Reference against judge: Complainant was launched against client: counsel

Munir A Malik, the counsel for Justice Qazi Faez Isa, told the apex court that the authorities had all information, while the complainant Waheed Dogar was "launched" to justify collecting further material against his client.

Malik contended that the complainant was 'too bit proxy' who was needed to justify further collection of evidence. He claimed that the complaint was supplemented by the authorities.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah noted that Dogar provided the name of only one property, but the other two properties were made known later on. It means surveillance was done, he added.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heading a 10-member Full Court on Wednesday, asked Justice Isa's counsel as there is no direct evidence that intelligence agencies surveilled the petitioner and his family, so don't mention them. Malik said certain record was collected within the country and some information came from England, while the complaint provided information of one property.

The bench was hearing identical petitions challenging the Presidential Reference against Justice Qazi Faez for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in wealth statements. Besides the apex court judge, Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar Councils & Association of Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan and Abid Hassan Minto and IA Rehman have also challenged the Presidential Reference.

Malik argued that the apex court judgement in the Faizabad sit-in case is the basis of reference against Justice Qazi Faez. Justice Bandial said that review petitions were filed by the MQM, PTI and Ministry of Defence against the Faizabad judgment. The review petition, particularly of Ministry of Defence, has nothing to do with the judgment. He remarked that the important question before the bench is whether to carry forward the reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez or stop it here.

Malik contended that the 'Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013' provides for investigation for collection of evidence by means of modern techniques and devices to prevent and effectively deal with scheduled offences, mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Act and for any other purpose.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that it means the evidence collected through surveillance shall only be related to the anti-state activity or terrorist activities and not for any other activity. "No covert surveillance other than terrorist activities is allowed."

Malik replied in the affirmative and said surveillance is permissible only in relation to five activities given in the Schedule 1 of the Act. According to it the offences are under the Private Military Organization Abolition and Prohibition Act, 1974; the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974; the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2001; and the National Command Authority Act, 2010 to the extent of terrorist activities.

He said the complainant Dogar's original complaint that contained the annexure was sent to Chairman Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) Shehzad Akbar, who took it to the Law Minister Farogh Naseem. Justice Mazhar noted as the federation did not provide the documents that are annexed with the complaint therefore it could be said they do not exist. Malik argued that the complaint was treated with so much importance that somehow the ARU and the law minister who knew about the petitioner's wife's properties in the UK used it for conducting a trial. The case was adjourned until Dec 16.