SHC seeks details of emoluments given to three more advisers

The Sindh High Court directed the advocate general of the province on Tuesday to submit a report, as well as details of emoluments, on the de-notification of the chief minister’s three more advisers whose appointments it had declared illegal.

The directive came at a hearing of a contempt application filed by Fareed A Dayo against the chief secretary and the law secretary for their failure to implement a high court order in the law adviser’s case. 

The applicant had submitted that in November last year, the SHC had set aside the notification about the appointment of law adviser Murtaza Wahab as well as the allocation of the portfolios of law, enquiries and anti-corruption establishment to him, observing that “executive authority could only be exercised by the elected representatives”. 

Advocate General Zamir Ghumro submitted a report along with the notification that had de-notified Wahab as law adviser a day earlier. 

He said that perks and privileges had not been paid since November 22; however, the monthly salary had been paid by the accountant general up to January 31. 

Ghumro said the de-notified law adviser had consented to reimburse Rs1,239,867 in lieu of the salary disbursed to him for 68 days from November 23 to January 31.

The petitioner’s counsel, Fareed Dayo, informed the court that three other advisers to the chief minister -- Senator Saeed Ghani, Maula Bux Chandio and Agha Ali Khan Junejo – had been given portfolios of labour, information and mines and mineral department and they were also drawing emoluments from the government.

He said that the advisers should also be de-notified in compliance with the judgment of the high court.

A division bench, headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, questioned how the advisers were being given emoluments from public money.

The court directed the advocate general to submit a statement regarding de-notification of the three advisers as well as details of emoluments which they had received.

The court had observed that the law adviser had been simultaneously given the executive authority of the ministry of the law and other departments, meaning thereby that he had never been appointed as adviser for the intent and purpose of Article 130 (11); rather, his induction had been for the exercise of the executive authority. 

The court said Wahab’s appointment ab-initio was not as an adviser; rather, the “constitutional framework was skewed to pass on the executive authority held by the chief minister in trust for the elected representative unto the law adviser and the constitutional framework was blatantly circumvented”.