Govt, judiciary back away from confrontation
SC avows executive’s right to transfer establishment secretary, but not to punish him for following court orders
ISLAMABAD:
The executive and judicial branches of government appeared to take steps back from the brink of confrontation on Friday, with the Supreme Court clarifying its earlier orders for the reinstatement of the establishment secretary, thereby reducing pressure on the PPP-led government.
While the court ordered the government to reinstate Sohail Ahmed as establishment secretary – one of the three highest positions in the federal civil service – it acknowledged that the government had the right to assign him a new post, but not to punish him for following the court’s orders. It said that the government was free to transfer him to a different position over the next seven days.
“Sohail Ahmed will remain establishment secretary until the new appointment,” the court order said, adding “if Sohail Ahmed is not given a new appointment within seven days, his notification [as officer on special duty] would be considered as null and void.”
The government, for its part, seemed to accept the court’s decision. Speaking to journalists outside the Supreme Court building after the hearing, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq termed the decision “a good one”.
“Under the prevailing conditions, it was a beautiful decision,” said the attorney general.
Former law minister Babar Awan also welcomed the decision, saying: “Today, the court has set criteria for posting and transferring bureaucrats.”
Many people would be disappointed when they hear that there was no confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, he added.
On Friday, a six-member bench of the Supreme Court was conducting hearings into the Hajj embezzlement scandal, in which former religious affairs minister Hamid Saeed Kazmi has already been implicated.
The controversy over the court’s orders regarding civil service appointments began when the government decided to transfer Hussain Asghar, then an additional director general at the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), from his position as the lead investigating officer on the Hajj scandal, allegedly when his findings began taking a direction the government was uncomfortable with.
(Read: Confrontation unending)
Asghar was posted to Gilgit-Baltistan as the Inspector General of Police of the province. The court had ordered the establishment secretary, a position then held by Sohail Ahmed, to reinstate Asghar, an order with which Ahmed complied.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, however, was incensed that Ahmed violated his orders and made him an officer on special duty (OSD), citing as his reason the fact that the establishment secretary is not empowered to transfer officers above grade 21 (the second highest in the civil service).
On Tuesday, the court had ordered the FIA chief to reinstate Asghar as the lead investigator on the Hajj case. On Friday, however, the attorney general reported to the Supreme Court that government of Gilgit-Baltistan is unwilling to let go of Asghar’s services as the provincial police chief until the government offers a replacement appointment.
On Thursday, Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Minister Mehdi Shah and members of the G-B legislature expressed concerns over the Supreme Court order, saying they were happy with Asghar’s services and did not want to give him up.
The judges, however, were agitated at the attorney general’s response, with Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry saying that “a simple matter is being made complicated.”
Justice Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui asked Anwarul Haq if he felt the Gilgit-Baltistan government’s position was justified, to which the attorney general replied that he did not think so.
Justice Khilji Arif Hussain said the government did not seem willing to implement the court’s orders, adding that “Hussain Asghar would have arrived from Gilgit-Baltistan in 45 minutes if the government had willingness to get him back.”
The attorney general said that the government had implemented the court’s decision, though the chief justice retorted that the implementation was on paper only.
Hearings on the case were adjourned until an as yet unspecified date. (With additional input from APP)
Published in The Express Tribune, July 30th, 2011.
The executive and judicial branches of government appeared to take steps back from the brink of confrontation on Friday, with the Supreme Court clarifying its earlier orders for the reinstatement of the establishment secretary, thereby reducing pressure on the PPP-led government.
While the court ordered the government to reinstate Sohail Ahmed as establishment secretary – one of the three highest positions in the federal civil service – it acknowledged that the government had the right to assign him a new post, but not to punish him for following the court’s orders. It said that the government was free to transfer him to a different position over the next seven days.
“Sohail Ahmed will remain establishment secretary until the new appointment,” the court order said, adding “if Sohail Ahmed is not given a new appointment within seven days, his notification [as officer on special duty] would be considered as null and void.”
The government, for its part, seemed to accept the court’s decision. Speaking to journalists outside the Supreme Court building after the hearing, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq termed the decision “a good one”.
“Under the prevailing conditions, it was a beautiful decision,” said the attorney general.
Former law minister Babar Awan also welcomed the decision, saying: “Today, the court has set criteria for posting and transferring bureaucrats.”
Many people would be disappointed when they hear that there was no confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, he added.
On Friday, a six-member bench of the Supreme Court was conducting hearings into the Hajj embezzlement scandal, in which former religious affairs minister Hamid Saeed Kazmi has already been implicated.
The controversy over the court’s orders regarding civil service appointments began when the government decided to transfer Hussain Asghar, then an additional director general at the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), from his position as the lead investigating officer on the Hajj scandal, allegedly when his findings began taking a direction the government was uncomfortable with.
(Read: Confrontation unending)
Asghar was posted to Gilgit-Baltistan as the Inspector General of Police of the province. The court had ordered the establishment secretary, a position then held by Sohail Ahmed, to reinstate Asghar, an order with which Ahmed complied.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, however, was incensed that Ahmed violated his orders and made him an officer on special duty (OSD), citing as his reason the fact that the establishment secretary is not empowered to transfer officers above grade 21 (the second highest in the civil service).
On Tuesday, the court had ordered the FIA chief to reinstate Asghar as the lead investigator on the Hajj case. On Friday, however, the attorney general reported to the Supreme Court that government of Gilgit-Baltistan is unwilling to let go of Asghar’s services as the provincial police chief until the government offers a replacement appointment.
On Thursday, Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Minister Mehdi Shah and members of the G-B legislature expressed concerns over the Supreme Court order, saying they were happy with Asghar’s services and did not want to give him up.
The judges, however, were agitated at the attorney general’s response, with Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry saying that “a simple matter is being made complicated.”
Justice Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui asked Anwarul Haq if he felt the Gilgit-Baltistan government’s position was justified, to which the attorney general replied that he did not think so.
Justice Khilji Arif Hussain said the government did not seem willing to implement the court’s orders, adding that “Hussain Asghar would have arrived from Gilgit-Baltistan in 45 minutes if the government had willingness to get him back.”
The attorney general said that the government had implemented the court’s decision, though the chief justice retorted that the implementation was on paper only.
Hearings on the case were adjourned until an as yet unspecified date. (With additional input from APP)
Published in The Express Tribune, July 30th, 2011.