Govt assures SHC of Wahab’s immediate de-notification as law adviser

The Sindh High Court directed the chief secretary to submit details about whether any emoluments had been paid to the law adviser to chief minister, Murtaza Wahab, after the court decision that declared his appointment illegal.

The directive came at a hearing of a contempt application filed by Fareed A Dayo against the chief secretary and the law secretary for not implementing the high court order in the law adviser’s case.

The applicant submitted that the SHC had in November last year set aside the notification of Wahab’s appointment as adviser to the chief minister as well as the allocation of the portfolio of law, enquiries and anti-corruption establishment to him, observing that “executive authority could be exercised by only the elected representatives”. 

However, he submitted that judgment of the court was still not being implemented and Wahab was still attending meetings of the cabinet, and the government had not yet de-notified him.

Advocate General Zamir Ghumro submitted that since the chief minister was in Hyderabad, the de-notification process could not be completed.  He maintained that since the chief minister had now arrived, the process would be completed and the law adviser would be de-notified immediately.

The petitioner’s counsel, Fareed Dayo, informed the court that for the last two months the respondent had been drawing his salary and perks.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah observed that after the court decision there was no need for seeking approval from the chief minister.

The court directed the chief secretary to submit details about whether any emoluments had been paid to the law adviser after its November 22 ruling.

The court had observed that the law adviser was simultaneously
given the executive authority of
the ministry of the law and other
departments, thereby meaning that
he in fact was never appointed as adviser for the intent and purpose of Article 130 (11); rather, his induction was for the exercise of the executive authority.

Therefore, the court had said, his appointment ab-initio was not as an adviser; rather, the “constitutional framework was skewed to pass on executive authority held by the chief minister in trust for the elected representative unto the law adviser and the constitutional framework was blatantly circumvented”.