LAHORE: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday observed that appointment of special assistant is prerogative of prime minister as it dismissed petition against appointment of Zulfi Bukhari as special assistant to PM.SC allowed Zulfikar Ali Bukhari aka Zulfi Bukhari to continue working as the Prime Minister special assistant on Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development under certain restrictions.A three-member bench of the apex court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, dismissed the petitions challenging his appointment but made it clear that Zulfi Bukhari was neither a minister of state nor could he enjoy perks and privileges or exercise any executive power. “He is mere an assistant and could only advise the PM,” the court said, observing that his appointment was not protected under the Constitution as it was made under assembly rules of business.Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan were the other members of the bench.The court clarified that if Zulfi Bukhari went beyond his mandate and exercised executive powers, the court would look into it, remarking that Article 62 & 63 is not applicable to Zulfi’s case because he was not a public office holder.During proceedings, the judges threw questions at Bukhari’s lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan regarding the constitutional cushion or protection to his appointment, his status akin to minister of state and his credentials.When asked under what constitutional provision Zulfi’s appointment was made, Aitzaz defended his client and submitted that though Article 93 of the Constitution dealt with appointment of advisers to the prime minister, Bukhari’s case fell under Article 260. He explained that it was PM’s discretionary powers to appoint someone as special assistant. He said his appointment was an example of trichotomy of power and executive or judiciary should not transgress each power.To it, the chief justice remarked that trichotomy of power was the foundational principle of democracy, however, it did not mean that the prime minister enjoyed unbridled or absolute powers and he could do whatever he liked. The court could examine whether such discretionary powers had been exercised properly, he explained.In response, Ahsan said the court also at the same time could not use uncontrolled or absolute powers. The chief justice was convinced that the rules of business were ultra vires of the Constitution under which the appointment of Zulfi was made, observing that the rules would be struck down that might cause removal of Bukhari. However, the chief justice abstained from issuing such order after Aitzaz Ahsan pointed out that the petitioner had not challenged the said rules.The chief justice said if appointments were made on the basis of nepotism or political consideration, the court would interfere.The petitioner submitted that the SC in its December 15 verdict had declared that persons with dual nationality could not retain important government positions as they should choose between a government job and a foreign nationality. He said this judgment also applied to Bukhari’s case.Justice Ijazul Ahsan contested the petitioner’s claim, with the chief justice clarifying that the SC had not imposed a ban in the dual nationality case and had instead only made its recommendations to the Parliament. Bukhari was not a public office holder and Articles 62 & 63 of the Constitution were not applicable to him. “You should have challenged the rules of business against Zulfi Bukhari’s appointment,” the top judge suggested.“The appointment of a special assistant is the prime minister’s prerogative,” Justice Ahsan said, adding, “Zulfi Bukhari’s case does not come under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution.”The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that “Zulfi Bukhari is signing foreign agreements; this is the job of a minister”. “He is working as a minister and even attending cabinet meetings,” he added.Aitzaz contested the petitioner’s claim, saying that his client “has not claimed the status of a state minister”. At this, the chief justice told the petitioner that the court could not sack Bukhari on his petition and could only make suggestions to the Parliament.After the bench reassembled following a break, the court set aside the petition but barred Bukhari from claiming the status of a minister, warning that “if he goes beyond his mandate, we will look into this matter.”The petition, filed by Muhammad Adil Chattha from Lahore and Mirza Abdul Moiz Baig from Karachi, has raised objections to Bukhari’s appointment as the prime minister’s special assistant on account of his dual nationality.Earlier, Bukhari had submitted his reply in the case, arguing that he held a British nationality because he was born there and got Pakistani citizenship later. Bukhari gained his secondary education from a private school in Islamabad, where he studied from the age of 13 to 18. His family, the reply said, hailed from Attock.The prime minister, Bukhari said in his reply, had the right to appoint anyone as his aide. The reply said Articles 62 and 63 were only applicable to members of the parliament and Bukhari was not a lawmaker. Bukhari noted that the top court had granted overseas Pakistanis the right to vote. “To grant them [overseas Pakistanis] the right to vote but bar them from contributing to the country’s development raises a question mark.”He also argued if Pakistan could seek aid from international organisations like the International Monetary Fund, why it couldn’t employ the services of Pakistanis holding dual nationality.In another case, former railways minister Khawaja Saad Rafique submitted a reply to the supreme court to the audit report on monetary losses suffered by the Pakistan Railways, saying that no corruption was either committed in the department during his tenure or identified in the report.A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan heard the case pertaining to monetary losses suffered by the Pakistan Railways at the Supreme Court’s Lahore Registry.Former minister, at present on physical remand with the NAB, was produced before the court by officials of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).As the hearing commenced, Saad’s counsel Advocate Kamran Murtaza told the bench that neither corruption nor embezzlement of public money had been found in the audit report. However, he said, the losses mentioned in the report were not incurred by the railways during the last five years alone but it was a backlog of over 60 years.Rafiq tried to apprise the bench about his ‘achievements’ being the railways minister, however, the chief justice adjourned the hearing and directed the federal government to file its reply on issue. The NAB officials took Rafiq back after the proceedings.The bench then directed the auditor general and federal government to submit replies on Rafique’s response. Rafique said, “Before me, the federal government used to pay Rs58 million as pension funds and during my time, railways gave Rs21 million as pension. Kindly appreciate it.”At this, Justice Nisar said: “You will be appreciated when the matter is resolved.”Later, in a brief chat with the media, Rafiq said he served the railways with devotion and brought progress to it. He said the incumbent minister Sheikh Rasheed misled the court about the prices of locomotives. He said neither a locomotive costs Rs220 million nor he bought any with Rs420 million. Rafiq advised Rasheed to avoid jealousy and envy.“The conduct of the NAB with me is good, but I am against its law and cases,” responded Rafiq when asked as to how he was being treated by the bureau during the physical remand. He said the punishment being given to Nawaz Sharif was nothing but cruelty. He alleged that the PML-N was being targeted in the name of accountability.
12-27-2018, 10:57 PM
Making special assistant PM?s prerogative: SC
العرض الشجري