ISLAMABAD, Sept 13: Attorney General Irfan Qadir challenged on Thursday a notice issued to him by the Supreme Court in the Dr Arsalan Iftikhar case and said it was devoid of logical, legal or factual basis and did not clarify the exact allegations to be answered.

Appointing Federal Tax Ombudsman Dr Shoaib Suddle as a one-man commission to investigate allegations of a Rs342 million business deal between Dr Arsalan and property tycoon Malik Riaz, the court had on Aug 30 ordered its office to issue a notice to the attorney general on apprehensions that he did not act fairly and impartially during the proceedings.

In his reply submitted to the court registrar through his secretary Sohail Qadeer Siddiqui, the attorney general said he had done nothing wrong nor exceeded the mandate given to him by the court during the hearing of the case.

He said he was surprised by the name of Dr Suddle popping up in the minds of the judges. “How is it that the judges appointed him without any discussion? Did they not know (having themselves been invited to and having attended Dr Arsalan’s wedding recently) that Suddle too attended the functions hosted by the chief justice? Did they bother to inquire from Suddle whether he had not invited the chief justice to his son’s wedding which the chief justice attended?”

In these circumstances, Mr Qadir asked, was it fair and impartial to appoint Dr Suddle as the inquiry commission.

He said he firmly believed that his conduct during the hearing of the case was befitting the position of the attorney general because he had saved the chief justice from continuing to commit misconduct in violation of the code of conduct and also endeavoured to save the other two judges from continuing to aid the chief justice in commission of misconduct.

He said he had not taken sides and remained quiet almost throughout the proceedings except when his view on legal aspects was sought by the court itself and never expressed the desire to set the machinery of law in motion. Such a direction was issued by the court on its own and the AG had no role whatsoever in the issuance of such a direction, the reply said.

It said the AG had committed no act wherefrom even the remotest inference could be drawn that he had favoured Malik Riaz, whereas he was on record to have told the court that even Dr Arsalan was entitled to fair trial.

Mr Qadir said there was no conflict of interest as regards his duties since he was merely providing assistance to the court on questions of law and in this capacity he was not representing any party or conflicting interest.

As per AG’s understanding of law, the reply said, there was no dispute even today that the National Accountability Bureau was the only appropriate investigating agency under the law. Otherwise, the court would have referred the matter to an alternative agency.

The AG was also apprehensive that the chief justice by continuing to be part of the bench initially after taking suo motu proceedings in the matter might want to set a precedent of punishing his own son while impressing upon the people that he was following Caliph Umer.

“Neither the chief justice could equate himself with Caliph Umer nor was there any code of conduct at that time. It is pertinent to emphasise that had there been a constitution or code of conduct, Caliph Umer would not have deviated an inch from it,” the reply said.