AJK Assembly Speaker received dual salaries, allowances for over 31 months

     Experts term the act a criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Legislative Assembly Speaker, Sardar Ghulam Sadiq, has

received dual salaries and allowances of adviser as well as lawmaker for over 31 months in his previous term.

The move, according to some esteemed legal and constitutional experts, is tantamount to “criminal breach of trust and misappropriation” and can land Mr Sadiq in serious trouble if challenged at an appropriate forum, such as the accountability bureau or election commission.

Mr Sadiq was elected Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) for the second consecutive term in July 2006 from LA 18 Poonch-2 as a nominee of the PPP, which was then the ruling party in Islamabad but had to sit on opposition benches in AJK until an in-house change on January 6, 2009 saw it sharing power with a rebel group of Muslim Conference for nine months.

However, some five weeks before the in-house change, Mr Sadiq was appointed as adviser to the AJK Council chairman on November 30, 2008 under section 21 (8) of the AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, which empowers the chairman, that is the prime minister of Pakistan, to appoint an adviser from amongst the six elected members of Council or 49 members of the Legislative Assembly.

Generally regarded as “toothless,” these advisers enjoy perks and privileges of a federal minister of the state and sit in the AJK Council secretariat in Islamabad.

Mr Sadiq held this position until July 4, 2011, a week after the general elections which he won for the third consecutive term from the same constituency.

The Assembly was installed on July 25, 2011, and he was elected as speaker.

From November 30, 2008 to July 4, 2011, Mr Sadiq received a total of Rs 5.141 million from the AJK Council as basic salary, sumptuary and utility allowances and house rent. Of this amount, he paid Rs 545,507 as income tax.

However, despite having been appointed as adviser (by virtue of being an MLA), Mr Sadiq did not discontinue claiming perks and privileges of MLA.

From December 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011, he received around Rs 1,833,960 from the LA secretariat as basic salary, house rent, office maintenance, sumptuary and telephone allowances. Of this amount, Rs 111,000 was deducted as income tax.

According to Raja Muhammad Hanif, an acclaimed legal pundit, Mr Sadiq had unlawfully claimed salary and allowances of MLA after his appointment as adviser.

“Emoluments of an MLA are included in the emoluments of a minister or adviser… No lawmaker can receive both emoluments simultaneously,” he said.

“Mr Sadiq has deceived both the Assembly and Council secretariats to claim dual benefits in an act that amounts to corruption. It’s a fit case for the AJK Ehtesab Bureau provided an application is lodged against him by someone,” he said.

Mr Hanif’s views were endorsed by Abdul Rashid Abbasi, a former LA Speaker as well as a senior legal and constitutional expert.

“It’s an established principle of law that no person can concurrently claim salary and some certain allowances from two offices,” he said.

“Suppose, if the public money is inadvertently credited to the account of a government functionary, he is required to return it to the official kitty. But if someone claims dual benefits knowingly, it amounts to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation on his part,” he said.

The former speaker pointed out that not only that the AJK Council was a product of the AJK Constitution but also the source of its ‘consolidated funds’ and that of the AJK government was same, i.e., the taxes collected from the AJK people.

When asked if any law directly suggests penalty for such an acts, Mr Abbasi replied in the negative, but added: “If it’s challenged before the election commission, accountability bureau or any other appropriate forum, the culpable person can be declared as a convict and thus ineligible to contest elections.”

When contacted, AJK’s additional advocate general Chaudhry Shoukat Aziz expressed almost similar views.

“Claiming dual benefits is misappropriation and hence an offence…Perks and privileges of one office have to be returned by the beneficiary to avoid punitive action under the law,” he said.

Interestingly, when this scribe contacted Mr Sadiq for his version, he repeatedly pretended ignorance of the matter.  

“I don’t think any such thing has happened…I am not aware of it and I am listening it from you for the first time,” he claimed.

When told about the documentary evidence in possession of this correspondent, he said: “Let me obtain details. If it’s proved, I will deposit the additional benefits instantly.”

Tariq Naqash