PESHAWAR: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa GovernorFaisal Karim Kundi has returned the recently passed bill, which amended the KP Universities Act, 2012, to the speaker of the provincial assembly, insisting that the nature of the bill has not been clearly determined.

He asked the assembly’s speaker to decide whether the bill qualified to be declared as a money bill under the Constitution.

The house passed the KP Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2024, on Dec 2, with major amendments to the parent law. The bill was sent to the governor on Dec 12for his assent to become a law.

By amending the law, the provincial government has removed the role of the governor in the affairs of public sector universities.

Insists amendments don’t ‘clearly fall in parameters that define money bill’

With the implementation of the amended law, the chief minister will replace the governor as the chancellor of universities.

Speaker of the KP Assembly Babar Saleem Swat recently forwarded the bill to the governor, with a certificate declaring it a money bill.

“I am in receipt of the proposed amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University Act, 2024, which was forwarded to me for assent. The bill is accompanied by a certificate under your (speaker’s) esteemed hand, stating that it is a money bill, as required under Article 115(1) of the Constitution,” read the governor’s letter to the speaker, sent along with the bill returned.

The governor added that on careful and respectful examination of the bill, it appeared that the proposed amendments didn’t clearly fall within the parameters that defined a money bill under Article 115(1).

“Specifically, the bill does not appear to address matters such as taxation, borrowing or expenditure from the provincial consolidated fund or the public account of the province, which are essential features of a money bill,” he noted.

The governor also said he would like to draw the speaker’s attention to Article 63-A of the Constitution, which provided defection provisions in cases where any member of a parliamentary party votes or abstains from voting contrary to the directions issued by their party on matters including a money bill.

He added that the classification of a bill as a money bill had significant implications for the members of the house (assembly), as their decision to vote or abstain from voting during its consideration might expose them to disciplinary consequences under this article, it states.

“In light of the above, it becomes crucial to ensure that the nature of the bill is accurately determined. If the bill under consideration does not qualify as a money bill, it may need to be presented again in the house, allowing the honorable members to deliberate and vote on it in a manner consistent with their parliamentary privilege, free from constraints of Article 63-A.”

The governor also said that given the constitutional significance of the matter, the bill was returned for the speaker’s decision under Article 115(4) about whether it indeed qualified as a money bill.

He added the step was being taken purely to uphold the sanctity of constitutional procedures and safeguard the rights of MPAs.

Sources in the provincial assembly told Dawn that the governor couldn’t return a money bill to the assembly. They said that the governor’s observations had been formally conveyed to the speaker, whose response was awaited.

Published in Dawn, December 26th, 2024