Details of ‘properties’ gathered through surveillance: Justice Isa

Updated 16 Jun 2020

Email

In a rejoinder submitted to the Supreme Court the petitioner judge pleaded that the complainant was yet to show documentary evidence regarding the three offshore properties of his wife. — Dawn/File
In a rejoinder submitted to the Supreme Court the petitioner judge pleaded that the complainant was yet to show documentary evidence regarding the three offshore properties of his wife. — Dawn/File

ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Monday reiterated before the Supreme Court that the details of the three alleged offshore properties were gathered through surveillance.

In a rejoinder submitted to the Supreme Court hearing the presidential reference, the petitioner judge pleaded that Abdul Waheed Dogar, on whose complaint the reference was filed in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against him, had not yet come up with any documentary evidence regarding the three offshore properties of his wife.

Similarly, the chairman of the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) was also not forthcoming, the rejoinder said, adding the so-called documentary evidence was not attached to the complaint in the reference nor was filed any time thereafter.

After 14 months, the rejoinder regretted, the federal government had still not provided particulars of the alleged searchers said to have been carried out through the 192.com and the HM land registry search engines.

Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that these searches were carried out, the name of the petitioner’s wife as owner appears on the three properties and that of the daughter and son, the government did not file the complete record of even one search.

Thus, the rejoinder claimed, no search was ever conducted and the names and property details of the petitioner’s family were gathered through surveillance.

The identity of those who had conducted the searches and those who paid for them is concealed and if these documents are provided, it will reveal that Abdul Waheed Dogar is an alleged proxy, the rejoinder said.

A question to be answered by the government is whether they are entitled to conceal the material information and mislead this apex court, it asked.

The rejoinder alleged that the contesting respondents (government) have been most inventive, therefore, before their alleged ingenuity makes them say that none of the documents of any one of the six searches was preserved, or that had been misplaced or shredded, they will do well to remember that 192.com and the HM land registry searches were completely electronic.

The paper on which an email was sent or received may be lost, misplaced or shredded, but the email account holder’s inbox sent folder electronically retains everything and any number can be printed again.

The same applies to the debit/credit card and the company/bank can be contacted to issue a fresh set, the rejoinder said, adding non-provisions of these documents raises questions.

“Is it to conceal the identity of the person who conducted the searches or is it to conceal the identity of the person who paid for the searches,” the rejoinder said, claiming these searches were never conducted nor conducted in the manner as stated.

The alleged malice, mala fides and ulterior motives of the contesting respondents are self evident by their continued commitment and devotion to the proxy, Mr Dogar.

Published in Dawn, June 16th, 2020