ISLAMABAD: The Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) has urged the Parliament to strengthen the parliamentary committee system by operationalising Article 66 of the Constitution through comprehensive legislation that ensures enforceable oversight powers.
Highlighting persistent gaps that have weakened committees’ ability to scrutinise the executive, Fafen’s latest policy brief, “From Symbolism to Sanction: Operationalising Article 66 for Empowered Committees,” calls for urgent reforms to ensure that parliamentary committees function as credible instruments of accountability rather than forums reliant on voluntary cooperation by ministries and officials.
Fafen notes that despite constitutional provisions recognising committees as essential oversight mechanisms, the absence of enabling legislation under Article 66(3) has rendered critical committee powers largely symbolic. Recent assessments by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have pointed to weak enforcement of oversight mechanisms, highlighting executive dominance, limited transparency, and the inability of parliamentary committees to compel compliance, it added.
Fafen emphasised that meaningful reforms must go beyond procedural adjustments to establish enforceable authority for committees, which is supported by statutory penalties and judicial enforcement mechanisms.
The brief recommends a set of actionable reforms to strengthen Pakistan’s parliamentary oversight architecture. The policy brief calls for urgent enactment of comprehensive enabling legislation under Article 66(3) of the Constitution to operationalise parliamentary committees’ powers. “Such legislation should clearly define contempt of Parliament, establish due process, and prescribe proportionate penalties for refusal to appear before committees, failure to produce documents, or submission of misleading information.
“It should empower committees to compel attendance, enforce document production, and refer cases of non-compliance to courts for appropriate legal action.”
The brief emphasises the need to curb the broad and discretionary use of confidentiality claims that undermine parliamentary scrutiny. “Any decision to withhold information on grounds of defence, security, or external relations should be supported by written justification and assessed against narrow and clearly defined criteria.
“The discrepancy between Article 66(3)(b) of the Constitution, which vests authority to determine confidentiality in the President, and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament should be corrected to remove ambiguity and prevent misuse of confidentiality to evade accountability.”
The policy brief recommends that all instances of non-compliance with committee directives be formally reported to the House. “Regular reporting would ensure parliamentary visibility of executive defiance, enable collective response, and impose reputational and political consequences on defaulters, thereby reinforcing the authority and credibility of parliamentary committees.”
Fafen believes that an effective parliamentary oversight system is a constitutional imperative. “Without embedding clear legal authority and enforcement mechanisms, the parliamentary committees will continue to struggle in holding the executive accountable, ultimately weakening democratic governance and public trust in state institutions,” it said.
