Justice Isa unmasks 'PTI leaders' with UK assets
The top court judge says FBR should check records of Shahzad Akbar, Zulfiqar Bukhari, Usman Dar as well as PM Imran
Justice Qazi Faez Isa. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Supreme Court judge facing a presidential reference for not disclosing his family’s assets, turned the tables on the ruling party before the apex court by identifying key 'PTI leaders' who owned properties in the UK.
As a 10-judge full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, continued hearing the petitions against the reference on Tuesday, Justice Isa in a written statement informed the bench that Shahzad Akbar owned five properties in the UK, Imran Khan Niazi (six), Zulfiqar Bukhari (seven) and Usman Dar have three to his name.
"The petitioner does not say nor suggests, let alone allege, that the abovementioned gentlemen and lady are those public figures who are well-known in Pakistan. Assuming they are, the petitioner still does not allege that they illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws."
The judge clarified that he was “not saying or suggesting, let alone allege” that the people he had identified had illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws.
Former federal information minister Firdous Ashiq Awan and PTI stalwart Jahangir Tareen each owned a property there as well. In addition, the judge submitted before the court that former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf owned two properties in the UK.
Justice Isa submitted the statement in response to SAPM Akbar telling the court that he did not receive any salary or benefit as the head of the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU).
“Taking a cue from what is stated to have transpired in the case of the petitioner’s family, the search engine 192.com was used to search a few known public figures,” the statement read.
The judge clarified that was “not saying or suggesting, let alone allege” that the people he had identified had illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws.
“Before an allegation of non-compliance with income tax law is made, the Federal Board of Revenue must check its records [of these individuals] and consider how much taxable income was declared and income-tax paid and whether they had non-taxable income, such as from agricultural land, which the Constitution exempts from payment of income tax.”
'Govt ready to face consequences in Justice Isa case'
Justice Isa further stated that before making an allegation with regard to the illegal transfer of money abroad, the State Bank “must check to determine whether the said individuals had foreign exchange accounts and whether thorough their accounts money was remitted abroad, to exclude the possibility of it sent to the UK through Hawala, Hundi or by any other illegal means”.
“And, before making an allegation of money laundering the competent authority must first check if the said individuals had committed a crime and the properties were purchased from the proceeds of crime,” he added.
“Assuming that the said individuals had failed in respect of all or any one of the above, they would still be entitled to be asked and given the opportunity to provide an explanation. Without first seeking an explanation and without a shred of evidence an allegation must not be made that the spouses of the said individuals were the real owners of the properties. What surely should never be done is to call upon the said individuals to do the impossible – disprove that the allegation is not true."
On the PM’s aide claiming that he received no salary or benefit, the judge wondered as to “how he [Akbar] survives”.
SC propounds Centre initiate tax proceedings in Justice Isa case, follow 'due process'
"Is he [Akbar] his working wife and/or working children’s dependent? And did they also pay for the services of a renowned lawyer. Or does Mirza Shahzad Akbar make do with the money generated by the, ‘successful recovery including a reward of up to 20% of the ‘recovered amount,” Justice Isa pointed out.
He further noted that a document dated August 20, 2018 that appointed Akbar as the SAPM did not disclose the terms of his appointment.
"The ARU is completely unrestrained and unaccountable, ironically at its head is the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant on Accountability. This has no parallel in any civilised country of the world. The fact that this was done without legislation, whilst bypassing the elected representatives of the people, subverts democracy and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” he added.
The judge maintained that the documents setting up the ARU took away a number of fundamental rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution. “Not a single one of the fundamental rights can be curtailed or abridged. The documents which purport to set up ARU are, as the Constitution says, void, that is literally blank spaces (Article 8 of the Constitution),” he added.
“The citizens of Pakistan are governed by laws and have rights, fundamental rights, which no one, not even Parliament, can take away. The federal cabinet does not have legislative power; it cannot change a single punctuation mark in a single law. Members of the federal cabinet take oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, not to subvert, violate and destroy it. Parliamentary democracy is a defining feature of the Constitution. To bypass Parliament and make ‘laws’ by executive diktat is a gross transgression of the Constitution."
