The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) spends a massive amount of money on its law officers on official and private cases, said a report in a local daily.
According to an official list, the government pays the attorney general (AG) Rs 1 million per month, six additional attorney generals (AAGs) get Rs 700,000 per month, while 38 deputy attorney generals are paid Rs 150,000 each month. These add up to a wage bill of Rs 10.9 million; and they are not the only ones. The government also employs standing counsel, at the rate of Rs 100,000 per month.
In addition, all these law officers enjoy perks and privileges, such as chauffeur-driven official vehicles and a personal security detail, among other benefits.
There are a total of 130 law officers on the federal government’s panel, but they have not had the best success rate when it comes to getting the government out of tight spots, said the report in Dawn.
The most recent case where the government’s attorneys managed to obtain relief for the PML-N leadership came when an FIR – registered against the prime minister and other key ministers over the August 30 violence at the Constitution Avenue – was suspended by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Despite having 130 highly-paid law officers on its payroll, ruling party still forced to engage private counsel
However, according to the criminal law experts, the suspension of one FIR is not enough.
The quashed case was registered on the complaint of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). But another, similar case, filed by the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) continues to hang like a sword over the government’s neck.
Former deputy attorney general Raja Aleem Khan Abbasi told the paper that the individuals nominated in the cases would not be ‘home free’ unless both FIRs were quashed. “Merely getting FIR suspended cannot be called a breakthrough on the part of the government’s legal team,” he added.
According to the report, of the 130 lawyers, at least 47 law officers have political loyalties to the ruling PML-N, 24 belong to the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), 20 are affiliated with Hamid Khan’s ‘Professional Group’ – which is also contesting the upcoming Supreme Court Bar Association elections – while incumbent AG Salman Aslam Butt and some others were appointed by former president Pervez Musharraf and his ally, the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q).
Over the last couple of months, the federal government’s law officers could not effectively defend themselves against applications filed under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after which a sessions court ordered the registration of an FIR against the prime minister, a number of federal ministers and senior government officials including senior police officials.
These included a case filed by PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mehmood Qureshi where a sessions court, on September 27, ordered registration of an FIR against the prime minister and others.
Earlier, on September 15, a sessions court had already given a similar order on an identical petition, filed by PAT.
Wary of adverse decisions against it, the PML-N government engaged a private lawyer, Sardar Mohammad Ishaq, to defend its case against the PTI petition but to no avail.
Again, in the case regarding the appointment of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulator Authority chairman, Barrister Mehmood A. Sheikh, a private counsel, is pleading the federal government’s case. In another PEMRA-related matter, newly-appointed DAG Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi is appearing before the IHC, not from the government’s side but as a private counsel.
Before this, on August 28, a Lahore court ordered an FIR against the prime minister, the Punjab chief minister and others in connection with the Model Town tragedy, which claimed the lives of at least 14 PAT activists.
Similarly, since both protesting parties launched their march on Islamabad, the federation’s law officers could not defend the measures the government took to impeded the marchers’ progress, in court.
On August 18, after PTI lawyers challenged the detention of its activists under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO), the government had to withdraw its notification regarding the arrest of at least 20 people under the MPO and had to set them free.
In September, police arrested around 1,000 individuals for violation of Section 144 of the CrPC, but all of them were released after the IHC held that their arrest and detention was illegal.
Both protesting parties had also challenged the imposition of Section 144 before the IHC. Initially, the court suspended the notification imposing Section 144 and, subsequently, the government attorney announced in the open court that following the order’s expiry on October 12, the district magistrate was in no mood to re-issue the notification to keep Section 144 in force in the capital.