AN entirely avoidable tussle at the Bank of Khyber has placed the PTI government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in an awkward position.

Since the bank is owned by the provincial government, the finance minister of KP appears to believe that he has a role in its internal decision-making.

The finance minister happens to belong to the Jamaat-e-Islami, which is a coalition partner of the PTI government. Recently, the minister went public with remarks that he was not consulted when the bank crafted its voluntary separation scheme.

The bank’s management shot back in a lengthy advertisement, that appeared in most major newspapers, accusing the finance minister and his private secretary of “pressuring management with illegal recruitment”, “profiting from inductions”, using bank resources to arrange political functions and “interference in the independence of the Board and other corporate matters”.

This public exchange of allegations makes for an unseemly sight, and what is puzzling is that things should have come to this given that the finance secretary of the province sits on the board, which is chaired by the provincial additional chief secretary.

Given these channels of communication between the bank’s top decision-making body and the political government that owns the bank, there should be no room for public spats of this sort. It appears the provincial government is working on different tracks.

The PTI has long championed the cause of reforming public-sector enterprises by granting the latter more autonomy under empowered boards, but now that one of its own enterprises is proceeding under those auspices, it finds itself facing political headwinds.

The moment presents the ruling party in the province with the awkward choice between its own board at the bank and its coalition partner in government.

Perhaps the bank management overreacted by taking out public advertisements against the finance minister, but the allegations levelled in those ads now need to be investigated.

In particular, the management should clarify further what is meant by “interference in the independence of the Board and other corporate matters”.

If the interference is restricted to hiring and promotions, and asking for resources to support political events, then it is easily dealt with. But if it extends to the core lending operations of the bank — such as grant of loans and write-offs — then it needs to be taken very seriously.

The last thing the country wants to see is another major corruption scandal.

Published in Dawn, April 19th, 2016