ISLAMABAD: The involvement of the army of 20 advisers and special assistants to the prime minister in cabinet committees -- which they had presided over for a long time -- has now been reduced to attending those meetings only ‘by special invitation’.
Implementing an IHC judgment, the prime minister has reconstituted the cabinet committees by minimizing the role of the advisers and special assistants. As ruled by the Islamabad High Court (IHC), these figures can now neither head nor be members of any cabinet committee, and have no role, responsibility or duty to perform in the ministries and divisions to which they have been appointed. In any official record, no adviser or special assistant can be shown to be heading or presiding over a cabinet committee or a ministry or division. According to the IHC ruling, they can no longer have any say in making decisions and policies. Under an official notification, the Cabinet Committee on Institutional Reforms (CCIR) is now headed by the federal minister for education and professional training and has the ministers for defence, national food security and research and industries and production as its members.
Dr Ishrat Hussain, who used to lead this committee as an adviser prior to the IHC decision, will now attend its meetings only ‘by special invitation’. The same will be the fate of the special assistants on establishment and petroleum besides the secretaries of establishment, finance, law and justice and cabinet and planning commission deputy chairman.
Likewise, the Cabinet Committee on Energy (CCoE) has also been reconstituted. Now, the minister for planning, development & special initiatives has been made its chairman while the ministers for finance and revenue, industries and production, information and broadcasting, interior, maritime affairs, power and railways have been designated as its members.
The special assistants on power, petroleum and revenue and adviser commerce and investment can only attend the CCoE meetings by special invitation apart from the concerned bureaucrats.
Meanwhile, the prime minister has constituted another forum, the Cabinet Committee for Disposal of Legislative Cases (CCLC), headed by the law and justice minister. Federal ministers Dr Shireen Mazari, Azam Swati and Fawad Chaudhry have been nominated as its members. The advisers on parliamentary affairs and accountability and interior have been inducted in the committee as member and co-opted member respectively, which is apparently a violation of the IHC verdict.
The official notification stated that the federal cabinet in its meeting held on September 8, 2020 approved the proposal regarding enhancing the mandate of the CCLC.
It has been tasked to examine whether fresh legislation or amendments in the existing laws are in line with the constitutional scheme, not in violation of any existing law, and fall within the mandate of parliament. It is also tasked to study the contents of fresh legislation/rules as well as amendments to the existing laws/rules and give its recommendations as to whether they are in line with the policy of the government and the constitutional/legislative scheme.
The terms of reference (ToRs) further state that in case the CCLC decides to amend the proposal of the sponsoring division from a policy perspective -- and the same is agreed to by the sponsoring division in the CCLC meeting-- the amended proposal will be placed before the cabinet for ratification. And in case of a disagreement between the two on a policy matter, the points of view of both will be put before the cabinet for a decision.
For all practical purposes, the IHC judgment had ended the role of the advisers and special assistants in the government. They have been left with very limited functions to perform as they have no legally backed powers and cannot exercise any executive authority whatsoever. The verdict noted at more than one place that these advisers and special assistants are not federal ministers or ministers of state but only enjoy ministerial status for the purposes of perks and privileges.
The Rules of Business provide that only ministers and secretaries, as well as authorised officers, will act as official spokespersons of the government. It was held by the IHC that the rules would be breached if an adviser or an authority not specified in them is authorised to act as government spokesperson. It explained what an adviser can do and what he can’t, and said a minister defined in the rules neither includes an adviser nor a special assistant. Anything done in violation of these binding rules is void and ultra vires.
The judgment said an adviser cannot interfere in or in any manner influence the executive authority, working or functioning of a division/ministry or its policy matters. This scheme is obviously based on the foundational principle of the Constitution that the 'State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people'.