Govt wants subservient judiciary, says Faez Isa – Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Judge Qazi Faez Isa has informed the Supreme Court that the federal government has resorted to shameless lies and shameless inventions to defame and scandalize a judge of a higher court accusing him of owning "benami" property abroad when the reference in against him does not contain such allegations

The government team first painted a target on the petitioner's back, but when it did not work, they crouched down to attack their family and exposed them to danger, said the reply presented by the petitioner judge in response to the government's accusations, and added That this was demonstrable fact that shows malice, bad faith, hidden motives and victimization.

The objective of the government team was to guarantee the subordination of the judges, in case the judges and their families were put under surveillance, information about their families would be gathered illegally to defame them and victimize them and expose them to danger, he claimed.

By creating such an environment through deception, cunning and dominance, the government team was trying to destroy the independence of the judiciary, feared the reply.

The petitioner judge said he was not required to declare the income or assets or the money trail of his wife and independent children, since Pakistani law did not combine the identities of the different family members simply because of their kinship.

The replica files in response to the accusations since SC is ready to take requests against references today

A bank of the full court of the apex court will resume hearing a set of petitions against the presidential reference starting Monday (today).

Written by his lawyer Muneer A. Malik, the petitioner judge provided two replies to refute the accusations made by the federal government in his response and those on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Council.

Benami's law established a series of tests to establish the property of benami, but in the present case not even a single component was met, the rejoinder said. There was not a hint of evidence to prove that the petitioner judge had paid for the purchase, much less established. There was never any reason why the petitioner judge would resort to buying property on behalf of his wife and adult children, the reply questioned.

If the petitioner judge and his wife's income tax returns could be shown publicly, then the government / FBR had no immunity to keep the income tax returns and the prime minister's wealth declarations hidden, the reply noted, also alleging that the prime minister was seeking immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution despite knowing that the tax returns and declarations of assets of any person cannot be hidden under the mantle of constitutional immunity.

In addition, the federal government embarked on an itinerant expedition to obtain the petitioner's income tax returns to determine his income over the years and the adequacy of the money (white) paid by the taxes to buy these properties, but presumably found no discrepancies. Nor was it mentioned that after the purchase of the properties, the petitioner received some rent, explained the rejoinder, and added that, in other words, the federation did not even have a grape leaf from a Benami case against him.

The information that forms the basis of the reference, said the rejoinder, was collected through covert surveillance by different government agencies and subsequently a substitute claimant was established and the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) conducted a mock investigation to legitimize it. .

Neither the ARU nor its president had constitutional authority to receive a complaint of misconduct against judges of higher courts, emphasized the rejoinder, nor did they have constitutional authority to conduct any investigation, verification or collection of material. The ARU and its president did not have legal authority to initiate the investigation or scrutiny of any person (much less a judge of the Supreme Court), nor could they order any agency or department to share confidential information about the petitioner or his family, he argued. The replica. .

It was admitted that neither the president, nor the prime minister or the cabinet had authorized the collection or verification of material in relation to the reference against the petitioner, the rejoinder said.

The petitioner judge explained that the presentation of a reference against a judge was an executive function and that the cabinet should exercise it collectively. The opinion and actions of the president under Article 209 should be formed and exercised according to the cabinet council under Article 48 of the Constitution. But in the present case the same thing was not admitted, said the rejoinder.

In addition, the president had to perform such functions after the application of his own independent mind, since the simple and unique advice of the prime minister was insufficient, said the rejoinder.

The rejoinder alleged that the petitioner judge could not be obliged to provide information on the properties of independent property of his wife and children, particularly when his wife and adult children were not his dependents and conducted their own affairs independently.

The fact that the owners of the properties did not ask anything confirmed that they were satisfied with their financial matters, but was attacked for obvious reasons in bad faith with the further planned purpose of removing it, Judge Isa observed.

The rejoinder recalled that the Attorney General was the head of a constitutional office, but unfortunately the AG voluntarily assumed (in its own response filed with the SJC) the role of prosecutor and prosecutor of the petitioner judge. It was unfortunate that the SJC, however, considered it appropriate to be represented in the current petition through it, the rejoinder added.

On the sources of income of his family members, the petitioner judge explained that in 2013 his daughter and son were married and working. Her daughter worked at a law firm in the United Kingdom, while her husband also worked as a lawyer. Similarly, his son worked at a real estate agency and also worked as an independent contractor, while his wife was an analyst at a private equity firm, said the rejoinder.

While none of this was denied by the federation, it still claimed that the petitioner's children did not have an independent source of income, the petitioner judge added. What was propagated by the Nazis Joseph Goebbels who – repeats a lie often enough and becomes true – was the same tactic used against the petitioner, the rejoinder claimed.

Posted on Dawn, October 14, 2019



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here