goldsmith) sent him money to buy properties in Pakistan but did not send it into his bank account but through a convenient intermediary (Mr Rashid Khan),” she stated in her submission.
“Incidentally, Ms Jemima Goldsmith did not verify this. Mr. Imran Khan’s tall tale was accepted by this honourable court,” she stated.
The petitioner voluntarily presented herself before the court, she said and added supported her documents with real bank documents and real accounts without any friendly intermediaries.
“Mr Imran Khan offered no explanation of his considerable wealth, where he got the money to buy 300 kanals [of land] in Islamabad on which he constructed a mansion; where he got the money to buy the most expensive apartment in Islamabad or the money to buy his other properties unless he got it all from Ms Jemima Goldsmith and as such he is her dependent, but then he is a hypocrite to assume that the petitioner is her husband’s dependent," says Mrs Isa in her review petition.
She also said that Imran Khan is judged by a different yardstick and it is assumed that he can buy the most expensive properties in Islamabad having paid a pittance in income tax.
“The petitioner’s discrimination on account of her gender is very hurtful. Chauvinism and misogyny may be individual traits but cannot be permitted to subvert the Constitution and Islam.”
Sarina also wondered will a judge ever dare decide a case that may offend those sitting in the government now. "Will a judge’s family let him abide by the oath of his office to uphold the Constitution and law? Will a judge’s family beg not to upset those in the government? Will a judge and his family ever feel secure? Will a judge’s family not tell him to immediately resign rather than he and his family face malicious and vile propaganda?
“Must every judge and his family pay the price of judicial independence? Even if Mr Imran Khan’s government is unable to get rid of Justice Isa, a message has still been sent out to each and every judge in the country -- dare be independent, dare decide against us and see what we do to you, your wife and children," says the review petition.
Sarina alleged that Imran Khan submitted a false affidavit to obtain a plot measuring one kanal for himself in Lahore from former Punjab chief minister Nawaz Sharif in 1987.
“Mr Imran Khan also received a free one kanal plot in Islamabad and money from former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 1992 on winning the Cricket World Cup.”
"Did it behove a financially well-off gentleman to take free plots and to deprive the poor, particularly when receiving plots was not backed by any law.”
In comparison the petitioner has never received a handout from the government, let alone by submitting a false affidavit, nor did she ever avail of a tax amnesty.
"The petitioner bought the three properties from her own earnings and savings. The petitioner, unlike Mr. Imran Khan, also did not conceal the three properties under a company’s name. The petitioner also unlike Imran Khan did not cheat on her taxes.
"The petitioner has not supressed her tax returns. On the contrary the petitioner lost her plot in the government’s Shah Abdul Latif Town Scheme Karachi for which she was not compensated, and needless to state her husband did not help her."
Sarina said that the June 19 order facilitates Imran Khan and his cronies to continue violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
"The petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity as a human (guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution) were violated. After passing of the order dated 19th June, the petitioner’s fundamental right to seek information (guaranteed by Article 19A of the Constitution), right to a fair trial and due process (guaranteed by Article 10A), to be treated equally (guaranteed by Article 25(1) of the Constitution) and not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex (guaranteed by Article 25(2) of the Constitution) were violated."
Sarina stated that former chief justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa’s wife, Ayesha Khosa, ran a boutique from a residential house in the name “Ayesha and Montaha” and Meher Azmat Saeed taught at the Lahore Grammar School, both were independent working ladies; they and their husbands personally knew the petitioner and her background, including her having worked for decades in the Karachi American School, and her family background.
Therefore, feigning ignorance about the petitioner’s work, background and independent financial status is incomprehensible."
It is also stated that the source of funds and money trail concepts were introduced by Chief Justice/Chairman Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to save a failing reference whose maintainability Chief Justice Khosa had himself and later the SJC had questioned.
"They did not answer their own question of maintainability but introduced novel concepts and then latched on to their self-impositions. If they assumed that the petitioner’s properties were not her own then they should also have assumed the same about their wives, that Mrs Ayesha Khosa’s boutique business was that of Chief Justice Khosa and all of Meher Azmat Saeed earnings and properties were those of Justice Azmat Saeed, and apply their own invented tests of source of funds and money trail to them too."
"The petitioner is also perplexed why they and Mr Justice Gulzar Ahmed, then a member and now chairman of the SJC, who also personally knew the petitioner, never asked the petitioner who lived next door about her properties once.
The petitioner regrets mentioning the gentlemen and their wives but these gentlemen took it upon themselves to judge a spouse of a fellow judge by a self-invented concepts.
“Appalling double-standards must be put to rest by this Honourable Court."
