SC asks who gave ‘false legal advice’ to approve Isa reference

By News Desk

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked who had given “false legal advice” to the President and the Prime Minister to approve a reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa over alleged non-disclosure of assets as it adjourned the hearing of the case until Monday (June 8).

A 10-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and also consisting of Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case regarding the proceedings of Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Isa.

The reference that was filed against Justice Isa alleges that he acquired three properties in London on lease in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015, but he did not disclose them in wealth returns.

During the course of the proceedings, Justice Muneeb Akhtar observed who had given a “false legal advice” to the President and the Prime Minister to approve the reference against the Supreme Court judge.

Justice Akhtar observed that the federal government had alleged three offences in its reference, violation of laws pertaining to taxation and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and money laundering.

Since the Money Laundering Act did not apply from 2013, that allegation went out of the window, he added. He noted that both the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act amendments and the law pertaining to money laundering were promulgated after 2015. Instead of referring the matter to tax authorities, the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) made a “serious error” in the case, he remarked.

He asked the government’s counsel, Farogh Naseem, to read out the recent judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court on privacy. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said the court had earlier inquired that how many public office holders had faced the same legal action.

To which, Naseem said he had noted the question. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the government’s counsel had also failed to explain how the ARU acquired the authority to question a judge.

Justice Bandial pointed out that the case did not engage action under the 209 Article of the SJC in case of defaulting tax worth Rs10,000. Naseem responded that it was right, but the Supreme Judicial Council had issued a show-cause notice. The federal government only forwarded the verified information to the SJC to run the inquiry. The hearing was then adjourned to Monday.