Nacta ordinance in violation of rules of business, declares Rabbani 

Islamabad

Senate Chairman Mian Raza Rabbani in his 17-page ruling Monday said the rules of business were violated in promulgation of ordinance on Nacta and lawmakers denied their right to move for disapproval of an ordinance.

Referring to the position explained by the Minister of Law with regards to the delay, Rabbani said that if this line of arguments was to be accepted, then he would be forced to draw a conclusion that the Rules of Business, 1973 (as amended) of the federal government were violated when the ordinance was promulgated. 

“Because rule 27, Rules of Business, 1973, provides that legislation when initiated by any ministry of division, is to be vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice, therefore, this controversy should have been nipped in the bud i.e. at the stage of vetting by the Ministry of Law. Further, if a dispute still existed, it should have been settled under Rules 27 and 30 of the Rules of Business,” he said in the ruling.

Rabbani contended that the government shall lay along with the ordinance, reasons that necessitated the President to promulgate the ordinance. He directed the government to adhere to the Constitution, the related rules and lay ordinance on the first day of the sitting of the House after its promulgation.

“The House can condone the delay in laying the said ordinance. However, such delay shall not be more than 10 days for which reasons for delay of each day in laying the ordinance shall be explained by the minister concerned.

His ruling stemmed, mainly from the facts and grounds, which were confirmed by Law Minister Zahid Hamid, whereas he had also heard Leader of Opposition Aitzaz Ahsan and MQM’s Senator Barrister Muhammad Ali Saif with regards to promulgation of the National Command Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016 on March 13, which was
laid in the House on June 15, 92 days after its promulgation.

In the ruling, he noted that the law minister stated the reason for the delay of delay in the ordinance, being laid before the Parliament, was a difference of opinion between the sponsoring ministry i.e. the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Law, as to whether it was a money bill or not. 

“The attorney general for Pakistan was also consulted and the final conclusion was that it is not a money bill, as a consequence a certificate to this effect was issued on June 09,” he said and noted it emerged from these facts that the ordinance, which was notified in the official Gazette on March 15, was laid in terms of clause (2) of Article 89 of the Constitution, in the Senate on June 15
after a delay of 92 days and in the National Assembly on June 14 after a delay of 91 days.

Rabbani said that ordinances promulgated by the President were required to be laid before both house of the Parliament. Normally ordinance were laid on the first day of the sitting of the House held after the promulgation of the ordinance on which formal business was transacted. He referred to Sixth edition of Practice and Procedure of Parliament by MN Kaul and SL Shakdher. 

He noted the Senate remained in session from April 14 to April 22 i.e. 247th session and then from May 09 to May 20 i.e. 248th  session and again from June 02 to
June 17 i.e. 249th  session, during the course of which the ordinance was laid on June 15. 

Rabbani said a member of Parliament had a right to move for a disapproval of an ordinance, when it did not contain provisions relating to clause (2) of Article 73 of the Constitution, which could only be exercised after it had come to the knowledge of the Parliament and that an ordinance had been promulgated when the House was not in session or;

A member of the National Assembly had the right 6to move for disapproval of ordinance, which it falls within the ambit of clause (2) of Article 73 of the Constitution, which could only be exercised after it had come to the knowledge of the NA that an ordinance had been promulgated when the House was not in session.

“Delay of each day results in denying the right to move for disapproval of an ordinance, which amounted to restricting member to discharge their constitutional duties and obligations, hence, amounted to breach of privilege of the House and its members,” the ruling maintained.