Updates of judges inquiries

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.