SHC moved against excessive advisers, assistants in Sindh cabinet

Karachi

A petition was filed in the Sindh High Court on Thursday challenging the appointments of excessive number of advisers and special assistants in the Sindh cabinet.

Petitioner Moulvi Iqbal Haider submitted in the petition that Sindh Chief Minister Sindh Syed Murad Ali Shah had appointed more than 15 members of the Sindh Assembly, which makes eleven percent of the total members of the assembly in the Sindh cabinet.

He argued that it was a gross violation of Article 130 (6) of the Constitution that stipulates the government to not exceed the strength of the cabinet from eleven percent of the total membership of the assembly.

He submitted that the new chief minister on July 30 appointed 17 provincial ministers, advisors and special assistants in the first phase and then he further elevated his cabinet while appointing 9 more ministers and 11 special assistants in the second phase.

After the eighteenth constitutional amendment, he added, it was clearly directed that the strength of the cabinet would not be more than 11 percent of the total members of the assembly; however the chief minister had appointed 18 provincial ministers along with excessive advisors and special assistants.

He submitted that according to Article 92 and Article 130 (11), the chief minister and the prime minister were only allowed to appoint five advisors each, but the Sindh CM had appointed 18 members as ministers and 17 others as advisors and special assistants, who were given the status and privileges of the provincial ministers.

The court was requested to declare the appointment of excessive ministers, advisors and special assistants a gross violation of Article 130 (6) of the Constitution.

The petitioner also requested the court to suspend the operation of the appointment of excessive advisors and special assistants which, he argued, was a heavy burden upon the taxpayers.

The matter was taken up before the SHC’s division bench, headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, however the application of urgent hearing was dismissed due to the absence of the counsel.