By Khalid Hussain
The government acted in violation of the principle of the separation of the executive and judiciary and carried out surveillance of and investigations against Justice Qazi Faez Isa without due authorization, alleged his counsel Munir A. Malik resuming his arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
A 10-member full bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial is hearing top court judge Qazi Faez Isa’s petition regarding presidential reference instituted against him.
Taking the government version head on, Malik said there was no way for the complainant Abdul Waheed Dogar to access ownership information. This makes the presidential reference against Justice Isa in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) fractious.
The Reference posits it was filed upon Dogar’s complaint in Prime Minister’s Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) on April 10, 2019 that provided information that Justice Isa possessed properties abroad. “The complainant could not even spell the name of Justice Isa’s spouse correctly in his complain”, he said. He argued there were no documents attached with the complaint to substantiate the allegations and the London Land Registry copy was dated October 05, 2019 which means it was a subsequent discovery.
“Not even Barrister Zia-ul-Mustafa Nadeem advising the Federal Investigations Agency (FIA) for its above dated report was aware of the existence of any documentary evidence prior to that date.”
Responding to a member of the bench Justice Munib Akhtar counsel Munir A. Malik submitted that a person who did not even know the Spanish name of Justice Isa’s spouse, could not have accessed ownership information of London properties from Her Majecty’s Land Registry.
He alleged the FIA carried out illegal investigations against his client. This prompted Justice Umar Ata Bandial to ask if a Judge of the Supreme Court can be investigated? “No my lord”, said Malik adding it can only be done under Article 209 following due process.
“They are collecting evidence against a judge of the supreme court on a complaint without authorization”, he maintained. He said, “this is in violation of the principle of separation of the executive and the judiciary.”
“The President and the SJC are the only two opinion makers”, Malik stressed. Justice Raza Baqir inquired if he really mean to say that an investigation was started without authorization?
“Absolutely my lord”, Malik exclaimed in response. And not only that, he said adding, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and the FIA allowed the complainant to access information to help him file his complaint. “How else did the complainant learnt the contents of the confidential wealth statement of Justice Isa?”
He posited that the property documents submitted by the Asset Recovery Unit (ASU) of the Prime Minister (PM) were subsequent discovery which makes the complainant complicit in a coordinated campaign that has been underway since Justice Isa wrote his judgment in the Faizabad suo moto case.
It is also pertinent to recall the February 2019 judgment on the Faizabad dharna by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) highlighted the unconstitutional actions and inactions of the government and the armed forces. It condemned the army and the role of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) flagging perceptions the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was interfering in political affairs. The present ISI Director General Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed was prominent in the events and was filmed distributing envelopes containing cash among the dharna participants.
Munir argued that complainant Mr. Dogar claimed he got his information online. However, there was no way the complainant could have accessed London Land Registry information online when he did not even know the name of Justice Isa’s spouse.
Another member of the bench Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired, “can you go online and find details of properties owned by a person?” Malik replied with an emphatically, “No my lord. Unless I am a state agency duly authorized to access the HM Land Registry or make an application for the purpose”.
“So the question is how did they access the ownership information? You follow the judge and his wife and the children and see where they go to find out the addresses. “If I know the address then it is possible to search for the name of the owners online”, he said.
Malik also said googling the complainant Mr. Dogar throws up some strange facts. He is a journalist based in Islamabad who did a story contradicting the version of a New York Times story in 2017. Ahmand Noorani is known for his strong criticism of the army and the ISI and the persons attacking him beat him up with iron knuckles, knives and iron chains. “Dogar’s version took over the social media with the title “Larki Kay Bhai” holding that Noorani was beaten up by the brothers of a girl he had an affair with. The story was later retracted and the Urdu newspaper published an apology in October 2017 as the story was found baseless.
Dogar refused to disclose his sources when he was interviewed by daily The News. “Mr. Dogar was also clueless from which organization in London he got his information on Justice Isa”, Malik added.
Justice Qazi Ameen Ahmad asked if Mr. Noorani named his attackers? Malik said he does not know if he did.
Justice Maqbool Baqir asked counsel Malik to “show us some connection”. Malik replied that Mr. Dogar was fed the information. Upon this Justice Baqir inquired “you mean the credibility of Mr. Dogar is doubtful?”
Before Malik could reply, Justice Umar Ata Bandial inquired pointing at a dark complexioned young man standing next to the rostrum, “who is this man?” “I am Abdul Waheed Dogar”, he introduced himself.
The judge ordered him to leave the rostrum upon which he started to leave the court room but Justice Bandial asked him seated in the court.
Resuming his arguments Munir A. Malik said the only way to search the identities of the owners was if you knew the addresses. HM Land Registry provides that service to facilitate people desiring to buy properties and wishing to inquire who owns those and when was the last time the property was sold and at what value. That is how they searched the information who owns these properties because they tailed Justice Isa and his family members to learn the addresses, he alleged.
This prompted Justice Yahya Afridi to ask, “they could not have known who these properties belonged to if they did not have the addresses?” Munir replied, “Yes my lord”.
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asked, “so property can only be searched by address?” Malik replied in the affirmative. Justice Maqbool Baqir observed, “according to him he accessed the information online. You say he could not have done so. He did not have the address, according to you. So he could not have searched the properties himself.” Upon this Justice Faisal Arab ventured, “the protocol officer and the High Commission knows the address when the judge travels to the UK.”
Malik said the reference was based upon the complaint by Mr. Dogar and forms a part as attachment two. However, no documents were attached to his complaint. “We have requested the Federation for a copy of the documents Mr. Dogar supplied with his complaint but so far these have not been provided to us.” The cross verification of these documents also form attachment four to the President’s reference to the SJC.
Justice Bandial inquired if Justice Isa transferred any moneys to his wife? Malik replied he has no information on that.
Upon which Justice Bandial asked him to find out and supply the information tomorrow. Justice Bandial also asked if the wealth statements of the higher judiciary can be accessed by the executive? Malik said his co-counsel will make detailed submission on this.
The full bench ordered issuance of notices in three new pleas in the matter concerned with those in front of it. Then the bench adjourned hearing of the matter till October 15,2019 (Wednesday).
