Appointment of PM’s special assistants challenged
Petitioner says the appointment amounts to misuse of discretionary powers by the PM
PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
A lawyer filed a petition on Saturday in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), challenging the appointment of the prime minister’s five special assistants, questioning their authority to hold offices equivalent to the status of minister of state.
The petitioner, GM Chaudhry, requested the court to declare the appointment of these special assistants illegal, saying that it amounted to misuse of discretionary powers on the part of the PM “only to cause loss to the national exchequer” and provide “illegal gains to the special assistants”.
PM Abbasi appoints five advisers
The petitioner has named as respondents the Prime Minister through the PM’s office; secretary Cabinet Division; Special Assistant to the PM on Political Affairs Dr Syed Asif Saeed Kirmani; Special Assistant to PM on Economic Affairs Miftah Ismail; Special Assistant to the PM on Media Affairs Dr Musadiq Malik; Special Assistant to the PM on Law, Cabinet Secretariat, Barrister Zafarullah Khan; and Special Assistant to the PM on Institutional Reforms Khwaja Zaheer Ahmed.
Moreover, the petitioner questioned the need for such appointments when federal ministers and ministers of state were already there to do the same job. He submitted that special assistants did not possess any specialisation in respective areas assigned to them except having “close relations with the former PM, being his favourites”.
He asked the court to declare all “actions, decisions or exercise of any power under any law as well as receipt of financial benefits” illegal and direct the authorities concerned to recover the amount received by them.
PML-N fails to settle on cabinet picks
Chaudhry asked the court to declare that the action of the PM and the secretary Cabinet Division was in violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 25, 27, 91, 92 of the Constitution as well as a cognizable offence under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999.
He also contended that there were “no prescribed terms and conditions, criteria or other requirements for the post of special assistant and none can be appointed as Special Assistant under the Constitution, law or any rules whatsoever.”
According to the petitioner, even though Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 explains the duties of special assistants to the PM, no post could be created under the same rules.
He said special assistants did not have “any outstanding intellectual credentials or recognition as well as specialisations except being political stooges and toadies of a particular person or a political party”. He submitted that selection and appointment of special assistants “is sheer misuse of discretion and public office (which is a) cognizable (offence) under various laws”.
A lawyer filed a petition on Saturday in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), challenging the appointment of the prime minister’s five special assistants, questioning their authority to hold offices equivalent to the status of minister of state.
The petitioner, GM Chaudhry, requested the court to declare the appointment of these special assistants illegal, saying that it amounted to misuse of discretionary powers on the part of the PM “only to cause loss to the national exchequer” and provide “illegal gains to the special assistants”.
PM Abbasi appoints five advisers
The petitioner has named as respondents the Prime Minister through the PM’s office; secretary Cabinet Division; Special Assistant to the PM on Political Affairs Dr Syed Asif Saeed Kirmani; Special Assistant to PM on Economic Affairs Miftah Ismail; Special Assistant to the PM on Media Affairs Dr Musadiq Malik; Special Assistant to the PM on Law, Cabinet Secretariat, Barrister Zafarullah Khan; and Special Assistant to the PM on Institutional Reforms Khwaja Zaheer Ahmed.
Moreover, the petitioner questioned the need for such appointments when federal ministers and ministers of state were already there to do the same job. He submitted that special assistants did not possess any specialisation in respective areas assigned to them except having “close relations with the former PM, being his favourites”.
He asked the court to declare all “actions, decisions or exercise of any power under any law as well as receipt of financial benefits” illegal and direct the authorities concerned to recover the amount received by them.
PML-N fails to settle on cabinet picks
Chaudhry asked the court to declare that the action of the PM and the secretary Cabinet Division was in violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 25, 27, 91, 92 of the Constitution as well as a cognizable offence under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999.
He also contended that there were “no prescribed terms and conditions, criteria or other requirements for the post of special assistant and none can be appointed as Special Assistant under the Constitution, law or any rules whatsoever.”
According to the petitioner, even though Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 explains the duties of special assistants to the PM, no post could be created under the same rules.
He said special assistants did not have “any outstanding intellectual credentials or recognition as well as specialisations except being political stooges and toadies of a particular person or a political party”. He submitted that selection and appointment of special assistants “is sheer misuse of discretion and public office (which is a) cognizable (offence) under various laws”.