June 2, 2006	Friday	Jumadi-ul-Awwal 5, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, June 1: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Privatisation Commission to explain the process of selecting a unit for privatisation and if the government is bound to sell a viable entity earning profits.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry also desired any of the evaluators – City Group, A. F. Ferguson and Company or Corus Consultants of UK which evaluated the Pakistan Steel Mills before its privatisation — to assist the court on questions regarding the value of the mill.

A nine-member larger bench of the court was hearing private petitions challenging the sale of the steel mills for what petitioners call a “paltry sum” of Rs21.68 billion.

The bench also issued a notice to the PC and advocate Khalid Anwar, counsel for the bidders, to respond to allegations levelled by Iftikhar Shafi, chairman of the Diamond Group of Industries, against the Arif Habib Securities. The court made it clear that it would keep Mr Shafi’s application pending and not implead him as a party in the case for the time being.

Advocate Ahmer Bilal Soofi had invited the attention of the court towards Rs18.2 billion civil suits pending before the Sindh High Court and an FIR in Lahore against the Arif Habib Securities, a member of the consortium which purchased 75 per cent shares of the steel mill.

“I’m not seeking any observation or any investigation, rather intend to make the application on record to highlight how the PC failed to identify the background of the respondent,” he said.

On Thursday, Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan told the court that the federal government was coming into appeal against the March 30 Sindh High Court judgment. Advocate Mujeeb Pirzada is representing the Pakistan Steels Peoples Workers Union in the apex court in the case.

On behalf of the PC, advocate Sharifuddin Pirzada argued that the privatisation of the steel mill was transparent and not tilted in favour of any one.

He said the petitioners had failed to establish infringement of any fundamental rights and had not exhausted alternative remedies available to them under the Privatisation Commission Ordinance, 2000.

Under the ordinance, he said, the federal government could order a detailed scrutiny on the sale of the unit within a year and a judicial review by a high court was also available.

Referring to press reports on which he said the petitioners relied, advocate Pirzada said the privatisation of the mill was not an issue before the filling of the petitions but suddenly it became an important issue and many articles were written in newspapers, including by a former “de facto” chief justice. Newspapers cuttings and reports were not a valid ground for a judicial review and, therefore, no evidential value could be attached to them, he said.

At this, the CJ recalled that the apex court had accepted press clippings as evidence of corruption against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Zafar Ali Shah case when it validated the Oct 12, 1999, military takeover. This was a distinguishable case and was in a different context, advocate Pirzada replied.

The CJ again observed that the media was very supportive, open and highlighted injustices on which “we also relied sometimes.” This was also good for independence of judiciary, he observed. Advocate Pirzada recalled that the standing committee of the National Assembly had supported the mill privatisation.

At this CJ, again enquired from him whether the support was in black and white because if it was so, then the people should know that their representatives had accepted the sale of the country’s biggest industrial concern and there was no scope to review objections regarding transparency in the sale of the mill.

“This will also make your case more convincing,” the CJ said.

Justice Javed Iqbal, a member of the bench, said that perhaps the mill privatisation was never tabled before parliament.

“I have to check this,” advocate Pirzada replied but recalled that an adjournment motion had been moved in parliament for discussion on the mill privatisation. On May 29, 1997, the Council of Common Interests had decided that the PSM should be privatised. However, he avoided to answer a directed question from the CJ when asked whether the Economic Coordination Committee had not decided to float 10 per cent shares of the PSM in the open market and to list the entity in the Karachi Stock Exchange.

Advocate Pirzada will again resume his arguments when the bench assembles on Monday.