KARACHI - Three advisers and eight special assistants of Sindh chief minister have resigned, after the Sindh High Court pressed the government for sacking the unelected members of Sindh Cabinet.

A sweeping SHC order, originally passed in November last, can prompt pleas in the high courts of other provinces also – leading to termination of advisers and special assistants there as well.

Adviser to CM on Information Maula Bakhsh Chandio, Adviser on Labour and Human Resources Saeed Ghani and Adviser on Mines and Mineral Development Asghar Junejo tendered their resignations to CM Murad Ali Shah on Thursday.

Special Assistant for Religious Affairs Abdul Qayum Soomro is among the eight special assistants who also forwarded their resignations to the CM, sources said.

Hearing a contempt of court case against the Sindh government yesterday, a bench headed by SHC Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah demanded the chief law officer provide proof of termination of the advisers and special assistants, in line with a court order passed for their termination in November 2016.

The contempt of court plea had been filed over two-month delay in sacking of former adviser on law, Barrister Murtaza Wahab Siddiqui, whose appointment was de-notified only a few days ago.

During Thursday’s hearing, the bench demanded the government provide termination notification letters of the three other advisers also.

It also instructed the government to provide emolument details of outgoing advisers Saeed Ghani, Chandio and Soomro that they have received after the Nov verdict of the high court.

Moula Bux Chandio said he will accept whatever decision his party makes on this issue. But he pointed out that a number of advisers and special assistants were also serving in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, raising the question, “If it was right for other provinces, why was it wrong for Sindh?”

A lawyer, Fareed Ahmed Dayo had filed a case pleading the LHC to declare illegal the multiple appointments of Barrister Murtaza Wahab Siddiqui - including his post of CM’s adviser with portfolios of law, enquiries and anti-corruption establishment.

After conducting lengthy proceedings, a two-judge bench declared its verdict on Nov 23, declaring illegal the appointments of Siddiqui as CM adviser, as chairperson of the board of governors of the law colleges in Karachi and as pro vice-chancellor of a law university - SZABUL.

The bench, headed by the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, also nullified the two legal amendments made to the government’s Rules of Business and the law regarding the appointment and delegation of executive power to the advisers.

The petitioner had argued that, as per the constitution, the president on the advice of the prime minister, can appoint advisers who have the right to speak and otherwise take part in the proceedings of either house or a joint sitting, but they are not entitled to vote.

Likewise, the CM is empowered to appoint not more than five advisers, but such advisers have no right to speak or take part in the proceedings of the provincial assembly.

He said granting portfolio of law, enquiries and anti-corruption establishment departments with status of provincial minister to Siddiqui amounted to exercise of executive authority by an adviser who is not a chosen representative of the people.

“This act is against the mandate given to the CM and is in violation of the scheme of the Constitution, which requires the exercise of executive authority through chosen representative of the people only, claimed Dayo.

Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, who represented Sindh CM, relied upon various articles of the Constitution and provisions of the Sindh Advisers (Appointment, Powers, Functions, Salaries, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 2013, and the Sindh government’s Rules of Business of 1986. He argued that neither the constitution, nor the 2003 Act or the Rules of Business prescribe any qualification or criteria for the appointment of the advisers; therefore, the CM has absolute authority to appoint any person as his adviser.

The judges observed that the constitutional privilege extended to the PM’s advisers of speaking and otherwise taking part in the proceedings of either house is not extended to those advisers appointed by the CM.

The judges wrote in their order: “Further, following the dictum laid down in the case of American International School System (supra) where the Supreme Court laid down the principle that the CM, under his constitutional dispensation, is neither a king nor a monarch, but is in the domain of the trust and under article 5 of the constitution, he is obliged to obey the constitution and law like any other ordinary citizens.”