Every MNA, senator part of quite a few house bodies

ISLAMABAD: On average, every member of the National Assembly (MNA) sits in at least three standing committees of the Lower House of Parliament while in Senate, every MP is part of seven such forums.

Prime Minister Imran Khan is an exception as he is member of only one new special forum--Committee of the Parliamentary Leaders in the National Assembly on Conduct -- introduced by Speaker Asad Qaisar, who also chairs it. Formed about a month back to enforce discipline among the MNAs during the House proceedings and avoid frequent pandemonium, it is yet to hold its inaugural session, with the ruckus continuing unabated.

Leader of the opposition Shahbaz Sharif is part of only two House bodies--the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the one on conduct. All other MNAs, federal ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries are on average members of three House committees.

The induction of the same MPs in several parliamentary committees presents a busy schedule for them in the House bodies apart from attending the normal House proceedings and other responsibilities. The Senate committees are functioning at a fast pace since long and have always been noted because of their hectic activities. However, the National Assembly forums are yet to take a start. Nearly a dozen of them are still to be completed as their chairmen are yet to be elected.

Data compiled by The News shows that there are 942 members of the forty-five National Assembly committees of all types. Thirty-four standing committees have 714 members with each one of them having 21 MNAs.

Then, there is a special committee having 13 members apart from two other bodies having forty-two members. There are five non-ministerial committees with the strength of 110 MNAs. Three more bodies will be constituted on China-Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC), National Security etc.

The 104-member Senate has a total of fifty-four parliamentary committees. Every forum approximately comprises 13 senators. Thus, the total members of the House bodies come to 702.

Then, the Upper House also has a Committee of the Whole which consists of the entire membership of the Senate sitting as a committee. Sometime back, the Senate Rules were amended to provide for conversion of the House into Committee of the Whole on issues of national importance with the power to require the attendance of any person or summon production of papers, record from any division, department, autonomous body, semi-autonomous body or organisation, or examine such persons on oath or solemn affirmation, or invite or summon any person to give evidence in relation to any matter under its consideration. As chairman, Raza Rabbani introduced this novel idea.

The National Assembly Committee on Law and Justice is an exception for not only having taken into consideration a government bill to increase the number of judges in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), as recommended by the Supreme Court but also recently presented its report in the House.

However, seven MPs, belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)--Rana Sanaullah, Khawaja Saad Rafique, Usman Ibrahim, Dr Nafeesa Shah, Syed Navid Qamar, Syed Hussain Tariq and Aliya Kamran--dissented and opposed the bill.

In their common note, they said the instant bill provides for increase in IHC judges in isolation from other high courts while in the statement of objects and reasons, the minister in charge states “the present strength of judges compared to number of pending cases is not sufficient besides institution of fresh cases, which is increasing every year”.

The dissenters wrote that the committee, in its meeting, expressed dissatisfaction on the rationale provided by the minister for increase in the seats, which was the pendency of the cases alone. If this was the case then there was pendency in other courts as well. In the absence of judges to pending cases ratios compared with other high courts, the rationale could not be justified by the data given.

As there was no information available on the number of cases pending in other high courts, they noted that the law ministry had provided inadequate information to the committee. The opposers said it was argued unanimously that additional information in particular the details of pendency of cases in courts would be provided in the next meeting in order for the committee to compare this with other courts and hence assess the need in the light of the information provided.

They wrote that in the two subsequent meetings of the committee, no additional information was furnished by the law ministry in the absence of which they were unable to make an informed decision. “We would also observe that failure to provide timely and adequate information indicates not only the incompetence but also unwillingness to share the information. We are concerned about the lack of transparency in this regard.”

In addition, they said, it was only on questioning in the committee they learnt that out of the seven existing positions of judges in the IHC, only four were filled and three were vacant. They said that the committee expressed surprise as to why additional seats were required when three were already vacancies. The committee sought details on this matter as well.

The dissenters recommended that if number of seats were being increased, the IHC, being the first court of appeals for the federal government, must include judges from the provincial courts by law so as to federalise the constitution of the IHC. However, the law ministry did not agree.