COMMENT: O ye of little faith.

Byline: Abdul Moiz Jaferii

IF YOU read the June 19 short order in the Justice Faez Isa case with the worst possibilities in mind, a whole host of nightmares begins to surface.

It begins without controversy, with all 10 judges quashing the reference against their brother judge, and setting aside the show cause notice issued to him.

Seven judges then direct Justice Isa's wife and children to offer separate explanations regarding the nature and source of funds through which three foreign properties were acquired. They are to be served notices by the commissioner of the FBR within seven days at the official residence of the judge. The judge's family members have been referred to as respondents and directed to furnish replies and all relevant material and record. They have been warned that the proceedings before the commissioner shall not be adjourned or delayed if they are unavailable or abroad.

Within 60 days from the day the respondents receive the notices, the commissioner is to conclude proceedings, and issue an order within 15 days thereafter. He too is warned against adjournments or extensions.

Once the commissioner issues the order, the FBR chairman shall submit a report to the SJC within seven days along with the entire record of proceedings.

The Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council shall have the report put before the council. Any orders, decisions or proceedings shall be done in exercise of the council's suo motu jurisdiction.

If 100 days pass without any report from the FBR, the secretary of the SJC shall intimate the same to its chairman. The latter may order that the matter be placed before the council anyway; 'for such perusal, consideration, action, order or proceedings, if any, in relation to the petitioner (or any other person as deemed appropriate) as the council may determine'.

Why was such a detailed process of FBR-related inquiry laid out by the Supreme Court? Why was a judge's family issued directions, with deadlines, to cooperate with the FBR and why were they ostensibly brought within the purview of the Supreme Judicial Council?

Why were the SJC's 'suo motu' proceedings separated from the process the FBR was directed to complete? Why was the Chief Justice of Pakistan directed to act once in receipt of the FBR report in his capacity as chairman of the SJC?

To the legal sceptic, recent memories of the Panama JITs and monitoring of judges coordinating via WhatsApp calls come roaring back.

Is the government being allowed...