The appointments of Dr Abdul Hafeez Sheikh as Advisor to Prime Minister on Finance and Dr Reza Baqir as Governor State Bank of Pakistan have been challenged in the apex court.
Maulvi Iqbal Haider Advocate on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of Constitution against Sindh High Court (SHC) order dated 15-05-2019 regarding the appointment of Hafiz Sheikh and Dr Reza Baqir. He made the federation through secretary law, secretary finance, Dr Abdul Hafeez Sheikh and Dr Raza Baqir as respondent.
Prime Minister Imran Khan in a major cabinet reshuffle on April 18 appointed Dr Abdul Hafeez Sheikh as advisor to PM on Finance. The new appointment came after former Finance Minister Asad Umer stepped down from his post. Dr Reza Baqir was appointed as the governor of the SBP on May 4.
The petitioner contended that the SHC ignored the judgements of Supreme Court (PLD 2019 SC 133 & PLD 2012 SC 1089). He alleged that both the finance minister and the SBP governor are dual national and the federal government by appointing them had violated provisions of the Constitution and the existing laws. "The SHC Division Bench observed that the appointment of finance minister and the SBP governor is policy decision and, therefore, it has no jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution to interfere in the policy decision," he said. He prayed to the apex court to set aside the SHC order 15/05/2019. Maulvi Iqbal claimed that the government as per the demand of IMF appointed Dr Hafeez Sheikh as advisor to PM with a full portfolio of federal finance minister, which is gross violation of Article 2-A of Constitution, which says that the State shall exercise its power and authority through chosen representatives.
Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh completed his education from Harvard University, and worked with the World Bank. "The management of the IMF demanded the federal government keep their nominated persons in the Finance Division as well as State Bank," alleged the petition.
He said being adviser to PM on Finance Dr Hafeez is not authorised to act as finance minister to present annual budget in the National Assembly. He is also not eligible to function as the federal finance minister in terms of Article 93 of the Constitution.
He alleged that Dr Reza Baqir holds US nationality. He was appointed as the governor SBP by the President of Pakistan on May 04, 2019 for a period of 3 years.
Dr Reza was head of IMF's Office in Egypt and has been Senior Resident Representative since August 2017. He has also held positions as IMF Mission Chief for Romania and Bulgaria, Division Chief of the IMF's Debt Policy Division, Head of IMF delegation to the Paris Club, Deputy Division Chief of the IMF's Emerging Markets Division, IMF Resident Representative to the Philippines, and numerous other positions. He said without having foreign passport Dr Reza can't stay or continue services in any foreign state.
Meanwhile, A writ petition seeking court's directions to bar Prime Minister's Advisor on Finance Abdul Hafeez Shaikh from presenting federal budget in the National Assembly was moved in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday.
The writ petition was filed by Shahid Orakzai who cited the speaker National Assembly, Abdul Hafeez Shaikh and secretary law as respondents.
In his petition, Orakzai challenged the presentation of federal budget in the National Assembly under Rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
He raised the legal questions whether any person who has not taken oath as the minister of finance can present the budget in the National Assembly and whether an advisor under Article 93 can act as the finance minister of the federal government.
He stated that attention of this court is drawn to Rule 184 where under the budget shall be presented before the assembly by the minister of finance. "For the present there is no minister of finance in the federal cabinet. Respondent No 2 is an advisor, inducted under Article 93, who is still to take oath as the federal minister," said the petition.
The petitioner quoted clause (3) of Article 255, "Where under the Constitution, a person is required to make an oath before he enters upon an office, he shall be deemed to have entered upon the office on the day he makes the oath." He contended that respondent No. 2 has not made any oath under Article 92 and as for the advisor under Article 93, there is simply no oath given in the Constitution.
Therefore, he said that this court needs to direct the speaker not to allow any other member of the federal cabinet to present the budget until he shoulders the responsibility as minister in-charge as laid down in Rule 184.
He argued that clause (3) of Article 92 does not empower the advisor to take part in the budget session because he is not entitled to vote by virtue of that Article.
Therefore, he prayed to the court to declare that no unelected person, even though as advisor to the Prime Minister is legally empowered to present the national budget before the National Assembly and only a minister who is duly authorised by the Prime Minister and designated as minister in-charge shall present the budget and the finance bill 2019-20. He also requested the court to direct the speaker to make sure that the procedure given in Rules is not bypassed and nothing is permitted on the floor which makes the budget controversial.
Comments
Comments are closed.