Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Anwar Mansoor Khan on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s spouse and children own expensive properties in United Kingdom, which were purchased in the year 2004 and 2013 and at the time when they had no independent source of income of their own, a private TV channel reported.
“The inescapable conclusion which follows is that the properties are benami and that Justice Qazi Faez Isa is the ostensible owner,” he maintained in a reply submitted in the Supreme Court regarding presidential reference against the apex court judge. He said the reference on
ly directs the Supreme Judicial Council about the inquiry into whether the conduct of the
petitioner in owning those properties, though ostensibly, is free from financial impropriety. “The simple and straight forward answer to this query before the council, comprising of
petitioner’s own peers, would have be
en to disclose the source of funds, employed to purchase the properties and the mode and manner of acquisition of foreign exchange and its transfer to the UK,”
; the reply stated, adding that the
petitioner (Justice Qazi Faez Isa), instead of providing the simple answers to the council, took a very evasive stand and started vilifying and castigating the complainant. “Admittedly the information provided by the complaint is true and indeed admitted by the
petitioner, therefore, instead of assassinating the character of the complainant, the
petitioner should have come forward with the truth, ie, source of funds, acquisition of foreign exchange and its transfer to the UK for the purchase of properties,” it added.
“As a Judge,
we all expect a very high standard of rectitude, probity and honesty of behaviour from the learned Petitioner Judge,”
; the reply said. “However, by not providing the simple answers regarding funds employed for the purchase of three properties in UK, the
petitioner by his conduct has dis-entitled himself to claim any equitable relief from this court,” it added. The AGP denied all allegations, insinuations, aspersions, put forth by Justice Isa and the country’s bar associations and councils alleging the presidential references were filed out of mala fide intent and for ulterior motives.
The government stressed that the mere filing of a reference by President Arif Alvi cannot be visualised as a threat to the independence of the judiciary. “There is no shred of evidence to establish that any of the constitutional functionary has acted with slightest of malafide.” According to the government, the president deliberately omitted the names of Justice Isa’s spouse and childr
en to keep them out of the controversy. Citing Article 248 of the constitution, the government argued that the president and prime minister of the country have immunity and are not answerable to any court, including the SC, for acts done in exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices. The reply also stressed that Article 48(4) of the constitution states that advice tendered to the president by the prime minister shall not be inquired into by any court.
