PESHAWAR: A controversy has surrounded the recent amendments to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission Act over the objections of the chief Ehtesab commissioner and four commissioners.

On August 3, the KP Assembly had passed the Ehtesab Commission (Amendment) Act 2016 after the months long legal impasse, which had also led to the resignation of retired lieutenant general Hamid Khan, the first director general of the accountability body, in February this year.

In an August 22, 2016, letter written to Chief Minister Pervez Khattak, the CEC and commissioners have noted that not only some of the recent amendments to the KPEC law were inconsistent with other provisions of the law but they’re out of place and incomprehensible as well driving the law into redundancy.


Ehtesab commissioners insist changes not consistent with other provisions of law, out of place and inexplicable


Interestingly, the DG in his resignation letter had also made similar point, saying the amendments to the law had rendered the post of DG as redundant.

The commissioners also point out that none of them was consulted in the pre-enactment exercise undertaken by the select committee of the provincial assembly.

The letter notes several instances of “legislative lapses or drafting fumbles which require immediate action to rescue the law before its fallouts further mar the objectives of KP Ehtesab Commission.”

The commissioners have pointed out that in amendment to Section 12(4)(c), the scope of qualification of director general has been unreasonably enlarged and lowered down. “It will jeopardise the selection of person as stature as director general.”

The amendment had increased the categories of people who can be appointed as the KPEC DG from earlier two to four, while at the same time lowered the bar of retired officer of BPS-21/22 to BPS-20 or above.

The letter also asks for the empowerment of the CEC for the removal of the acting KPEC DG.

By the addition of a provision to sub-section 10 of Section 12, which gives protection to the tenure of acting DG, who took over before the recent amendments to the KPEC, the commissioners called for his replacement by the CEC. “The acting DG would remain unbridled till appointment of a regular DG for which process may take longer than desired time,” the letter reads.

Currently acting DG could only be replaced after appointment of a regular DG.

The letter also points out that by not amending Section 16(2) the officers of the directorate general have been left out of the scope of Section 16, which provides for internal monitoring of the performance of the officers of commission and complaints of misconduct against them.

The commissioners said in Section 16(2) the words ‘officers of the commission” should have been replaced with “officers of the directorate general” to bring it conformity with other amendments.

The letter notes that amendments to sections 18, 19 and 20, which laid down commission approval for re-appropriation of funds, maintenance of book of accounts and provision of estimated expenditure and receipts statement to government. However, following the amendments all these functions have been handed over to the directorate general.

The commissioners said that sections of original law should have been amended suitably in order to make these consistent with Section 9-C of the act, which has not been done and anomalies created.

Under sub-section(c) of Section 9 of the original act the commission was authorised to approve annual budget of the commission; however, now after the amendment it will approve annual budget of the commission, directorate general and Ehtesab courts.

They have also questioned the wisdom of restricting KPEC mandate to investigate cases over monetary limit of Rs. 50 million and above under Section 35 and noted that it would further create anomalies and extending undue benefits to the accused. “This would result in mitigation of intensity of the act,” it reads.

They also pointed out that Section 36(6) which says that in case of delay in inquiry the reasons should be in writing presented to the commission. Under recent amendments this report would be presented to directorate general.

The commissioners said that it would pointless to report delay in inquiry to directorate general itself by the director general.

Also anomalies have been pointed out in sections 17, 36(2) and 37(4).

KPEC Act has turned into a subject of controversy since the beginning of this year. On February 9, 2016, the government promulgated the KPEC Ordinance 2016, drastically amending the law, which resulted into resignation of the then DG, retired general Hamid Khan, in February.

However, after much criticism, the ordinance was withdrawn on May 2.

Another amendment bill was tabled in the KP Assembly on May 6 and a version of it modified by a select committee of house was passed by the house on August 3.

Officials both at the commission and directorate general were not available for comments to the objections to the recent KPEC law amendments.

Published in Dawn, September 1st, 2016

Opinion

Editorial

Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...
Provincial share
Updated 17 Mar, 2024

Provincial share

PPP has aptly advised Centre to worry about improving its tax collection rather than eying provinces’ share of tax revenues.
X-communication
17 Mar, 2024

X-communication

IT has now been a month since Pakistani authorities decided that the country must be cut off from one of the...
Stateless humanity
17 Mar, 2024

Stateless humanity

THE endless hostility between India and Pakistan has reduced prisoners to mere statistics. Although the two ...