Lahore High Court (LHC’s) Chief Justice Muhammad Qasim Khan on Wednesday sustained the objection of the registrar office and directed the petitioner’s counsel to attach the appointment notifications with the petition challenging the appointments of 16 advisers and special assistants to the prime minister (SAPMs).
The province’s top judge asked the federal government’s counsel to come up with complete preparation of the case on the next date.
The petition filed through Nadeem Sarwar Advocate adopted the stance that respondents Abdul Hafeez Sheikh, Abdul Razak Dawood, Amin Aslam, Dr Ishrat Hussain, Zaheeruddin Babar Awan, Muhammad Shahzad Arbab, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, Syed Shehzad Qasim, Dr Zafar Mirza, Moeed Yusuf, Syed Zulfikar Bukhari, Nadeem Baber, Sania Nishtar and others not being members of the National Assembly were not constitutionally eligible to hold the portfolio of federal ministers, and, therefore, could not exercise the authority and power of federal government which was the domain of the elected representatives of the people.
The petitioner submitted that the perks and privileges enjoyed by the respondents had been violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens and appointment of dual nationals as special assistants and advisers was against the national interest and defence of the country.
It was further said that the appointment of the respondents in the cabinet was unconstitutional and void and that it was inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution.
The petition noted that it was clearly stated in Article 92 that the federal ministers of the state could be appointed from amongst the members of parliament on the advice of the prime minister and added that there was no provision in the constitution which authorized conferring the status of federal ministers of state upon special assistants and advisers.
It said that the authority of the state had been expressly ordained to be exercisable through the chosen representatives of the people.
“Federal ministers have the authority to perform functions of their ministries and the prime minister has no power to take over the functions and authority of a federal minister,” the petition said.
The petitioner maintained that it was the cabinet of the ministers which had been authorized by Article 9(1) and the prime minister was only the head of the cabinet and could not assume the power of a federal minister and exercise his functions.
He said even if one minister was missing, there could be no cabinet.
The petitioner contended that the perks and privileges enjoyed by the advisers and special assistants was a breach of trust and violation of the fundamental rights of citizens and stated that all these benefits had been awarded in consideration of political loyalty at the expense of people.
He asserted that unelected persons cannot assume the power of a federal minister as only a chosen representative of the people could exercise the power and authority of the state.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