Faez Isa offers to file affidavit about 'surveillance'.

Byline: Nasir Iqbal

ISLAMABAD -- Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who is facing a presidential reference, startled the Supreme Court on Tuesday when he volunteered to furnish an affidavit highlighting the incidents that helped him reach the conclusion that he along with his family members was put under surveillance.

'I have taken instructions from the petitioner who says that he is prepared to put up before this court an affidavit detailing the facts and incidents that led him to reach the conclusion that he and his family were surveilled,' argued senior counsel Muneer A. Malik, who is representing Justice Isa of the Supreme Court before a 10-judge full court, hearing challenges to the filing of the presidential reference.

The offer was made by the counsel to assert that the petitioner judge and his family were subjected to surveillance and even the services of a UK-based tracing firm 'Find UK People' were hired to explore the activities of Justice Isa's family over the past 10 years.

But Attorney General Anwar Mansoor promptly objected to the affidavit offer, asking if any evidence in relation to a particular situation could be rendered at a hearing under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. There were forums available for such kind of evidence that required recording of evidence, the AG argued.

AG objects to the offer; counsel says services of UK-based firm hired to trace activities of petitioner's family

However, Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the counsel was making his point to substantiate the allegations of malice and was replying to the observations made by a brother judge.

Legal observers believe that an affidavit, if filed, may have serious repercussions since counter-affidavits on oath will have to be moved to rebut the allegations levelled by the high constitution office holder like Justice Isa identifying the names of certain institutions. 'In case the allegations were not rebutted, it has to be believed and if disputed then the Supreme Court has to determine who is speaking the truth and who is not,' explained a senior lawyer on condition of anonymity.

About the filing of an affidavit under Article 184(3), the lawyer recalled several cases, including the Panama Papers hearing during which the apex court held that the constitutional provision did not put any impediment rather provided ample authority to seek any assistance in reaching the truth.

Mr Malik informed the full court that he had no idea what was the mode of surveillance...