Hold on to your turbans, MPs
By Farhatullah Babar
The NEWS dated February 14, 2007

The government last week banned the journalists from movement inside the Parliament House and also from covering the proceedings of the National Assembly standing committees ostensibly on the ground of security.

The latest move has come at a time when some parliamentary committees demonstrated courage to hold the government accountable. Indeed the restrictions were slammed soon after the last meeting of the public accounts committee in which the defence ministry was grilled over the issue of the military first acquiring lands for defence purpose but later quietly using them for building houses, commercial plazas and other purposes. Although the sensible defence secretary calmed the members by claiming that a new military lands' policy was on the anvil that would address these concerns, it was a matter of time that some new ways would be found to keep the issues wrapped under secrecy.

It therefore did not matter how ill advised and ill timed the move was. The ban was slammed without consulting the parliament. Worst still, it was imposed just when the speaker national assembly inaugurated the Pakistan Institute of Parliamentary Services (PIPS) in Islamabad and opened the institute's first workshop on 'empowering parliamentary committees essential to a strong legislature'.

In all other democracies the parliamentary proceedings are open to the media subject to some regulations. In the US there is a whole channel dedicated to the telecasting of parliamentary proceedings with some restrictions such as ban on showing a member sleeping or yawning. In the UK the question hour is shown live. In India also selected parliamentary proceedings are open to the media.

The decision restricting journalists to the press gallery and the press lounge therefore is not only against the norms in other democracies and an attack on the freedom of the press, it is also a grave assault on the sovereignty of national parliament. It should ring alarm bells. The parliament has been challenged. If our MPs are willing to take the bull by the horns here are four ways by which they may still be able to hold on to their turbans.

The first thing that the parliamentary committees should do is to begin taking suo moto notice of various issues, rather than being content with formal briefings by the ministries on their performance that are made to appear impressive with the power point presentations and summaries on glossy papers.

About a year ago the Rules of Business in the Senate were amended. Sub Rule 4 was added to Rule 146 of the Rules of Procedure on February 6 last year that reads:

"(4) A committee may examine suo motu the expenditure, administration, delegated legislation, the public petitions and policies of the ministry concerned and its attached corporations and public bodies and may call for the views of the ministry. After examining the views of the ministry, the committee shall make a report to the Senate which may make such recommendations thereon as it may deem fit". There should also be a corresponding rule in the National Assembly's Rules of Business, but if there is none the MNAs must take steps to amend their Rules of Business.

A parliamentary committee thus has powers to ask for formal views of a ministry on any issue and that also in writing. After considering the views against the backdrop of the issue the committee has powers to submit its report to the full House that may make any recommendations to the government. This is different from the usual briefings to the committees in which the weaknesses of the ministries are occasionally exposed more by the gaffes of officials than by any calculated and conscious effort to reach to the bottom by inviting views of the ministry on any aspect of its administration. The powers of inviting 'public petitions' and then making them the basis of suo moto action, if used judiciously and after due preparation, is pregnant with enormous possibilities. This is a very potent tool in the hands of committee members. Unfortunately, however, our parliamentarians have not much of this power.

Secondly, the senate committees should increasingly rely or resort to Rule 165 (1), which empowers them to "require the attendance of persons or the production of papers or records, or examine such persons on oath or solemn affirmations, if such course is considered necessary for the discharge of its duties". More often the government functionaries making misstatements or failing to produce record get away with impunity using some pretext. Recently a parliamentary committee condoned a very serious irregularity in the purchase of locomotive engines after the ministry took the plea that it was an 'honest mistake made in good faith'. If the relevant committee had conducted 'examination on oath' it would perhaps have been possible to determine whether the so-called mistake was made with honest or dishonest intentions.

Thirdly, the committees should make greater use of the powers available to it under Rule 165 (3) that empowers it to allow any person "to appear before it and hear expert evidence or any member or any other person having a special interest in relation to any matter under its consideration". There may be many experts, concerned citizens and members of civil society who would be willing to appear before a committee and throw light on some critical dimensions of the issues involved that have been kept hidden from public view by an executive that thrives on secrecy. Our committees have not benefited from the expertise of concerned members of civil society because no conscious effort seems to have been made to benefit from this rule.

Finally, the government may have barred the media from automatically attending the proceedings of parliamentary committees but it does not mean that a committee is barred from inviting journalists to cover its proceedings if it deems it was necessary. The rules pertaining to proceedings of the parliament also apply to its committees. The proceedings of the parliament are open to the media unless the parliament itself decides to hold a certain meeting in camera. Likewise the sittings of committees are also open to the media unless the committee itself has decided to hold a particular sitting 'in camera'. Indeed there are several ways by which the MPs can thwart the latest bid to circumscribe the powers of the parliament. But the initiative for it has to come from the MPs themselves. And this can come only if the parliamentarians tenaciously hold on to their turbans.

The writer is a former PPP senator and a member of the Senate's human rights committee. Email: drkhshan@isb.comsats.net.pk