Appointment of Shehzad Akbar: IHC CJ reserves verdict on admissibility of petition

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday, while reserving the verdict on the admissibility of petition assailing the appointment of Shehzad Akbar, said constitutionally, the prime minister could appoint anyone as his advisor. A single bench of Justice Athar Minallah observed this, while hearing the petition of Syed Pervez Zahoor advocate.

He has challenged the appointment of Shahzad Akbar as advisor to the prime minister on accountability and interior, and requested the IHC to declare Akbar's appointment as "null and void". Amanullah Kinrani advocate, representing the petitioner, contended that the appointment of unelected member was against the National Assembly's rules.

At this, Justice Minallah said constitutionally, the prime minister could appoint anyone as his adviser. "If the premier does not appoint a qualified person, then it is his prerogative," the CJ added. Kinrani said Shahzad Akbar was part of the federal cabinet. The CJ said that the IHC, in its judgment in sugar scam, had said Akbar "cannot be a part of the federal cabinet."

The lawyer, while quoting the decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC) adopted that accountability under the Rules of Business was an independent procedure and was not subordinate to anyone. He told that Shahzad Akbar was a member of the federal cabinet. Having unelected representatives is also against the Constitution and the rules of the National Assembly.

Upon that, Justice Minallah said the IHC had declared that Shahzad Akbar was not a member of the federal government and he could not be a part of the federal cabinet. He added that they had written this in the decision of the sugar mills case. The IHC chief justice added that the prime minister was accountable to the Parliament.

He continued that they needed to strengthen the Parliament. He made it clear that the NAB was an independent body and no one could interfere with its working. The petitioner, Pervez Zahoor, has assailed the appointment of Shahzad Akbar, saying it was made by the prime minister in an arbitrary and whimsical manner as advisor to the prime minister with status of the federal minister as well as chairman Assets Recovery Unit.

He has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the court for issuance of appropriate writ against the illegal appointment of Akbar, stating that the appointment was unconstitutional and burden on the debt-trapped national economy.

The petitioner adopted that it was the worst example of favoritism, nepotism, conflict of interest and violation of oath of the prime minister as contained in the Third Schedule of the Constitution.

He contended that all powers and function under the Constitution were vested to the Federal Government and the appointments on behalf of Federal Government could not be made by the Prime Minister under Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business 1973, without following a due process of law as provided in the Constitution.

He argued that there was no doubt that the Respondent No 3 as Advisor on NAB with the status of the Federal Minister and Chairman Asset Recovery Unit was serving the interests of his political master i.e. the Respondent No 1 or his own-self.

The petitioner prayed before the court to declare appointment of Shehzad Akbar as chairman Recovery Unit and Advisor on Accountability and conferring upon him the status of the Federal Minister as illegal and ultra vires to the law and the Constitution. He also requested the court to restrain Akbar from performance of any type of official functions or exercise of any official power under any law, rule or the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020