ISLAMABAD: Two lawyers who had earlier challenged the appointment of advisers and special assistants to the prime minister before the Supreme Court approached the apex court again on Wednesday, seeking reconsideration of the registrar office’s decision to return their petition.

In a five-page appeal, Mohammad Arshad Khan and Ghulam Dastgeer Butt, both members of the Islamabad High Bar Association and Rawalpindi Bar Association, requested the court to set aside the April 21 decision of the registrar office, which had raised objections and returned the petition.

The registrar office of the Supreme Court had termed the petition not entertainable since a number of prayers had been raised in one petition.

The court office had also objected that the petition had failed to point out which questions of public important were involved in the matter that needed enforcement of any of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution so that direct jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be invoked.

Petitioners argue unelected persons are running state affairs without any constitutional justification

The registrar office had also highlighted that the petitioners had directly come to the apex court instead of approaching other appropriate forums available to them under the law for the relief and they had not provided any justification of directly approaching the top court.

The appeal pleaded that the registrar office had failed to look into the portfolios and the assignments of the special advisers to the PM who were virtually controlling the affairs of the state despite being non-elected persons and thus were exercising authority and powers without any constitutional justification.

They pleaded that the original jurisdiction of the apex court was not limited to any one or multiple prayers and this court could grant any relief or deny it in the circumstances of the cases.

Moreover this court had held that when an issue of public importance relating to fundamental rights was involved, any person could directly approach the Supreme Court, they argued.

They requested the apex court to declare that 19 special assistants to the prime minister (SAPM) and advisers with the status of federal ministers or ministers of state were not entitled to any financial benefit, including salaries, allowances, perks and privileges.

The petition had nominated as respondents Adviser on Climate Change Malik Amin Aslam Khan, Adviser on Commerce and Investment Razak Dawood, Adviser on Institutional Reforms and Austerity Dr Ishrat Hussain, Adviser on Finance and Revenue Dr Hafeez Sheikh, Adviser on Parliamentary Affairs Zaheer-ud-Din Baber Awan, SAPM on Social Protection and Poverty Dr Sania Nishtar, SAPM on Establishment Mohammad Shahzad Arbab, SAPM on Accountability and Interior Mirza Shahzad Akbar, SAPM on Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari, SAPM on Coordination of Marketing and Development of Mineral Resources Shahzad Syed Qasim, SAMP on CDA Ali Nawaz Awan, SAMP on Youth Affairs Usman Dar, SAPM on Par­liamentary Coordination Nadeem Afzal Gondal, SAPM on Power and Petroleum Sardar Yar Mohammad Rind, SAPM on Health Dr Zafar Mirza, SAMP on Petroleum Nadeem Babar, SAPM on National Security and Strategic Policy Planning Dr Moeed Yousaf and SAPM on Digital Pakistan Tania S Aidrus.

The petition said these advisors and SAPMs were being accorded either the status of federal minister or minister of state which gave rise to the question whether the country was heading towards presidential form of governance.

It said there were five advisers with the powers and status of federal minister while of the 14 special assistants, seven were enjoying the powers of minister of state and two the status of federal minister.

The advisers and special assistants were neither members of the parliament nor were part of the federal cabinet, according to the current constitutional scheme thus the question arose whether they could be accorded the status and powers of ministers under the constitution, the petition said.

The advisers and special assistants were not part of the federal government therefore they could not be vested with any executive authority, it contended. Since they had not taken the constitutional oath, they were not responsible to the parliament in terms of Article 91(6), it added.

In a nutshell, the status, powers and rights of federal minister or minister of state could not be conferred upon unelected advisers and special assistants nor could they participate in cabinet meetings, the petition argued.

“One wonders if Prime Minister Imran Khan is honouring the constitution more in the breach than in the observance by granting the status of federal ministers to his advisers and that of ministers of state to his special assistants,” the petition argued.

The petition highlighted that the prime minister was neither a king nor a monarch but functioned in the domain of trust under Article 5 of the Constitution. “Thus he is obliged to obey the constitution and law like any other ordinary citizen, and while exercising his executive authority, his discretion is neither brazen nor arbitrary but subject to the constitution.”

Published in Dawn, May 7th, 2020