The Sindh High Court (SHC) ordered the provincial government on Monday not to keep more than five advisers. A division bench including Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Shahid Anwar Bajwa allowed the constitution petition challenging the appointment of 17 advisers to the chief minister, filed by Alf Jatoi, representative of the Sindh Dost Rabita Council. Advisers Rashid Hussain Rabbani, Gul Muhammad Laat, Qurban Ali Behan, Waqas Malik, Mufti Ferozuddin Hazarvi, Sharmila Farooqui, Ghulam Qadir Malkani, Babar Leghari, Imamuddin Shauqeen, Muhammed Siddiqui Abu Bhai, Jehangir Delawar Khanjee, Sardar Aamir Khan Bhutto, Jameel Ahmed Soomro, Kaiser Bengali, Imtiaz Ahmed Shaikh, Zubair Ahmed Motiwala and Fazal-ur-Rehman were cited as respondents.
After hearing the final arguments from both sides, the court disposed of the petition with the directives, “Neither is the government illegible to appoint more then five advisers, nor can it can award a portfolio to any of them.” The petitioner’s counsel Barrister Zamir Hussain Ghumro contended that a chief minister can appoint only five advisers under the constitution. He argued that the chief minister had violated the constitution by appointing more than five advisers and also awarding them portfolios.
Responding to the counsel, the Sindh advocate general appeared before the court and submitted a written statement on behalf of the provincial government, according to which the chief minister had reduced the advisers to five and none of them were awarded any portfolio. Earlier, the AG submitted the copies of notifications of the five remaining advisers to the chief minister, wherein he had informed the court that the chief minister had de-notified twelve advisers out of 17, and now only five advisers are left performing their duties.
He stated that the notification was issued on February 1 and the government “obeyed” a provision given in the 18th Amendment to appoint only five people to these posts. The petitioner submitted that the Sindh government had violated Article 130 by appointing 17 advisers. The petitioner submitted that the purpose of the appointment of advisers was to get expert opinion from highly qualified professionals on certain specialised matters in which government lacks expertise.
He stated that the appointed advisers did not possess the required expertise in any field and had been appointed on the basis of favouritism; and they were least concerned with the problems of the people.
The petitioner stated that being unelected, the advisers were responsible to none and being paid huge salaries and costly perks at the expense of the public exchequer.
‘Thou shalt not have more than 5 advisers’
