In constitutional democracies, words are not decorative. They carry structure, authority, and consequences. The term “Cabinet” under the Constitution of Pakistan is not a casual political label. It is a defined constitutional institution with specific composition, responsibility, and limitations. To treat it otherwise is to reduce constitutional governance to optics.

Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the Constitution are not ambiguous. Executive authority of the Federation is exercised by the Federal Government, consisting of the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers. Article 91(4) makes it explicit that “the Cabinet, together with the Prime Minister, shall be collectively responsible to the National Assembly.”

Article 92 provides for the appointment of Federal Ministers and Ministers of State by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. They take an oath under the Third Schedule and are bound by constitutional accountability.

The Cabinet, therefore, is not an advisory club. It is a constitutional body carrying collective responsibility before Parliament. It operates within numerical limits. Its members hold defined offices. They are accountable to the electorate through the National Assembly.

Special Assistants to the Prime Minister (SAPMs), on the other hand, are not constitutional creations. They are appointed under the Rules of Business framed under Article 99. They do not take an oath as Federal Ministers. They are not necessarily members of Parliament. They may be granted protocol status. They may attend meetings if invited. But they are not, by constitutional design, members of the Cabinet unless formally appointed under Article 92.

This distinction........

© The Friday Times