Sarina requested the Supreme Court to remove Imran Khan from the office of the prime minister because
(i) he is a tax cheat,
(ii) did not disclose his three children’s assets when they were minors in his returns,
(iii) illegally accessed and obtained the petitioner’s legally protected records maintained by the FBR, NADRA, FIA and SBP;
(iv) illegally carried out the petitioner’s surveillance, (v) falsely claimed that the petitioner’s properties were those of her husband,
(vi) advised the president to file a bogus reference on the basis of a proxy complainant;
(vii) disclosed the designated secret and confidential reference to the media;
(viii) instructed his team to carry out a propaganda campaign against the petitioner and her family,
(ix) facilitated the setting of the illegal Assets Recovery Unit,
(x) appointed PTI’s party worker Mirza Shahzad Akbar as ARU’s chairman,
(xi) enabled ARU and its chairman to function without any law,
(xii) deputed Mirza Shahzad Akbar to undertake, on his own behalf, illegal activities by bypassing the relevant statutory institutions and government departments, including sending him to London to negotiate with a property tycoon a deal worth millions pounds;
(xiii) constantly and repeatedly disregarded the decision in the Anita Turab case, (xiv) appointed FBR’s chairpersons for personal and ulterior motives,
(xv) assumes statutory powers of FBR, FIA and NAB by exonerating the tax cheating and corrupt persons in his cabinet, his advisors and special assistants;
(xvi) has senior government officers kidnapped from Islamabad who act against the interest of his cronies;
(xvii) gets an IG of police picked up and humiliated for not doing his bidding;
(xviii) orders the surveillance of judges of the Supreme Court and their families,
(xix) commits contempt of the honourable Supreme Court by getting appointed a declared contemnor as a Special Assistant (this Honourable Court has previously ordered the removal of a Prime Minister when he committed contempt).
tribune.com.pk
Sarina Isa says Imran Khan is judged by a different yardstick by the apex court
Hasnaat Malik
December 01, 2020
Prime Minister Imran Khan.
ISLAMABAD: Sarina Isa, the wife of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, has prayed that the Supreme Court should remove Imran Khan from the office of the prime minister over the alleged non-disclosure of assets and tax cheat.
Mrs Isa, who has filed a review petition against the June 19 majority judgment, requiring verification by tax authorities of three properties in her and children’s name, on Tuesday submitted additional grounds in the apex court.
She submitted a long list of charges — (i) he is a tax cheat, (ii) did not disclose his three children’s assets when they were minors in his returns, (iii) illegally accessed and obtained the petitioner’s legally protected records maintained by the FBR, NADRA, FIA and SBP and more — to justify her plea for the disqualification of the prime minister.
She raised questions over the money trail provided by the prime minister regarding purchase of land at Bani Gala, noting he “is judged by a different yardstick by the apex court”.
She stated that the June 19 judgment “is contrary to the apex court’s judgment in Imran Khan’s disqualification case.
"Comparing Mr Imran Khan’s documents with the petitioner’s regarding their respective properties, there is a great difference, a chalk and cheese difference.
“The petitioner produced verifiable documents, including her own bank documents. Mr Imran Khan spun a tale: his divorced wife (Ms Jemima Goldsmith) sent him money to buy properties in Pakistan but did not send it into his bank account but through a convenient intermediary (Mr Rashid Khan),” she stated in her submission.
“Incidentally, Ms Jemima Goldsmith did not verify this. Mr. Imran Khan’s tall tale was accepted by this honourable court,” she stated.
The petitioner voluntarily presented herself before the court, she said and added supported her documents with real bank documents and real accounts without any friendly intermediaries.
“Mr Imran Khan offered no explanation of his considerable wealth, where he got the money to buy 300 kanals [of land] in Islamabad on which he constructed a mansion; where he got the money to buy the most expensive apartment in Islamabad or the money to buy his other properties unless he got it all from Ms Jemima Goldsmith and as such he is her dependent, but then he is a hypocrite to assume that the petitioner is her husband’s dependent," says Mrs Isa in her review petition.
She also said that Imran Khan is judged by a different yardstick and it is assumed that he can buy the most expensive properties in Islamabad having paid a pittance in income tax.
“The petitioner’s discrimination on account of her gender is very hurtful. Chauvinism and misogyny may be individual traits but cannot be permitted to subvert the Constitution and Islam.”
Sarina also wondered will a judge ever dare decide a case that may offend those sitting in the government now. "Will a judge’s family let him abide by the oath of his office to uphold the Constitution and law? Will a judge’s family beg not to upset those in the government? Will a judge and his family ever feel secure? Will a judge’s family not tell him to immediately resign rather than he and his family face malicious and vile propaganda?
“Must every judge and his family pay the price of judicial independence? Even if Mr Imran Khan’s government is unable to get rid of Justice Isa, a message has still been sent out to each and every judge in the country -- dare be independent, dare decide against us and see what we do to you, your wife and children," says the review petition.
