PM’s discretionary fund: SC expresses annoyance over auditor’s absence
Asks the AGP to clarify contradiction in two of his statements.
Asks the AGP to clarify contradiction in two of his statements. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed annoyance over Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) for not appearing before it in a case related to the government’s review petition against the SC’s December 5, 2013 verdict.
The apex court on Dec 5 had put a ban on transfer of funds from one account – approved by parliament – to another as a technical supplementary grant. It had also banned the prime minister’s discretionary fund.
When the SC’s three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, resumed hearing of the case, Director General (DG) Commercial Audit Robina Faisal told the bench that the AGP could not appear as he was in Lahore to examine the Nandipur power project.
“The AGP should have appeared before the bench to clarify his stance,” the bench noted with displeasure.
It said there was a contradiction in the AGP’s two written statements submitted before the court.
“In one statement, the AGP says that out of 51 development schemes, Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules were not followed in one project but in the AGP’s another statement, it is stated that the PPRA rules were not followed in 51 development schemes,” the bench said.
It also asked the AGP to submit a written reply regarding this contradiction on June 13.
Meanwhile, the counsel for Sui Northern Gas Company told the bench that development work was stopped on schemes that were initiated by the former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf in view of the SC’s December 5, 2013 judgment.
Former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had taken suo motu notice over the news item that former prime minister Ashraf had doled out billions of rupees in the form of development funds ten days before completing his tenure in office.
The top court on December 5, 2013 declared that the Constitution did not permit the use/allocation of funds to MNAs/MPAs/notables solely by the prime minister or a chief minister.
Later on, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government had challenged the judgment that bars the prime minister from exercising his discretionary powers in the matter of supplementary and excess grants.
The government requested that the court enable the government to continue to work on the basis of a system of fiscal management that had been practiced since the creation of Pakistan and argued that it was not only consistent with constitutional provisions but that it had proven its utility and worth.
In the last month, the government submitted before the court the list of 38 projects and pleaded that it needed an immediate allocation of Rs12.5 billion for these projects of ‘national importance’ before the close of the ongoing fiscal year.
On the last date of hearing on May 14, the court allowed the federal government to release funds for development projects if ‘it is a scheme of national or public interest’ without taking parliament’s approval, which was required after the court’s December 5, 2013 judgment.
The court, however observed that no discretionary grant shall be granted either by the prime minister or any minister.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 3rd, 2014.
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed annoyance over Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) for not appearing before it in a case related to the government’s review petition against the SC’s December 5, 2013 verdict.
The apex court on Dec 5 had put a ban on transfer of funds from one account – approved by parliament – to another as a technical supplementary grant. It had also banned the prime minister’s discretionary fund.
When the SC’s three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, resumed hearing of the case, Director General (DG) Commercial Audit Robina Faisal told the bench that the AGP could not appear as he was in Lahore to examine the Nandipur power project.
“The AGP should have appeared before the bench to clarify his stance,” the bench noted with displeasure.
It said there was a contradiction in the AGP’s two written statements submitted before the court.
“In one statement, the AGP says that out of 51 development schemes, Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules were not followed in one project but in the AGP’s another statement, it is stated that the PPRA rules were not followed in 51 development schemes,” the bench said.
It also asked the AGP to submit a written reply regarding this contradiction on June 13.
Meanwhile, the counsel for Sui Northern Gas Company told the bench that development work was stopped on schemes that were initiated by the former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf in view of the SC’s December 5, 2013 judgment.
Former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had taken suo motu notice over the news item that former prime minister Ashraf had doled out billions of rupees in the form of development funds ten days before completing his tenure in office.
The top court on December 5, 2013 declared that the Constitution did not permit the use/allocation of funds to MNAs/MPAs/notables solely by the prime minister or a chief minister.
Later on, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government had challenged the judgment that bars the prime minister from exercising his discretionary powers in the matter of supplementary and excess grants.
The government requested that the court enable the government to continue to work on the basis of a system of fiscal management that had been practiced since the creation of Pakistan and argued that it was not only consistent with constitutional provisions but that it had proven its utility and worth.
In the last month, the government submitted before the court the list of 38 projects and pleaded that it needed an immediate allocation of Rs12.5 billion for these projects of ‘national importance’ before the close of the ongoing fiscal year.
On the last date of hearing on May 14, the court allowed the federal government to release funds for development projects if ‘it is a scheme of national or public interest’ without taking parliament’s approval, which was required after the court’s December 5, 2013 judgment.
The court, however observed that no discretionary grant shall be granted either by the prime minister or any minister.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 3rd, 2014.