‘Not a single page of proof provided against Justice Isa’

Advocate Gillani tells SC case giving bad impression as it has eroded people's confidence in the judge

ISLAMABAD: Advocate Iftikhar Gillani on Thursday told the Supreme Court that not a single page of proof had been provided in the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa over alleged non-disclosure of assets in his wealth statement.

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 Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, heard the case regarding proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Isa.

The reference filed against Justice 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 proceedings, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel asked, “Did the president not use his mind?”

Advocate Gillani, counsel for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council and K-P High Court Bar Association, replied the complainant had not even provided a single page of proof in the case. “No person can play with the dignity of the court,” Gillani added.

He asked whether anyone could question the dignity of 17 persons of the 220 million, who were judges of the Supreme Court, without any proof.

“If the court is not given honour, there would be no respect for the whole society, which is ultimately associated with the court,” he said, adding that the case was giving a bad impression as it had eroded the people's confidence in the judge.

He said the public was also surprised at the reference and the press conference held by the attorney general on it.

He said neither the government nor the president had the authority to conduct an investigation under Article 209 on the reference. “The president can only ask the SJC for an inquiry,” he added.

Justice Arab said the representatives of lawyers and bar councils were arguing against one another. “Hamid Khan has given different arguments,” he added. Gillani said his job was not to win a case but to settle the matter with the help of court.

Justice Bandial said according to Gillani, the reference came from the Prime Minister Secretariat and the recommendation of the prime minister in the reference was irrelevant.

Gillani said the government had no authority providing information.

The reference stated the complaint was being sent to the SJC on the recommendation of the prime minister.

He asked the reason behind giving an inquiry matter to the SJC, adding that the basic point in the reference was to authorise judges to conduct an inquiry against a judge.

He said the term of a judge had been defined by the Supreme Court and it was a matter of independence of judiciary. The inquiry against a judge could only be conducted by the SJC and not by the president, he added.

He said the whole legal fraternity was involved in the reference.

“The bench and the bar are two wheels of a cart,” he said, adding that the term of a judge was linked to the independence of judiciary.

It was the request that all lawyers should collectively plead to the court, he added.

Article 209 did not authorise the president to inquire into the matter before sending it to the SJC, he added.

The court adjourned the hearing till after the winter vacation.

(With additional input from APP)