Justice Isa questions delay in taking up Faizabad review plea

SC judge says info about family’s properties gathered without authorisation from lawful authority

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa – who is facing a presidential reference for not disclosing his family members' assets – has expressed concern over not fixing review petitions against his judgment in Faizabad sit-in case and said this delay establishes mala-fide on part of the government.

Justice Isa has challenged the reference – which he described as based on ill-intention – in the Supreme Court and submitted four rejoinders to replies filed by different respondents in response to the notices issued by a ten-judge full court.

In his rejoinder to the Attorney General for Pakistan's (AGP) reply, Justice Isa said the reason not to fix review petitions for hearing was painfully obvious and another demonstrable fact establishing mala-fide.

"The review petitions filed in SMC/2017 have not been fixed for hearing even after seven months. Review petitions are generally fixed within a month of filing but the Registrar who is an executive officer on deputation from the government clearly intervened to disrupt the normal applicable procedure."

He said the federal law minister and the AGP have anti-democratic credentials and both of them have been ardent supporters of doctorial rule, which, the judge said, he has opposed and probably for this reason they are inimical to him.

"These two gentlemen processed the purported complaint of the proxy Abdul Wahid Dogar and gave incorrect legal advice to the prime minister." He said he had sought information and documents which had been mentioned in the reference but they were not provided to him.

Justice Isa agreed with the AGP's statement that independence of judiciary is imperative to ensure rule of law and democratic order. However, he said, the facts demonstrate that there is a chasm between what AGP states and what AGP (and the government team) practices.

He said he fully supports accountability of judges. "However to move against judges for what they write in judgments because it does not suit someone is not accountability but a perverse abuse of power."

The rejoinder also accused the government of misusing the state resources, surveillance of judges and their families, gathering information illegally, putting up proxies, revealing contents of a secret reference, publicizing the same through a controlled media, then suppressing the counter narrative, using third degree methods to persuade media not to broadcast what the elected bodies of lawyers  say and not permitting their live coverage, directing extensive media coverage of unelected lawyers associated with certain political parties and those paid through public exchequer.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that information pertaining to properties owned by Justice Qazi Faez Isa's family in the United Kingdom was obtained through surveillance and without approval of the lawful authority.

A 10-judge full court led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday resumed fourth hearing of a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa in May this year.

Resuming his arguments, Justice Isa's counsel, Muneer A Malik, said the information was gathered without authorisation from the lawful authority and passed on to the complainant, Abdul Wahid Dogar, who claimed as an investigative journalist.

He stressed that the complaint was filed just weeks after the top judge penned the Faizabad sit-in verdict, wherein he questioned the role of security agencies in the protest staged by Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan in November 2017.

Pointing out that the information about the properties owned by the judge's family members could not be obtained online by using the names of the owners, Malik wondered how the complainant was able to retrieve the information from the United Kingdom Land Registry.

"Information can only be retrieved online when the address of the property is available," he explained.

Malik said Dogar has no credibility as a journalist. The counsel wondered how a top court judge could be investigated in such a manner. He said there are 'certain safeguards' in the law regarding investigations against judges otherwise tomorrow an SHO would start investigation against a judge, he added.

The counsel said the government whole exercise in this matter is against principle of separation of powers.  Malik also questioned legality of the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU).  Later, the court sought assistance on this matter at the next hearing.

Justice Bandial asked the lawyer to confirm whether Justice Isa had given any gift, in cash or otherwise, to his family members. Malik said he would confer with his client and respond accordingly. The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday (today).