Authority of 25 ministers, heads of institutions challenged

ISLAMABAD: A petitioner has challenged the authority of 25 federal ministers and heads of institutions to deal with subjects that come under the domain of the Council of Common Interest (CCI). After preliminary hearing of the petition filed by Barrister Zamir Hussain, Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday asked the Prime Minister Secretariat, the 25 federal and state ministers, the secretary cabinet, chief secretaries of the four provinces as well as heads of institutions to file their comments. Despite insistence by the petitioner, a representative of the Sindh Coalition for Civil and Political Rights, the court declined to restrain the respondents from functioning till the final adjudication of the petition. Justice Khan observed: “I cannot stop the entire government from functioning.” The ministers whose authority has been challenged are: Khawaja Mohammad Asif and Abid Sher Ali, water and power; Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Jam Jamal Khan, petroleum and natural resources; Ahsan Iqbal, planning and development; Khawaja Saad Rafique and Abdul Hakeem Baloch, railways; Kamran Michael, ports; Ghulam Murtaza Jatoi, industries; Riaz Hussain Pirzada, inter-provincial coordination; Baleeghur Rehman, education, and Pervez Rasheed, information and broadcasting. The other ministers are: Usman Ibrahim, housing, Abbas Khan Afridi, textile, Ishaq Dar, privatisation, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, narcotics control, Sikandar Hayat Khan, food security, Anusha Rehman, IT, and Pir Mohammad Amin, religious affairs. The heads of the institutions included Mariam Nawaz, the chairperson Pakistan Youth Loan Scheme; Enver Baig, Benazir Income Support Programme; Ilyas Khan, chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board; Mohammad Ayub Shaikh, chairman Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution (EOBI), and Asad Imtiaz Ali, the chief executive officer of the Alternative Energy Development Board. When Justice Khan asked the petitioner how the court can issue a writ against the functionaries, he said since the appointment of the ministers and heads of the institutions was illegal, the court might ask them “under which authority they are holding their offices and on their failure to explain such an authority the court can issue a writ of quo warranto (right to hold public office) against them.” The petitioner said despite being provincial subject, the federal government had assigned the portfolio of information to Pervez Rashid. Textile is purely a provincial subject but Abbas Khan Afridi has been given the charge of the ministry. The petitioner contended that the constitution of 1973 envisaged two constitutional forums: cabinet and the CCI. The cabinet has been assigned to look after the subjects or ministries related to the federal territories. He said the CCI comprised the prime minister, chief ministers of the four provinces and three members of the federal government to deal with the policy, regulation, supervision and control of those subjects which come under the domain of the federal and the provincial territories. The petition alleged that the PML-N government was operating the ministries/organisations which were otherwise subjects of the CCI. Hence “the domain and jurisdiction of the CCI has been taken over by the federal cabinet by establishing ministries on the subject of the CCI unconstitutionally and illegally.” The petition said the CCI was a constitutional body of Pakistan over and above the federal government. “By creating ministries and divisions on the subjects of CCI and provinces, the federal government has encroached upon the domain of the CCI and the provinces in violation of Article 142 and 154 of the Constitution,” the petition said. It added that in violation of the constitution, the CCI had never been allowed a permanent existence and the subjects to be dealt by the council were being supervised by the ministers of the federal government. By assigning the CCI subjects to the ministers, the federal government “has enlarged and expanded itself from its original strength as provided under the constitution.” The court after hearing the arguments of the petitioner adjourned the matter till a date to be fixed by the registrar office.