Over the years, political parties enjoying majority in National Assembly but lacking a clear majority in the Senate have misused the broad provisions of the Money Bill defined in the constitution to obtain legislative sanction for new or exiting laws on the basis of their power that they derive numerical strength in the National Assembly.
The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of re-appointment procedure adopted for the President NBP should, therefore, serve a timely warning to those in the executive branch who often seek to manipulate the constitution for their own petty ends.
Getting laws passed by the Parliament can sometimes be a cumbersome and a time-consuming business. Seeking short-cuts through reissuance of Presidential Ordinances repeatedly or using clause (a) through clause (g) Article 73 (2) of the Constitution and getting certified as a money bill by the Speaker will now be effectively restrictive. But then our legislators also need to be more responsible in passing, amending or rejecting legislative proposals, instead of taking months and years to pass a bill. In a number of cases, inordinate delays occur, making people and organisations profoundly suffer. But then it is dependent on the acumen of that particular parliamentarian or the minister sponsoring the bill to get the legislation passed in a timely fashion.
In the past, governments have misused the Presidential Ordinance provision meant for use only in emergencies - ie when the Parliament is not in session - with abandon . Often, ordinances have been issued within 24 hours prior to a legislative session or a day after - to obtain a 120-day life before these can be re-promulgated. This should now not be done. The Supreme Court in its January 14, 2011 judgement has given the government an explicit guidance to obtain approval from both the houses to amend the Banking Nationalisation Act 1974 with a view to giving, among other things, representation to public shareholders in the bank and providing the board of directors flexibility to independently fix the term of a Chairman and the President.
The existing confusion would not have happened had the Musharraf government decided to give National Bank of Pakistan full corporate status. Then, under the SECP law, the shareholders would have elected a board of directors of the bank for three years. The directors would have elected a Chairman of the Board and also appointed a President for a three-year term. It is entirely up to the board of directors to give another three-year term to the Chief Executive. And, there is no bar of two terms either on the election of directors or re-appointment of President.
Why this did not happen? Because it would have deprived the Prime Minister of powers to appoint directors and the chief executive in particular. Is this the right way to run a business, which has an international network that earns and pays billions in dividends and taxes to the exchequer? During last ten years, NBP has maintained its lead as the top profitable financial institution. This position may not be for long if the government continues to use it as a handmaiden for financing populist schemes and job opening. You cannot expect a camel to run for ever in a horse race. NBP's 26 percent shareholders are from the general public. They cannot be disenfranchised, nor can the bank function without a Board of Directors. This is the present status which warrants the need of an emergency act - promulgation of a Presidential Ordinance since the assembly is not in session.