ISLAMABAD: The name of eminent nuclear physicist Dr Samar Mubarakmand echoed in the Reko Diq case when Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhry Aamir Rehman on Wednesday mentioned the expert’s briefing to the Supreme Court on the same subject some 12 years ago.

The development came when a five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was hearing a presidential reference filed month on the Reko Diq case.

In January 2011, Dr Mubarakmand told the top court that Pakistan had the necessary expertise and technology to explore and refine precious metals on its own and the Reko Diq project would fetch the country around $2 billion a year.

At that time, the Supreme Court was seized with challenges to a contract awarded to the Tethyan Copper Company Pakistan (TCCP) for exploring gold and copper.

AAG tells court big firms shying away from gold, copper mining project amid huge liabilities, absence of guarantees

Consequently, after the presentation and the 2013 judgment by the Supreme Court in which the contract was held to be illegal, AAG Rehman explained the Balochistan Copper and Gold Project invested Rs8.12bn by venturing into exploring the precious minerals and even dug holes. But the domestic venture had to be closed two years later in 2015 after it failed to produce results.

“How can a scientist say we can do that when he is an expert on metallurgy?” Justice Ijazul Ahsan wondered, also recalling how the same person stated that the Thar Coal Mines gasification project could change the destiny of Pakistan but then nothing happened.

During the hearing, when Justice Yahya Afridi asked whether the government wanted the apex court to review its 2013 judgment in the Reko Diq case, the AAG explained that the earlier contract was declared to be illegal for several reasons, including that the company that entered into the agreement was not registered in Pakistan.

“But what we are asking through the presidential reference is whether the new agreement with the Barrick Gold Corporation is strictly in accordance with the 2013 judgement in view of due diligence,” the AAG said.

Justice Ahsan observed that what the AAG was trying to explain was that despite best efforts, the government could not succeed in attracting a single bidder to enter competitive bidding for investing in mineral exploration.

On this, the AAG explained that there were only 11 or 12 companies that could mine in such a large-scale venture, but none of them wanted to operate without guarantees, especially in view of the huge Intern­ational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) liability.

Published in Dawn, November 10th, 2022