ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Friday requested the Supreme Court to broadcast live on television the hearing of the review petitions filed in the presidential reference.
The judge filed some additional grounds in the review petition after the 10-member full court issued detailed reasons on June 19, 2020 in the presidential reference filed against him for allegedly not disclosing foreign properties of his spouse and children in the tax returns.
Justice Faez Isa submitted that the official respondents disclosed confidential matters affecting the petitioner and his family, thenhad them broadcast/published, then carried out a relentless propaganda campaign against them and prohibited the media/press from broadcasting and publishing his and his family’s version. He prayed that Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Yahya Afridi must not be excluded from the hearing of the Review Application No. 296/2020, the instant application, CMA Nos. 3263, 3317, 3512, 3549 of 2020 and CMA No. 7931/2019.
The judge further prayed the apex court to review and recall paragraphs 2 to 11 and 15 from the order dated June 19 and Justice Yahya Afridi be pleased to allow his petition.
“Alternatively, review and recall the said order and its detailed reasons and to relist the petition to hear its phase-II and then to decide it; hear and allow CMA Nos. 3317 and 3549 of 2020; hear and decide CMA No. 7931 of 2019 in respect of Reference 427.”
He further prayed the apex court to hear and decide CMA Nos. 3263 and 3512 of 2020 in respect of ARU and its chairman as malice in fact is conclusively established from the record to pass appropriate orders against the official respondents; and or pass any other, better and or further order.
Justice Faez Isa contended that Prime Minister Imran Khan, who advised the president to submit the reference against him, admittedly owned a property in London and so too his two former wives and his children of whom Imran Khan adamantly refuses to make disclosure; the petitioner doesn’t even know their names, but Imran Khan assiduously found out the names of the petitioner’s children.
Justice Faez Isa submitted that many distinguished members of Imran Khan’s government own foreign properties, but he does not know whether they disclose them in their Pakistani tax returns or even if they file such returns because a cloak of secrecy has been cast by Imran Khan on all those in his government.
Justice Faez Isa further contended that members of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government included Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari, Yar Muhammad Rind, Nadeem Babar, Shahbaz Gill and others. Similarly, the judge said that Faisal Vawda and Usman Dar are also members of Imran Khan government.
Justice Faez Isa submitted that Zulfiaqar Abbas Bukhari has property/Flat at 45 Willington Road London while Yar Muhammad Rind has a property in International City, Dubai while Nadeem Babar possesses a house in Houston, United States, while Shahbaz Gill has also a house in US.
Justice Faez Isa further contended that Faisal Vawda has nine properties abroad including seven in Malaysia and one in Dubai. Usman Dar has a property in Birmingham, UK, Justice Faez Isa said. Justice Faez Isa further contended that he was targeted because he had authored the judgment in the Faizabad Dharna case and in this regard had referred to the review applications filed by the PTI and MQM in which it was clearly and categorically stated that the petitioner had committed misconduct and that he was not fit to be or remain as a Judge, which was malice of fact.
Supreme Court cannot exercise FBR’s powers or discretion:
Justice Faez Isa submitted that Supreme Court cannot exercise FBR’s powers or discretion. He said that the ordinance prescribes the powers vesting in different officers and their mode and manner in which these should be exercised. The ordinance does not grant power to the Supreme Court to direct the FBR to whom to issue notices, let alone issue them to particular individuals. He said the Supreme Court can also neither change nor direct the FBR to change the methodology stipulated in the ordinance.
The said order and its detailed reasons, with utmost respect, has undermined the independent status of FBR, has also curtailed its independence, and placed the officers of the FBR in an impossible position; despite being fully satisfied with the filings of the petitioner’s wife they are now required to act contrary to law and their conscience and issue notices. In directing that notices be issued to the petitioner’s family was done by assuming executive powers and functions, which, with utmost respect, could not be done.
“It is respectfully submitted that the said order and its detailed reasons did not consider that the provisions of the ordinance were being violated, which is an error of law floating on the record and one meriting review of the said order and its detailed reasons and their recall,” Justice Faez Isa submitted.
Violation of fundamental rights:
Justice Faez Isa submitted that this is court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution can pass an order for the ‘enforcement of any of the fundamental rights’ but not one in negation thereof.
“It is most respectfully submitted that the said order and its detailed reasons negate the fundamental right enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees, that, “For the determination of his civil rights and obligations–a person shall be entitled to … due process.” Another fundamental right which has been undermined is Article 24(1) which mandates, that, “No person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law,” Justice Faez Isa contended.
Secrecy, public disclosure and public’s right to know the truth:
The judge submitted that he and his wife have been compelled to act openly and in full public view. However, the contesting respondents want public disclosure only to the extent that they can lie, propagate the lies and control the narrative through a controlled media. Secrecy with regard to references is mandated.
The judge said that he had requested the council in writing to make public disclosure of his filings but the council did not do so, but immediately uploaded on the Supreme Court’s official website the order dated August 19, 2019, which had castigated him.