Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Supreme Court (SC) judge facing a presidential reference for not disclosing his family’s assets, appeared before the SC on Wednesday and said that his wife was willing to explain the purchase of three properties in the United Kingdom (UK) before the court via video link. Justice Isa said his wife cannot appear before the court as her father is a cancer patient and is, therefore, at high risk of contracting Covid-19. He said his wife does not want to appear before tax authorities due to past experiences. Dr Farogh Naseem – the federal government’s counsel – welcomed her decision to disclose the source regarding the purchase of properties, adding that he has no personal issues with Justice Isa and his family. Justice Isa maintained that his wife was also concerned as to why the Supreme Court Judicial Council did not ask her about the properties. The bench, comprising of Justice Umar Ata Bandial, asked Justice Isa to submit a written application regarding his wife’s offer. The court will latter issue a written order. A day earlier Justice Isa contended before the top court that Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) is completely unrestrained and unaccountable. “Ironically, at its [ARU] head is the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Accountability. This has no parallel in any civilised country of the world. The fact that this was done without legislation, whilst bypassing the elected representatives of the people, subverts democracy and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” read the reply submitted by Justice Isa in the apex court. Justice Isa in a written statement informed the bench that Shahzad Akbar owned five properties in the UK, Imran Khan Niazi (six), Zulfiqar Bukhari (seven) and Muhammad Usman Dar have three to his name. “The petitioner does not say nor suggests, let alone allege, that the abovementioned gentlemen and lady are those public figures who are well-known in Pakistan. Assuming they are, the petitioner still does not allege that they illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws.” The judge clarified that he was “not saying or suggesting, let alone allege” that the people he had identified had illegally acquired any property in the UK in violation of the income tax, the foreign exchange and/or money laundering laws.