by Malik Asad in Dawn, 09 Dec 2020
ISLAMABAD: As the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that Adviser to the Prime Minister on Finance and Revenue Abdul Hafeez Sheikh cannot head or be part of any cabinet committee, the status of at least half a dozen committees headed by the PM’s advisers has become uncertain.
IHC Justice Aamer Farooq has ruled against the appointment of advisers in the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation (CCoP) and explained the criteria for becoming member and in-charge of such committees.
The court has ruled that the advisers and special assistants to the prime minister are neither entitled to exercise executive powers nor they can head government committees.
It may be mentioned that Mr Sheikh was the chairman of the Economic Coordination Committee and of the cabinet’s committees on investment, implementation of contracts with IPPs, restructuring of state entities and national price monitoring.
Dr Ishrat Hussain is heading the Committee on Institutional Reforms and Austerity.
According to one of the petitioners and Member of the National Assembly (MNA), Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha, these committees have become non-functional since the PM’s advisers could no longer remain as head of these committees.
IHC Justice Aamer Farooq on Monday issued a short order on the petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawmakers Iradat Hussain and Mr Ranjha.
The court, however, dismissed the petition seeking to set aside appointments of all the SAPMs and advisers. The petitioner challenged the appointment of the advisers and special assistants to the prime minister having the status of the ministers of state or federal ministers.
The petitioner also questioned the authority of law under which they were appointed as special assistants to the prime minister having the status of a minister for state or federal minister.
However, the petition filed by the PML-N lawmakers challenged the notification dated April 25, 2019, appointing Mr Sheikh as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Privatisation (CCoP) and Abdul Razzak Dawood and Dr Ishrat Hussain as the members of the said Committee.
It was contended that under the Constitution of Pakistan, the federal government means the prime minister and the federal ministers. The business of the government is to be conducted by the referred body as provided in Article 99 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the federal minister is the one, who is either a member of the National Assembly or the Senate and cannot be anyone else.
It was submitted that in the referred backdrop, the special assistants to the prime minister or the advisers to the prime minister have been conferred status as ministers for state or federal ministers and they are participating in the meetings of the Cabinet, which is in a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.
It was further contended that in order to conduct business of the government the Constitution provides for framing of rules, which accordingly was done and the Rules of Business, 1973 were framed. It was contended that under Rule 4(6), the prime minister has the power to appoint as many special assistants to the Prime Minister as he pleases and confer on them the status according to his discretion.
The Deputy Attorney General on the other hand contended that Rule 17 of the Rules of Business, 1973 provides for functioning of the Cabinet and Rule 17(2) provides for formation of the committees of Cabinet.
The court observed that the cabinet together with ministers of state shall be collectively responsible to the Senate and the National Assembly.
Justice Farooq cited an earlier order of the IHC regarding the powers of SAPMs and advisers. The special assistants act in an advisory capacity to the prime minister and exercise only such powers as have been granted to them in accordance with the law. Advisers to the prime minister are not members of the parliament, but they can address the National Assembly and the Senate. They cannot participate in the voting process of the either House.
He noted that the secretary is the principal accounting officer of his/her division/ministry. The special assistant or special assistants in a division or ministry are not one of its officials.
An adviser has no role either in policy matters of a division or ministry nor its execution and running the business of the federal government. An adviser is not part of the federal cabinet nor entitled to attend its meetings except when the prime minister requires his/her attendance and, that too, by special invitation, said the court’s verdict.
An adviser cannot interfere or in any manner influence the executive authority, working or functioning of a division/ministry nor its policy matters, it further stated.
Subsequently, the court set aside the notification of the appointment of Mr Sheikh, Mr Dawood and Mr Hussain as chairman and members the CCoP.
