A report compiled by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) which pertains to Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa and his family’s financial matters will not be looked into by the top court, Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked on Friday.
Instead, the bench will leave it to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to decide what to do with the report.
The above was said during today’s hearing of a 10-member ‘full court’ bench, headed by Justice Bandial. Therein, the bench was overlooking a review petition filed by Justice Isa, who has challenged the top court’s decision on the presidential reference filed against him.
On the occasion, the government’s counsel, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman informed the bench that the SC had given its verdict on the case by taking into account all the facts and the law, as well as having heard out the judge in question.
“This review petition can therefore not be accepted merely on the assertion that the reference was not heard properly,” Rehman argued.
Citing Article 187 on the Constitution, Rehman explained the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, further stating that under the same article the apex court can issue in any case a verdict without having to listen to the defendant.
The AAG argued that the earlier bench’s decision to send the case to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) could therefore not be considered ‘incorrect’.
Rehman maintained that the court may issue any order through its powers.
“The information that the SJC has received cannot be declared illegal,” Rehman said, referring to the report compiled by the FBR on Justice Isa and family’s financial affairs on the orders of a smaller bench of the apex court.
He further claimed that Justice Isa’s lawyer himself had requested to send the case to the FBR.
At this point, Justice Ise interrupting the government counsel and said that the AAG was misrepresenting the facts, asserting that his lawyer had made no such claim.
Justice Isa, in indignation, asked if the AAG was at liberty to claim whatever he wished, to which Justice Manzoor Malik responded by asking the petitioner to sit down and allow the counsel to conclude his arguments.
“If the government lawyer gives arguments like these, we will be here the whole night,” Justice Isa complained.
Ignoring the repeated request to sit down, Justice Isa continued to criticise the government, saying that it had ruined two years of his family’s life. He also asked the bench what right this lawyer had to ruin any more of it.
“Qazi sahab, please let the argument proceed,” Justice Malik asked once again.
Justice Malik assured the petitioner that the court was well-acquainted with the court record. Justice Baqar reiterated the same.
“If someone says something [wrong], I cannot remain quiet,” Justice Isa said in response.
“The statements that the federal government lawyer is referring to are not part of the case record,” insisted Justice Isa, and went on to accuse Rehman of issuing statements “papers in his pocket”.
The AAG, defending himself, stated that his job was to present his arguments, and it was the court’s job to accept them, not Justice Isa’s.
“You keep giving your arguments, don’t start with your analysis,” Justice Malik snapped back at the AAG.
After this, the justice attempted to lighten the mood and complimented Justice Isa on his tie.
“[Justice] Qazi seems to be in a good mood today. Let’s keep it that way,” Justice Malik said.
Justice Maqbool Baqar once again backed up his fellow bench member and said AAG Amir Rehman was a man of calm demeanour.
As the proceedings resumed, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that he had some questions for the government lawyer.
“The reference that the federal government filed has been declared illegal,” noted Justice Shah. He wondered if that did not also mean that the federal government’s case had ended.
“Tell us, then: what is your role in this case?” asked Justice Shah.
AAG responded to the judge’s query on the role of a federal representative by stating that a lawyer must follow the instructions of his client. Justice Isa interjected and stated that he had accepted this fact and asked the court to move on.
However, Justice Bandial reminded the petitioner that the “arguments are for the court, not for your personal satisfaction”.
Justice Malik therein advised Justice Isa to continue reading the Quran, which he had been reading during the hearing. He added that the amount of time Justice Isa wasted intervening could have allowed the AAG to finish his arguments.
AAG Rehman, once more attempting to continue his arguments, reminded the court that the FBR has already sent its report to the SJC.
However, the SC itself “has not given any direction to the SJC”, he explained.
He added that since the report was already submitted, the present case could be considered merely an ‘academic’ one.
“And this court usually is at ease over questions that are of an academic nature,” recalled the AAG.
AAG Rehman also stated that even if the SC’s verdict on the presidential ordinance was withdrawn, the SJC would still have the right to investigate based on the report.
At this, Justice Munib Akhtar inquired that, if the review petition is accepted, would it come into effect from today or from June 2020, wherein it was originally issued. Moreover, he informed that should the court elect to retract its previous decision, all actions taken as a result of that decision will also be deemed null and void.
“The facts remain facts — they cannot be eliminated,” Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked at the judge’s observation.
He recalled that a case of a similar nature had come before the apex court 11 years ago.
“In that case as well, the arguments had proceeded with patience. Keep in mind that we have to make a decision based on the principles of justice,” said Justice Bandial.
After making his observation, Justice Bandial maintained that the court would not concern itself with the FBR report.
Moving on, the SC judge recalled that the bench had asked three questions from Justice Isa. However, Justice Isa had argued that the questions were posed on the basis of the aforementioned and prima facie controversial report, he added.
Ergo, Justice Bandial once more clarified that the bench was not looking at the FBR report in the case.
At this, AAG Amir Rehman reiterated his previous statement of the SJC maintaining the right to seek the information.
“[Nonetheless,] the FBR report cannot be central for us,” Justice Bandial said. He added that the SJC can instead review the facts under which the FBR report was formed.
“The nature of this case is very different,” remarked Justice Bandial.
At this, the bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday and directed AAG Amir Rehman to complete his arguments in the next hearing.