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Supreme Court judge facing a presidential reference for not disclosing his family’s assets, turned the tables on the ruling party before the apex court by identifying key 'PTI leaders' who owned properties in the UK.
As a 10-judge full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, continued hearing the petitions against the reference on Tuesday, Justice Isa in a written statement informed the bench that Shahzad Akbar owned five properties in the UK, Imran Khan Niazi (six), Zulfiqar Bukhari (seven) and Usman Dar have three to his name.
"The petitioner does not say nor suggests, let alone allege, that the abovementioned gentlemen and lady are those public figures who are well-known in Pakistan. Assuming they are, the petitioner still does not allege that they illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws."
The judge clarified that he was “not saying or suggesting, let alone allege” that the people he had identified had illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws.
Former federal information minister Firdous Ashiq Awan and PTI stalwart Jahangir Tareen each owned a property there as well. In addition, the judge submitted before the court that former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf owned two properties in the UK.
Justice Isa submitted the statement in response to SAPM Akbar telling the court that he did not receive any salary or benefit as the head of the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU).
“Taking a cue from what is stated to have transpired in the case of the petitioner’s family, the search engine 192.com was used to search a few known public figures,” the statement read.
The judge clarified that was “not saying or suggesting, let alone allege” that the people he had identified had illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws.
“Before an allegation of non-compliance with income tax law is made, the Federal Board of Revenue must check its records [of these individuals] and consider how much taxable income was declared and income-tax paid and whether they had non-taxable income, such as from agricultural land, which the Constitution exempts from payment of income tax.”
'Govt ready to face consequences in Justice Isa case'
Justice Isa further stated that before making an allegation with regard to the illegal transfer of money abroad, the State Bank “must check to determine whether the said individuals had foreign exchange accounts and whether thorough their accounts money was remitted abroad, to exclude the possibility of it sent to the UK through Hawala, Hundi or by any other illegal means”.
“And, before making an allegation of money laundering the competent authority must first check if the said individuals had committed a crime and the properties were purchased from the proceeds of crime,” he added.
“Assuming that the said individuals had failed in respect of all or any one of the above, they would still be entitled to be asked and given the opportunity to provide an explanation. Without first seeking an explanation and without a shred of evidence an allegation must not be made that the spouses of the said individuals were the real owners of the properties. What surely should never be done is to call upon the said individuals to do the impossible – disprove that the allegation is not true."
On the PM’s aide claiming that he received no salary or benefit, the judge wondered as to “how he [Akbar] survives”.
SC propounds Centre initiate tax proceedings in Justice Isa case, follow 'due process'
"Is he [Akbar] his working wife and/or working children’s dependent? And did they also pay for the services of a renowned lawyer. Or does Mirza Shahzad Akbar make do with the money generated by the, ‘successful recovery including a reward of up to 20% of the ‘recovered amount,” Justice Isa pointed out.
He further noted that a document dated August 20, 2018 that appointed Akbar as the SAPM did not disclose the terms of his appointment.
"The ARU is completely unrestrained and unaccountable, ironically at its head is the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant on Accountability. This has no parallel in any civilised country of the world. The fact that this was done without legislation, whilst bypassing the elected representatives of the people, subverts democracy and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” he added.
The judge maintained that the documents setting up the ARU took away a number of fundamental rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution. “Not a single one of the fundamental rights can be curtailed or abridged. The documents which purport to set up ARU are, as the Constitution says, void, that is literally blank spaces (Article 8 of the Constitution),” he added.
“The citizens of Pakistan are governed by laws and have rights, fundamental rights, which no one, not even Parliament, can take away. The federal cabinet does not have legislative power; it cannot change a single punctuation mark in a single law. Members of the federal cabinet take oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, not to subvert, violate and destroy it. Parliamentary democracy is a defining feature of the Constitution. To bypass Parliament and make ‘laws’ by executive diktat is a gross transgression of the Constitution."