Sarina alleged that Imran Khan submitted a false affidavit to obtain a plot measuring one kanal for himself in Lahore from former Punjab chief minister Nawaz Sharif in 1987.
“Mr Imran Khan also received a free one kanal plot in Islamabad and money from former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 1992 on winning the Cricket World Cup.”
"Did it behove a financially well-off gentleman to take free plots and to deprive the poor, particularly when receiving plots was not backed by any law.”
In comparison the petitioner has never received a handout from the government, let alone by submitting a false affidavit, nor did she ever avail of a tax amnesty.
"The petitioner bought the three properties from her own earnings and savings. The petitioner, unlike Mr. Imran Khan, also did not conceal the three properties under a company’s name. The petitioner also unlike Imran Khan did not cheat on her taxes.
"The petitioner has not supressed her tax returns. On the contrary the petitioner lost her plot in the government’s Shah Abdul Latif Town Scheme Karachi for which she was not compensated, and needless to state her husband did not help her."
Sarina said that the June 19 order facilitates Imran Khan and his cronies to continue violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
"The petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity as a human (guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution) were violated. After passing of the order dated 19th June, the petitioner’s fundamental right to seek information (guaranteed by Article 19A of the Constitution), right to a fair trial and due process (guaranteed by Article 10A), to be treated equally (guaranteed by Article 25(1) of the Constitution) and not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex (guaranteed by Article 25(2) of the Constitution) were violated."
Sarina stated that former chief justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa’s wife, Ayesha Khosa, ran a boutique from a residential house in the name “Ayesha and Montaha” and Meher Azmat Saeed taught at the Lahore Grammar School, both were independent working ladies; they and their husbands personally knew the petitioner and her background, including her having worked for decades in the Karachi American School, and her family background.
Therefore, feigning ignorance about the petitioner’s work, background and independent financial status is incomprehensible."
It is also stated that the source of funds and money trail concepts were introduced by Chief Justice/Chairman Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to save a failing reference whose maintainability Chief Justice Khosa had himself and later the SJC had questioned.
"They did not answer their own question of maintainability but introduced novel concepts and then latched on to their self-impositions. If they assumed that the petitioner’s properties were not her own then they should also have assumed the same about their wives, that Mrs Ayesha Khosa’s boutique business was that of Chief Justice Khosa and all of Meher Azmat Saeed earnings and properties were those of Justice Azmat Saeed, and apply their own invented tests of source of funds and money trail to them too."
"The petitioner is also perplexed why they and Mr Justice Gulzar Ahmed, then a member and now chairman of the SJC, who also personally knew the petitioner, never asked the petitioner who lived next door about her properties once.
The petitioner regrets mentioning the gentlemen and their wives but these gentlemen took it upon themselves to judge a spouse of a fellow judge by a self-invented concepts.
“Appalling double-standards must be put to rest by this Honourable Court."
Sarina requested the Supreme Court to remove Imran Khan from the office of the prime minister because
(i) he is a tax cheat,
(ii) did not disclose his three children’s assets when they were minors in his returns,
(iii) illegally accessed and obtained the petitioner’s legally protected records maintained by the FBR, NADRA, FIA and SBP;
(iv) illegally carried out the petitioner’s surveillance, (v) falsely claimed that the petitioner’s properties were those of her husband,
(vi) advised the president to file a bogus reference on the basis of a proxy complainant;
(vii) disclosed the designated secret and confidential reference to the media;
(viii) instructed his team to carry out a propaganda campaign against the petitioner and her family,
(ix) facilitated the setting of the illegal Assets Recovery Unit,
(x) appointed PTI’s party worker Mirza Shahzad Akbar as ARU’s chairman,
(xi) enabled ARU and its chairman to function without any law,
(xii) deputed Mirza Shahzad Akbar to undertake, on his own behalf, illegal activities by bypassing the relevant statutory institutions and government departments, including sending him to London to negotiate with a property tycoon a deal worth millions pounds;
(xiii) constantly and repeatedly disregarded the decision in the Anita Turab case, (xiv) appointed FBR’s chairpersons for personal and ulterior motives,
(xv) assumes statutory powers of FBR, FIA and NAB by exonerating the tax cheating and corrupt persons in his cabinet, his advisors and special assistants;
(xvi) has senior government officers kidnapped from Islamabad who act against the interest of his cronies;
(xvii) gets an IG of police picked up and humiliated for not doing his bidding;
(xviii) orders the surveillance of judges of the Supreme Court and their families,
(xix) commits contempt of the honourable Supreme Court by getting appointed a declared contemnor as a Special Assistant (this Honourable Court has previously ordered the removal of a Prime Minister when he committed contempt).
Justice Isa’s wife seeks PM Imran’s removal | The Express Tribune
Sarina Isa says Imran Khan is judged by a different yardstick by the apex court
tribune.com.pk
