SC ire forces govt to backtrack on control of national park

• Govt withdraws notification transferring control of Islamabad Wildlife Management Board from climate change division to interior ministry
• Court wonders how a bureaucrat could have acted without cabinet approval in case involving his own brother
ISLAMABAD: The federal government was forced to roll back a major administrative change on Friday, after the Supreme Court took issue with the decision to transfer control of the Islamabad Wildlife Manage­ment Board (IWMB) from the climate change division to the interior ministry.
The backpedaling came following a three-judge Sup­reme Court bench hearing on contempt petitions against an earlier order to relocate restaurants out of the Margalla Hills National Park, including the famous eatery, Monal.
Led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the bench took exception to the fact that control of the IWMB was taken from the climate change division and handed over to the interior ministry, which has no connection with the protection and conservation of national parks.
The bench also grilled Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan and Climate Change Secretary Eazaz A Dar on whether they thought it was appropriate for the interior ministry — which is responsible for law and order — to take on the task of conservation.
While the secretary maintained that he was not consulted on the matter and that this should not have been done, AGP Awan conceded that the board should be retained by the climate change division.
It appeared, the AGP explained, that the prime minister did not receive proper advice or the matter was not given due consideration, and asked for some time before the court initiated any action on the contempt petitions.
The court then postponed contempt proceedings until Aug 15, when a concise statement of the federal government regarding the transfer will be considered.

“We expect, as stated by AGP, that he will brief Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif himself, when he will also undoubtedly bring to his attention this order,” said a five-page order issued after the hearing.
On July 19, 2024, a notification was issued, transferring the management of the IWMB to the interior ministry, as well as announcing the removal of Raina Saeed Khan as its chairperson.
But soon after the hearing, the Cabinet Division issued a fresh notification stating that on the directions of the prime minister, the memorandum of Aug 6 stands withdrawn and that the IWMB will continue functioning under the Climate Change and Envi­ronmental Coordination Division.
‘Desecration’ of national park
Advocate Umar Ijaz Gillani representing the petitioners pleaded that the June 11 court order was being violated, since the notification was issued to facilitate further desecration and destruction of the protected Margalla Hills National Park.
The counsel contended that the national park was transferred from the climate change division to the interior ministry, despite the fact that the latter had no connection, association or relevance with the protection and conservation of nature or national parks, nor the requisite expertise and ability.
The fact that Luqman Ali Afzal, the owner of Monal, was the brother of Cabinet Secretary Kamran Ali Afzal, also invoked the court’s ire.
In view of the serious allegations levelled against the cabinet secretary, the Supreme Court considered it appropriate to first ascertain the veracity of the notification and sent for the AGP, Mr Afzal, and the climate change secretary.
After Kamran Ali Afzal confirmed to the court that he was indeed the brother of Luqman Ali Afzal, the court asked whether the requisite cabinet approval was sought before the notification. In response, he said that it was not required as it was within the sole discretion of the prime minister under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of Business, 1973 of the Federal Government.
The court, however, viewed the secretary’s contention with suspicion, saying that his reliance on Rule 3(3) and ignoring the established practice of seeking prior approval of the federal cabinet, coupled with the fact that he acted in a matter involving his own brother, prima facie suggests nepotism and pursuing an agenda which was against the interest of the citizens of Pakistan.
During the hearing, the petitioners also pointed out that banners displayed across the capital advertised a housing scheme named ‘Pine City’, whose hoardings also featured the name of the Capital Development Authority (CDA). They argued that rather than saving the national park, further desecration was feared with the allowing of the ‘Pine City’ project.
Consequently, the court issued notices to the CDA chairman and sought a complete disclosure on whether Pine was an approved project or not, who its owners were and what other projects were being contemplated in the national park, with or without CDA approval.
Further proceedings were put off until Aug 15.
Published in Dawn, August 10th, 2024