Core issue in case against Justice Isa is pressuring judges of superior judiciary, counsel tells SC – Pakistan

The Supreme Court on Monday resumed the hearing of petitions that question the presidential reference against Judge Qazi Faez Isa.

Judge Umar Ata Bandial headed the entire court composed of 10 SC judges. Judge Isa has already submitted two replies to refute the accusations made by the federal government in its response and those on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Council (CSJ).

At the beginning of the hearing, a lawyer raised an objection about the presence of Judge Bandial, saying that the SJC had submitted a reference against him that is still pending, so Bandial should refrain from the hearing. The judge responded that the SJC will decide that reference.

Meanwhile, Judge Sajjad Ali Shah rebuked the lawyer for his behavior and tone while Judge Maqbool Baqir asked him to leave the rostrum, but the lawyer refused to do so, challenging the bank for accusing him of contempt of court. Then, the bank summoned the president of the SC Bar Association, who withdrew the lawyer from the gallery.

The lawyer Munir A. Malik, Judge Isa's lawyer, argued in court that his client had not accused any judge of discrimination or personal resentment. He said that Judge Isa has no objections to the full court or the judges who were challenged.

Judge Bandial reminded him that the bank had already rejected the objections about the member judges.

"The central issue in the case is to pressure the judges of the higher judiciary," the lawyer continued.

Read: Government wants subordinate judiciary, says Faez Isa

Speaking about the issues discussed in the references, the lawyer said that Judge Isa's wife had bought the first floor in 2004, while the petitioner became a judge after five years. His assets were verified when he swore as a judge, the lawyer said. The second and third floors were bought in 2013 by the offspring of Judge Isa, he said, adding that in 2013 the judge was performing his duties as the then president of the Supreme Court of Balochistan.

The reference presented against Judge Isa alleges that he acquired three properties in London for rent on behalf of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015, but did not disclose them in declarations of wealth.

Lawyer Malik challenged that claim, saying that Judge Isa was not a beneficial owner of the apartments, neither direct nor indirect.

The lawyer continued that there was no complaint of corruption and dishonesty. Both Judge Isa and President Arif Alvi hold constitutional charges, he said, expressing hope that the two will take charge of the decorum of their charges.

Lawyer Malik, however, noted that his client had reservations about the expenses of some people who enjoyed high constitutional charges.

"No one, including Judge Isa, is above the law," he said, adding that the way the SJC had taken action would also be exposed.

Malik said that since May 28 a campaign of character murder has been carried out against Judge Isa, who is supposed to be the president of the court in the future.

"The lawyers' action committee and the asset recovery commission also talk about the referral. The president and the prime minister's special assistant on information also talked about the presidential referral." [But] Judge Isa now has the opportunity to defend himself in court, "he said.

The lawyer recalled that Judge Isa's father was a close friend of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

"The law firm of Justice Isa was the main contributor. In 2009, Justice Isa's annual income was Rs36 million; when he became a judge, his annual salary was equivalent to his monthly income."

Speaking about the background of the presidential reference against Judge Isa, lawyer Malik said that both the Tehreek-i-Insaf of Pakistan and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement had filed applications against Judge Isa following the verdict of the Faizabad case, issued in February. 26)

He added that both parties are allies in the center and both had raised the same type of questions in their respective requests. Prime Minister Imran Khan belongs to the PTI while the law minister (Farogh Naseem) belongs to the MQM, he said. The federal government initiated the referral through the ministry of law.

Judge Faisal Arab said it appeared that both sides had exchanged drafts before submitting the petitions and used the same computers.

Judge Mansoor Ali Shah said the same source was used in both applications. He raised a question about the gap between the verdict on the sitting in Faizabad and the reference against Judge Isa.

Attorney Munir said the court received a request from Waheed Dogar on April 10, while Faizabad's case was resolved on February 26.

He added that a two-member bank, consisting of Judge Isa and Judge Musheer Alam, had heard the Faizabad case, and added that Judge Isa in his verdict had referred to the massacre of lawyers during the mandate of [former dictator] Pervez Musharraf. "Judge Isa also revealed the participation of intelligence agencies in the Faizabad sit-in," he said, pointing out the reasons behind the reference.

The court postponed the hearing until tomorrow after lawyer Munir said he was not feeling well.

Earlier, in his reply to the government's response to his request, Judge Isa had informed the superior court that the federal government had resorted to shameless lies and shameless inventions to defame and shock a judge of a higher court accusing him of owning property. " come to me". abroad when the reference against him does not contain such accusations.

The petitioner judge had argued that he had no obligation to declare the income, assets or trace of money of his wife and independent children, since Pakistani law did not combine the identities of the different family members simply because of their kinship. He also raised objections about the role of the attorney general, who according to the judge was exceeding his role.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here