-
Report states Qasmi’s appointment was legitimate
-
Declares PTV’s Articles of Association obsolete
-
Accepts delay in finalising terms and conditions after Qasmi’s appointment
ISLAMABAD: The Ministry of Information, Broadcasting, National History and Literary Heritage (IBNH&LH) has submitted a concise report on the legality of the appointment of Attaul Haq Qasmi as Pakistan Television (PTV) chairman in the Supreme Court (SC).
The report was divided into two heads; appointment and terms and conditions. In the former, the ministry maintained that appointment of Qasmi as PTV director was made under rule 5 of the Rules of Business 1973 which states, “The business of the division shall ordinarily be disposed of by, or under the authority of the Minister-in-Charge.”
The report cited a special summary moved by the ministry to be approved by the prime minister to exempt the restriction of appointing individuals below the age of 65 as heads of autonomous departments. According to the report, the restriction limited the government’s ability to appoint more experienced people as ordered by the Cabinet Division in October 2007.
Later, the summary was approved by the prime minister under the Article 99 of the constitution of Pakistan. The report refers to the late Companies Ordinance 1984 which gives special powers to the federal and provincial governments to nominate and appoint directors on the board of directors of autonomous institutions.
The approved summary which was initiated in October 2015 by the additional secretary in its paragraph 4(a) highlighted the credentials of Qasmi and his subsequent appointment as the PTV chairman for three years.
The report gives reference to the Articles 95 and 106 of PTV’s Memorandum and Articles of Association which ordains upon the PTV Board of Directors to appoint the chairman among the directors as directed by the government of Pakistan.
Giving details about the terms and conditions of Qasmi’s appointment, the report states that the terms and conditions were verbally discussed on January 06, 2016, and were made in writing after the passage of two days.
Regarding the financial terms settled with Qasmi, the report cited Section 191 of Companies Ordinance 1984 which was later incorporated in Section 170 of the Companies Act 2017.
“The remuneration of a director for performing extra services, including the holding of the office of chairman, shall be determined by the directors of the company in accordance with the provisions in the Companies Articles,” states Section 191 of the Companies Ordinance 1984.
The ministry said that this has to be read with the Article 3 (37) of the Memorandum of Articles and Association of PTV while maintaining that the responsibilities are not honourary which may have become a reason why Qasmi could not get any financial benefit from the additional duty of being the chairman of PTV.
Also, the report refers to the Civil Establishment Code 2007 which states that in case the rules established by an autonomous body are in contradiction with the instructions of the government, the provisions of the law (Companies Ordinance 1984) shall prevail.
Moreover, the report states that since PTV’s Memorandum of Articles and Association did not adapt to the Companies Ordinance 1984 which should have happened, the late British India’s Companies Act of 1913 cannot be made the legal ground to assess the rules regarding the appointment of PTV chairman or any other official in the company.
The report maintains that it was decided that Qasmi would be paid Rs15,00,000 per month for the additional charge as PTV chairman, which makes a total of Rs36 million which was paid to him during the two years of his short-lived tenure. The report also indicates that if any amount over and beyond the stipulated amount was given to Qasmi, then it was the responsibility of PTV to look into the matter.
On February 14, the Supreme Court (SC) had asked the ministry to submit a report to the court explaining the position of the government.
The SC while taking a suo moto action on February 2 this year had questioned the hefty amount paid to Qasmi and enquired about the legality of his appointment.
“Pakistan is a poor country and this money belongs to taxpayers. How can it be distributed like this?” the chief justice had questioned during the hearing.