ISLAMABAD: Is the piece of legislation approved by the Punjab Assembly raising the salaries, perks and privileges of the chief minister, his predecessors, speaker, ministers, advisers, special assistants, parliamentary secretaries and lawmakers a money bill?
When approached by The News, renowned constitutional expert Wasim Sajjad opined that it was a money bill as per Article 115(1). However, senior lawyer Ikram Chaudhry, while talking to this correspondent, felt that it was not a money bill although the “expenditure” of the Punjab government in the form of increase in the salaries was involved. “In my reckoning, when taxation is provided in a proposed legislation, it can be called a money bill. Since there is no such thing in the present bill, it is an ordinary bill.”
Both legal minds were of the view that the Punjab speaker has no power whatsoever to make substantive changes in the basic text of the bill while Chaudhry Pervez Elahi has done so by inserting certain amendments to it.
They were also unanimous that a private member’s bill that the instant legislation happened to be can’t become a money bill even if adopted by the ruling coalition because it “shall not be introduced or moved in the provincial assembly except by or with the consent of the provincial government” under Article 115(1).
Wasim Sajjad said that the Supreme Court held in 2016 that federal or provincial government means the cabinet and the prime minister or chief minister. In this sense, the present bill was never taken into consideration by “provincial government” as it adopted the piece when it was presented by a private member in the assembly.
It is no secret that it was a private member’s bill, which the ruling coalition owned, supported and got approved from the legislature without any debate. The opposition also voted for it.
By invoking rule 200 of the Rules of Procedure of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab, the speaker amended the bill, reduced his and Chief Minister Usman Buzdar’s salaries and other perks and privileges after Prime Minister Imran Khan expressed displeasure over the phenomenal development.
Rule 200 reads where a bill is passed by the provincial assembly, the speaker shall have power to correct patent errors and make such other changes in it as are incidental or consequential upon the amendments accepted by the legislature.
Both Wasim Sajjad and Ikram Chaudhry said that only the assembly has the power to make any amendments to a bill passed by it earlier, and the speaker can’t do so.
A senior official, having sufficient knowledge of law and Constitution, told The News on condition of anonymity that rule 200 only deals with procedural things, authorising the speaker and assembly secretariat to change the “form” of a law passed to the extent of formatting, section and clause numbering etc., but it doesn’t empower him to overrule the legislature.
The speaker can’t even change a coma or dot in the bill approved by the assembly, he said adding that in any case, the assembly secretariat acting through the speaker is empowered to edit a bill for removal of patent errors or typos. “No individual functionary can tamper with text of the legislation. The speaker can only speak what the assembly allows him to speak. He cannot even grant leave of absence to any lawmaker and has to seek the assembly’s nod for that.”
Wasim Sajjad said slashing or enhancing pecuniary benefits of a set of public representatives through the speaker’s amendment to the bill was not correcting a patent error as required by Rule 200, but it was a deliberate attempt to significantly change its substantive provisions.
Article 115(a) also defines a money bill and says a money bill, or a bill or amendment which if enacted and brought into operation, involving expenditure from the Provincial Consolidated Fund or withdrawal from the Public Account of the province, shall not be introduced or moved in the assembly except by or with the consent of the provincial government.
Wasim Sajjad said that the pay raise deals with the “expenditure” of the provincial government which makes the present proposed legislation a money bill. He said the matter may go to a superior court, which will settle the question whether it was a money bill or not. In his opinion, he said, it is a money bill, and it has already been challenged in the Lahore High Court.
He pointed out that under Article 115(4), if any question arises whether a bill is a money bill or not, the decision of the provincial speaker shall be final. “Such a decision will be final only for the governor but not for any superior court,” he explained.
Clause 5 says every money bill presented to the governor for assent shall bear a certificate under the hand of the provincial speaker that it is a money bill and such certificate shall be conclusive for all purposes and shall not be called in question.
