KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the ministry of commerce and other respondents to ensure that appointment of the chief executive officer (CEO) of the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL) is made in accordance with law after considering all the applicants.

Before the appointment of the CEO, the SHC also asked them to re-notify the board of directors of the NICL with regard to fresh members, who do not have any conflict amongst themselves, and a female member also be notified as required under the law.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan issued notices to the respondents as well as advocate general (AG) Sindh for Aug 23.

Citing the ministry of commerce, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, NICL and others as respondents, Syed Saulat Hussain Naqvi petitioned the SHC and submitted that pursuant to an advertisement published on May 18, he had also applied for the position of the CEO of the NICL.

The lawyer for the petitioner asserted that the appointment of the CEO was initiated by the board of directors of the NICL, which under the law ought to be comprised of seven members out of which one has to be a female as requisite under the provision 154(2) of the Companies Act, 2021.

The counsel also contended that the board members had to be independent individuals, but that requirement was also ignored by appointing two brothers — Shahid Sattar and Abid Sattar. The brothers have also been cited as respondents in the petition.

He further argued that lastly, Khalid Hamid was appointed as CEO of the NICL in 2020 and his tenure stood expired in April 2024 and probably there was a consideration for extension in the tenure of Mr Hamid. But the move was allegedly resisted by the ministry of law by issuing a letter in this regard on April 1, 2024.

The lawyer for the petitioner expressed the apprehension that the current board, which was notified in August last year, might pave way for the ill-conceived extension to the current CEO contrary to public interest as well as ignoring various applicants because their applications should have been considered pursuant to the advertisement in all fairness.

He also asserted that firstly, the board members had to be appointed after fulfilling all requirements, including the provision of State-Owned Enterprises Act 2023, which were lacking in the current board and seemingly such internal arrangements were made to facilitate the extension of the current CEO.

The lawyer also contended that the ministry of law had already penned an adverse note about the such proposed extension and pleaded that the petitioner along with all other aspirants be considered after a new independent board was notified/constituted.

After a preliminary hearing, the bench put the respondents as well as AG on notice for Aug 23.

The court in its order said: “Meanwhile, the process of finalisation of CEO should only be made in accordance with law and after considering all the aspirants who applied for such a position pursuant to advertisement dated 18.05.2024 and that too after the board having been re-notified with regard to fresh members who do not have any conflict amongst themselves and such notification be issued including one female member in accordance with law.”

Published in Dawn, July 21st, 2024