Properties owned by judge's family: Info obtained by ignoring due legal process: counsel

The Supreme Court was told on Tuesday that information pertaining to the properties owned by Justice Qazi Faez Isa's family in the UK was obtained through surveillance while completely ignoring the due legal process. A 10-mebember bench headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial resumed the hearing of a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa.

Muneer A Malik, the counsel for Justice Isa, said the information was gathered without getting approval from the concerned lawful authorities and then it was passed on to the complainant. He questioned the credibility of the complainant - Waheed Dogar - and contended that the complainant had first written to the government's Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) alleging that the judge owned property abroad that had not been disclosed in his (Justice Isa's) asset statements.

The complaint had culminated in the government's reference against Justice Isa. Malik questioned how legal proceedings could be launched against a judge on the basis of the complaint filed by Dogar. He argued that there are certain safeguards in the law regarding investigations against judges, adding the complaints were received, evidence was collected and references were filed on different occasions.

"You want to say the investigation against the judge was initiated without completing the legal due process," asked Justice Maqbool Baqar, a member of the bench. To this, the counsel said that Dogar had written to ARU in April soon after Justice Isa issued his verdict in a case pertaining to the Faizabad sit-in. "The letter [written by Dogar] does not have a phone number or address and there is no mention of any property owned by Justice Qazi Faez Isa," he pointed out.

"What is the Asset Recovery Unit and why is it in the Prime Minister's Secretariat?" asked Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, another member of the bench. "Can you tell the court about the legal status of the Assets Recovery Unit?" Justice Baqar inquired. Malik only offered that "there is no civil servant in the ARU."

"According to you, the investigation against Justice Isa started because of the Assets Recovery Unit," Justice Baqar asked. Malik said that ARU, after receiving the complaint, had written to the law minister on May 10 asking for his position on the matter. He said that ARU officials had also met with Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) officials the same day. During that meeting, the name of Justice Isa's wife and her Spanish nationality had surfaced for the first time, Malik said.

"Her name came up because of a visa request," Justice Bandial noted. "Justice Qazi Faez Isa's wife had been granted a five-year visa." "But how did Dogar know her name?" Malik argued. Malik insisted that the identities of Justice Isa's wife and son had been brought forth for the first time after Dogar's letter.

The lawyer also questioned the solidity of Dogar's accusation against the judge. "Dogar obtained the documents [provided as evidence against Justice Isa] after an online search for London properties," the lawyer claimed. "Can you take data from London's land authority online?" Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wondered.

"You can find out about plots but you cannot find out the [names of] owners," Malik responded. "The question is how information regarding the property was gathered," Justice Bandial said, to which Malik said: "The information was gathered by stalking the petitioner and his family." "Do you want to say that the FIA and FBR had provided all the information to Dogar?" Justice Bandial asked.

Malik said Dogar had also informed the ARU about Justice KK Agha's dual nationality and the property owned by the judge, but failed to provide any documentary evidence. The lawyer argued that Dogar seemed to be a 'fake' appellant. "Are you saying that Dogar is a proxy for another complainant? The logic is not understandable," Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked.

"Dogar is not a trustworthy man, I am telling you this about his credibility," Malik responded. Justice Bandial asked if Justice Isa had ever given money to his wife as a gift. "I can let you know after confirming this," Malik said. "We will have the answer to that question," Justice Bandial said. The court subsequently issued notices to the respondents of the fresh constitutional petitions filed against the Supreme Judicial Council's proceedings in the matter. The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday (today).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019