Who is complainant of reference against Justice Faez Isa

ISLAMABAD: Who is Abdul Waheed Dogar — the man who filed complaint against Supreme Court (SC) Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice KK Agha of Sindh High Court? Finally the mystery has been solved and the complainant against two judges of superior court is the same person who filed ‘Larki ke Bhai’ famed fake news story against journalist Ahmad Noorani after October 27, 2017 attack on him.

Mr Dogar used to work for an Islamabad based news agency until recently. According to the copies of the references against two honourable judges available with The News, he filed a complaintwith the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) of the Prime Minister Office on April 10, 2019 and on the basis of this complaint the reference was sent to Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The complaint was filed ten weeks after the apex court announced judgement in Faizabad sit-in case. While talking to The News, Abdul Waheed Dogar confirmed that it was him who filed the complaint against the judges after getting some information from his ‘sources’.

It was Dogar who reported a story against journalist Ahmad Noorani after he was attacked near Aabpara, Islamabad on October 2017 and was seriously injured with multiple head injuries. Noorani had survived. Simply four days after the attack, on October 31, 2017, Mr Dogar filed a story in a local Urdu newspaper that Noorani was attacked because of his affair with a girl. The story was without any details of the girl or the attackers and got popular on social media as “Larki kay Bhai” story. The investigations into the case of attack on Ahmad Noorani are yet not completed because of the non-cooperation in the geo-fencing of the incident. The story of Mr Dogar worked and whole attention was diverted from finding out the culprit behind such a terrible attack on a journalist in the capital of the country to the “Larki kay Bhai” story at that point of time. Later when the dust settled and the said local newspaper was asked for the evidence, Mr Dogar as well as his organisation apologised to Ahmad Noorani and published an apology on December 8, 2017.

Now that The News contacted Abdul Waheed Dogar and asked him as to why he didn’t file a story and preferred moving an application against the judges, he said that he got information from his sources and as the publication of the story was not possible so he considered it appropriate to move an application with the ARU.

He said, “Many investigative reporters have become party in many cases and filed applications in courts. I am not the first to become party in a case. As a citizen of Pakistan, I want rule of law and constitution in Pakistan. If the money was sent abroad through legal channel for purchasing these properties then it should be proved”.

Mr Dogar said that he filed the application against the judges along with the evidence. Though Mr Dogar wasn’t asked to reveal his sources still he volunteered to add the he could not reveal his ‘sources’.

When asked that The News is also conducting different probes about assets of the politicians abroad, especially in UK, and obtaining documents from different government departments there, as to how he managed to retrieve the property documents, Mr Dogar was clueless from which organisation in UK he obtained these documents.

Regarding the question about “Larki kay Bhai” story against journalist Ahmad Noorani, Mr Dogar said that he was informed by a policeman deputed on a check-post on Kashmir Highway. “Later I confirmed the information and filed the story,” he said. When asked which information he confirmed, Dogar replied that the policeman told him that Noorani was attacked by two motorcyclists and a car while Noorani stated that he was attacked by men riding on two motorcyclists. “As to why Noorani didn’t mention the car,” Dogar said. Asked whether only this was the proof with him that the girl story was true, Mr Dogar replied that it was important as to why the car of attackers was not disclosed in the statements.

Mr Dogar said that he will not comment on the reference against the third judge and will not further comment on the reference against these two judges.