DC ordered to disclose lavish house details after 2-year delay
For over two years, the office of Deputy Commissioner of Hyderabad has evaded submitting a range of details about the DC House despite repeated notices served by the Sindh Information Commission (SIC). The commission, however, on April 30 has given 10 days to the incumbent DC Zainul Abedin Memon to comply by providing the required details to the complainant Boota Imtiaz, a member of Sindh Human Rights Commission (SHRC).
"Failure to comply with this order within the stipulated time may result in further action by this commission," a letter signed by the Information Commissioner Shahid Abbass Jatoi and Chief Information Officer Dr Jawaid Ali warned. Nestled in the city's centre, the sprawling and lavishly built house spreads to several acres of prime land.
It is even bigger than the houses given to Commissioner Hyderabad and DIG Hyderabad. In May, 2023, Imtiaz wrote a letter to the then DC Fuad Ghaffar Soomro, requesting him to provide details about the house, its staff, vehicles and expenses. He had sought information about the house's area; number of employees and annual budget allocation for their salaries; number of vehicles and budget for fuel and maintenance; and expenses incurred on the utility bills.
The funds spent on renovation, repair and maintenance of the house were also required. Imtiaz had based his request on article 19-A of the constitution as well as under the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2016. The same letter was again submitted in August, 2023, but to no avail, according to him. He later filed a complaint with the SIC on August 7, 2023.
A subsequent complaint about non-compliance was submitted on October 3, 2023. The commission issued its first notice to the DC on October 13, 2023, directing him to appear before the SIC on October 30, 2023, along with the requisite information. Another notice for the appearance was served on October 30, 2023, for November 7, 2023.
"The Commission is of the view that the respondent willfully ignored the notices and intentionally disobeyed the orders issued by the commission," the letter's section titled commission's view reads. "The commissioner is also of the considered opinion that the respondent's failure to provide requested information and to comply with the orders constitutes a violation of the Act." In its order, the SIC directed the DC to provide all the required details within 10 days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Home-based women workers' rights ignored
Although the Sindh government has legislated a law to grant and protect rights of the women home based workers, a lack of implementation on the law continues to deny rights to these workers. A consultation meeting , organized in Sukkur by the Sindh Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and Bhittai Social Watch and Advocacy (BSWA) on Saturday night, shed light over the issue, identifying bottlenecks and suggesting solutions. The Sindh Home-Based Workers Act was legislated in 2018 to safeguard rights of the home based workers. Tens of thousands of women work in the province in the informal sectors like creating embroidery, crafting multi-coloured tapestry quilts called rilli in Sindhi language, date leaves and wheat straw, besides a range of other items. "The Act is a pioneering law in South Asia," observed Abdullah Dayo, Program Advisor at Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). "We must now focus on implementing its rules to transform legal recognition into the real-world protections for women workers." Additional Inspector General of Police Gender and Human Rights Shahla Qureshi acknowledged the law's significance, underlining the need to integrate gender protection, coordination with anti-GBV services and proactive roles by police in facilitating survivors' access to support services without procedural delays. SSP informed about the role of Anti-Rape Crisis Cells (ARCCs) and the Gender Desks in assisting women workers. She encouraged greater coordination between police, SHRC, and CSOs for survivor-centered responses.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats: ECP says majority judgement premised on ‘erroneous conclusion'
ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) submitted the majority judgement in the reserved seats case is premised on the erroneous conclusion that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in addition to Sunni Ittehad Council(SIC) was before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) and both sought allocation of the disputed reserved seats to 'SIC or to PTI'. Barrister Sikandar Bashir Mohmand filed seven formulations before the Constitution Bench, which is hearing the review against the SC judgment on reserved seats. He said that the PTI in its CMA 5913/ 2024 filed on 26-6-2024 did not pray for allocation of the reserve seats to 'PTI itself' or to 'either PTI or SIC'; instead PTI asserted; 'the denial by the ECP of reserve seats to the SIC will result in the national assembly and the provincial assemblies losing their representative character. These seats cannot be allowed to any other party.' The ECP submitted that CMA 5913/ 2024 is stated to have been filed under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (inherit powers of SCP) and not under Order V Rule 2 (2) which is the relevant Rule for an application for striking out or adding a party. Therefore, PTI did not formally seek 'impleadment' in Civil Appeals 333 and 334 of 2024. The majority judgement incorrectly describes CMA 5913/ 2024 as 'PTI's application for impleadment'. As PTI was evidently not party to proceedings before the ECP, PHC and SCP, no relief could have been lawfully granted to it, even by exercising power under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. It submitted that the provisions of Article 51 and the Article 106 have been misconstrued in the majority judgement, which inter alia has distorted the scheme of the provisions of Article 51 and Article 106 as read with Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 and the Election Rules, 2017. The ECP stated that it is an essential component of the scheme of the provisions of Article 51 and Article 106 that the List of Priority for Seats Reserved for Women and Non-Muslims (Form 66) of each political party, as well as, the nomination papers for candidates in such list must be submitted and scrutinised prior to polling day and in parallel