ISLAMABAD: The opposition on Wednesday accused the ruling PML-N of trying to introduce laws to replace the parliamentary system of government with the presidential system, triggering a lengthy debate about where executive powers should be vested.

The debate took place during a meeting of the National Assembly Standing Committee on Law and Justice, when the 29th Constitutional Amendment bill, moved by the treasury benches, came under consideration. The bill seeks to allow the prime minister or cabinet to empower a minister to advise the president of Pakistan – a function currently vested only in the prime minister.

But opposition members accused the government of introducing the amendment to get around Supreme Court orders that no prime minister could unilaterally move any legislation, fiscal bill, or approve any budgetary or discretionary expenditures without first taking the cabinet into confidence.

Opposition lawmakers criticise 29th amendment bill, which seeks to empower ministers to advise president

However, Law Minister Zahid Hamid contended that the bill was meant to remove contradictions in the Constitution and streamline the affairs of state in the absence of the prime minister.

In August 2016, the apex court had held that the PM could not take unilateral decisions, by-passing the cabinet, because the power to take such decisions was vested with the federal government, i.e. the cabinet.

During discussion on the 29th amendment bill, PPP lawmaker and former finance minister Syed Naveed Qamar asked how a minister could be empowered to wield the powers of the federal cabinet since, according to the court, even the prime minister himself could not do so without taking the cabinet into confidence.

PTI MNA Dr Arif Alvi said it was his understanding that under the amendment, all ministers would be authorised to move summaries directly to the president of Pakistan.

“If all ministers will have the power to use the powers of the cabinet, there will be no need to call cabinet meetings at all, and all its functions will be carried out without the approval of the prime minister,” he said.

Another PTI legislator, Ali Mohammad Khan, said he believed the country was either heading towards the presidential system, or PM Sharif feared a ‘coup’ within the party.

“This move is against the parliamentary system and will weaken the prime minister and cabinet. Though the prime minister is not from our party, but we will still oppose this amendment,” he said.

MQM legislator S.A. Iqbal Qadri, who has a keen legal mind, also observed that, as per his understanding, the country was moving towards the presidential system.

“No one is willing to say why it is necessary to amend the constitution. It is not possible to have 36 prime ministers in the parliamentary system,” he exclaimed.

But the law minister denied this impression, saying: “This amendment will authorise ministers to move advises to the president of Pakistan, but he will still have to get the approval of the cabinet,” he said.

When Committee Chairman Chaudhry Mahmood Bashir Virk inquired about voting on the draft amendment, Naveed Qamar said members would have to seek guidance from their parties and asked for voting to be deferred. The committee then decided to discuss part of the amendment in its next meeting.

Talking to Dawn, PTI’s Ali Mohammad Khan said such bills cannot be moved without the approval of the prime minister.

“I have never seen a person who wants to curtail his powers. I assume there are two reasons; everything that is discussed in the cabinet also appears on the media. Bypassing the cabinet will make it easy to hide things from the media. There is also the possibility that Nawaz Sharif wants to become president and arrangements are being made to bypass the prime minister and cabinet in every decision,” he said.

The law minister told Dawn that that president could not do anything on his own and needed advise from the cabinet, through the prime minister.

“We want that ministers should be empowered to send advises directly, rather than adopting a long-winded route. It will not only save time but also make it possible to continue work in case the PM is otherwise engaged,” he said.

‘Prophetic’ age

Another part of the amendment dealt with reducing the minimum age for appointment of high court judges from 45 to 40 years.

MQM’s Mr Qadri asked why this was being done, but the law minister did not answer the question.

Even when Naveed Qamar observed that he had a feeling that government wanted to appoint a particular individual to the high court by reducing the age, Mr Hamid was not forthcoming and only intervened to ask how the government could change the Constitution for one person.

But when Mr Qamar threatened to boycott committee proceedings if no reason was provided, Law and Justice Secretary Karamat Hussain Niazi interjected, saying that 40 was the prophetic age – referring to the age at which the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) received his first revelation.

Published in Dawn, July 27th, 2017