SAPMs, advisers working: LHC seeks affidavit from federal govt

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court Chief Justice Muhammad Qasim Khan sought an affidavit Wednesday from the federal government to confirm the advisers and special assistants to the prime minister attended the meetings of the cabinet to the extent of the sessions relevant to their portfolios. Earlier, a federal law officer submitted a reply on behalf of the principal secretary to the prime minister about the working of the SAPMs and advisers. The chief justice noted that the reply suggested the advisers and SAPMs remained present during the whole meetings of the cabinet whereas they were supposed to attend sessions relevant to their respective portfolios only. The chief justice warned the law officer that this practice of the advisers/SAPMs could have dire consequences. A counsel of former SAPM on petroleum Nadeem Babar told the court that his client had tendered resignation.

However, the chief justice observed that the reports in the media suggested that Babar had been removed. The court was further informed that adviser to prime minister on finance Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh also resigned as federal minister for finance. The chief justice adjourned hearing for two weeks and sought an affidavit from the secretary of Cabinet Division about the participation of the advisers and SAPMs to the prime minister in the meetings. Advocate Nadeem Sarwar had filed a petition last year making all the advisers and SAMPs party in it. He contended that the respondents being not members of the National Assembly could not exercise authority and power of the federal government, which was a domain of elected representatives of the people. He said the appointment of dual national special assistants was also against the national interest and defence of Pakistan. He pleaded that as per Article 90 of the Constitution, the executive authority of the federation shall be exercised by the prime minister and federal ministers. He said the cabinet of ministers that had been authorized by Article 91(1) and the prime minister was only the head of the cabinet and could not assume power of any federal minister.

He said the appointment of special assistants and advisers conferring the title of state ministers and perks and privileges is in utter disregard of the constitutional mandate. The Cabinet Division in its reply had questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to assail the appointments and the maintainability of the petition before the court.