with filing and scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates contesting on general seats. The rationale being that the electors have notice of the candidates of the concerned 'political party' who may be elected on reserve seats before polling day. The direction in paragraph 9 of the majority judgement allowing the filing of the List of Priority for Seats Reserved for Women and Non-Muslims (Form 66) after the election has concluded and returned candidates have been notified is in conflict with the Election Programme and the democratic objective and rationale. The ECP stated that the timelines prescribed in paragraph 8 and 9 could only lawfully be prescribed by Parliament through legislation amending Article 51 Provisions (and Article 106 provisions), as well as, Sections 51, 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. The said timelines could also not be prescribed without striking down the Election Programme dated 15-12-2023 as amended on 22-12-2023 read with Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. The ECP submitted that the power to 'alter' the Election Programme vests solely with the ECP under Section 58 of the Elections Act, 2017 read with Article 218 (3) and Article 219 (d), as well as, the last sentence of Article 222 of the Constitution. Therefore, in any event such timelines could not be prescribed by the SCP, even under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. It contended that the timelines given in paragraphs 8-9 of the Majority Short Order are directly in conflict with the scheme and timeline in the Article 51 Provisions and also sections 51, 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. Therefore, same could not be given in exercise of power under Article 187(1). Since PTI was not a party to proceedings before the ECP, PHC and SCP and neither did it make an express prayer for allocation of the Disputed Reserve Seats to itself, this specific matter was never 'a case or matter pending before it' in terms of Article 187 (1) in consequently relief to PTI by invoking Article 187 (1) is impermissible.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
SC limits army courts' powers under Constitution
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under Article 175 (3) of the Constitution, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, have no jurisdiction to prosecute persons accused of clause (d) of the Act. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Friday issued his verdict on the intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court judgment on military courts. A seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan on May 7 by majority of 5-2 had set aside the SC judgment and restored Section 2 (1) (d) and Section 59 (4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The majority had referred the matter to the government/ parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/ legislation in the Army Act, and allied Rules for providing an independent right of appeal in the High Court, against the conviction awarded to the persons by the court martial/military courts, within a period of 45 days. Two members of the Constitutional Bench, namely, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Naeem, disagreed with the majority judgment, and set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by the courts martial for 9th May 2023, incidents, and declared them to be without jurisdiction. Justice Mandokhail judgment said that the jurisdiction to try civilians extended to courts martial, especially, in the light of the judgment of FB Ali ceases to exist. The discretion of 'prescribed officer' assigned to him by virtue of Section 94 of the PAA relating to transfer of cases of civilians to courts martial, in respect of civil offences under clause (d), is no more available. However, the courts martial have a limited jurisdiction to the extent of prosecuting members of the Armed Forces for violation of military laws and civil offences. It said that the logic behind the separation of the judiciary from the executive, under Article 175 of the Constitution, is that criminal offences are against the State, whereas, the executive is responsible for administration of the same. A person who breaches a law, is an accused of the State, therefore, the executive having an interest into the matter, cannot itself perform as a judge to punish the accused. It is for this reason, sub-Article (3) of Article 175 of the Constitution mandates that the judiciary shall be separated from the executive, within 14 years of commencement of the Constitution. The judgment noted that upon insertion of clause (d) in subsection (1) of Section 2 and subsection (4) in Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), the courts martial comprising serving officers of the Army are prosecuting the persons accused of offences of clause (d). It said that the purpose of adding the said clause in the PAA is that the offences mentioned therein are prejudicial to the interests of the Army. Admittedly, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that no one ought to be a judge in his own cause or in which he has an interest. This principle is strictly observed to avoid any instance of bias, resulting into injustice. Under such circumstances, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the PAA, manned or run by the executive, under the command, control and discipline of the Federal Government, cannot be regarded as unbiased, independent or impartial forums. They cannot protect the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens in a criminal charge or for the determination of their rights and obligations. Thus, courts martial and the forum of appeal are violative of Articles 2A, 175 (3) and 227 of the Constitution. The judgment held that the courts martial are administered judicially, not as a part of the judicature erected under Article 175 of the Constitution, but as part of the organisation of the Armed Forces itself. The jurisdiction of courts martial trying military personnel for service offences and civil offences is different from judicial power exercised by ordinary courts for the general offences against the State. The judgment said: 'We have no doubt in our minds that being a special legal framework, the PAA is primarily a disciplinary statute that applies exclusively to a specified group of people; i.e., members of the Armed Forces.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
