Amber Phillips
The future of a significant fund meant for dam construction in Pakistan is under serious scrutiny. The Supreme Court is considering whether it can continue to retain the money collected for the Diamer Bhasha and Mohmand Dams. This discussion has arisen from a case regarding advertisements by banks aiming to raise funds for these critical projects.
Background of the Dam Fund
The Dam Fund was established in 2018 after then Chief Justice Saqib Nisar took a suo motu notice to expedite dam construction. It was an initiative aimed at addressing Pakistan’s growing water crisis, and contributions from the public have reached substantial amounts over the years.
- Total funds: Approximately Rs23 billion
– Public donations: Rs11 billion
– Mark-up: Rs12 billion accrued from the fund
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, leading a three-judge bench, expressed concerns about the current handling of these funds during a recent hearing. He questioned whether the federal government and WAPDA could properly manage and retain this significant sum.
Government’s Position on Dam Fund Management
The government’s stance, presented by law officer Mehmood Nazir Rana from the State Bank of Pakistan, noted that the Supreme Court’s accounts hold roughly Rs23 billion in the Dam Fund. Rana confirmed that there was no evidence of irregularities within the fund’s management, and he emphasized the need for effective oversight.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Isa raised questions about the government’s procedure for accruing mark-up on the fund. According to Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman, the government pays the mark-up through Treasury bills. This led to further skepticism from the Chief Justice about the government’s justification for handling the funds in this manner.
Legal Disputes and Concerns
Chief Justice Isa pointed out that the title of the Dam Fund account seemed inappropriate. He indicated a preference for adhering to constitutional laws over previous Supreme Court orders. This remark highlights a growing tension around the fund’s management and its intended purpose.
Former Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan, while discussing the fund’s title, suggested that he wouldn’t object to a change in the account’s name if it fully aligns with the fund’s objectives. He acknowledged that media reports often influenced public perception regarding legal matters, which led to a rebuke from Chief Justice Isa, who insisted on focusing on constitutional issues rather than media narratives.
- Key concerns noted by the court:
– Is it appropriate for public funds to be held in private banks?
– Should the Dam Fund money be directly transferred to an account designated for dam construction instead of governmental control?
Arguments from Various Stakeholders
Representatives from WAPDA presented progress reports relevant to the dam projects but were reminded that the court was only focused on whether it could retain the funds rather than evaluating the construction progress of the dams themselves.
Abdul Ghufran Memon, Additional Auditor General (Operations), raised an important point regarding the nature of the funds. He indicated that if the Dam Fund money were held in a public account, it would not generate any mark-up, raising questions about the financial strategies being employed.
Future Proceedings
The case is pivotal because it addresses not only how much funding is necessary for the dam projects but also concerns the ethical and legal frameworks surrounding public finance in Pakistan. The Chief Justice’s comments about observing strange occurrences within the apex court underline a need for transparency and accountability, particularly with public funds at stake.
The legal debate continues, with the court adjourned until October 11, allowing for further discussions on the matter. Any decision the Supreme Court makes could have lasting implications for how such funds are managed in the future.
this examination of the Dam Fund underscores the complexities involved in managing public financing for critical infrastructure projects in Pakistan. As the Supreme Court navigates these issues, it remains crucial for stakeholders to focus on achieving transparency and aligning public funds with their intended purposes
