PTCL privatisation was not transparent: Daily “TheNews” Report Dated 19-7-2011

PTCL privatisation was not transparent: Daily “TheNews” Report Dated 19-7-2011
ISLAMABAD (July 19, 2011) : Privatisation of PTCL was not carried out in a transparent manner and the national exchequer had to suffer a loss of $1 billion due to this, says an investigative report of the National Assembly Standing Committee for Telecom and Information Technology. The report says the monopoly in the telecom sector persisted despite the privatisation and drove away foreign investment worth billions of dollars. The report recommends that the cases of all those involved in the process should be referred to NAB.
The report adds that rules and regulations were flagrantly vbiolated during the tenure of President Musharraf. The NA committee headed by Chairman Chaudhry Birjees Tahir prepared the report after a number of meetings and after examining previous and present bureaucrats, former Minister for Privatisation Abdul Hafeez Sheikh, Senator Waqar Ahmad Khan and other officials.
Present Minister for Finance Dr Abdul Hafeez Sheikh did not cooperate with the committee and did not attend the meetings despite repeated reminders. So much so that he declined to furnish information even after a request for an in camera meeting was granted. The Standing Committee has expressed strong reservations over this attitude.
The report has been deposited with the National Assembly Secretariat and it is expected that it will be presented in the next session. The report prepared by the Committee after holding a number of meetings has held that everything was quite transparent till the first bid of PTCL and ensuing results, and an agreement was signed on 30 June, 2005 in light of which 26% shares of PTCL were to be transferred to Etisalat by 16 September, 2005 and Etisalat was bound to pay the entire amount to the Government of Pakistan. However instead of implementing the agreement, Etisalat started making new demands. The Ministry of Privatisation continued to work in accordance with rules and regulations till October 2005 and on 28 October 2005 issued a notice to Etisalat for cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of the earnest money. After that President Musharraf started intervening; hee called the UAE rulers and assured that all issues would be resolved and then started a new series of negotiations.
According the report of the Parliamentary Committee a new agreement was concluded on January 6, 2006 on conditions about which the Ministry of Privatisation itself made strong reservations. However the reservations were rejected and the national exchequer suffered a loss of $1 billion because of the agreement.
Further the installments were increased and the period was also extended. The Pakistan government came under obligation to pay a sum of $250 million in the head of ‘Technical Services Agreement. The government paid an additional sum of $283 million for ‘voluntary retirement scheme’ for PTCL employees. By including the condition of transferring the properties related to PTCL, the Government had to suffer additional loss of $300 million. After privatisation PTCL was granted concession in taxes to the tune of $76 million.
The most damaging condition that was made part of the agreement was a ban on issuing new licences that blocked the way for foreign investment in G-3 licences and other departments. Moreover NTC, the government body, also failed to get permission for opening a new gateway exchange because of which all government departments have to make all inland and international calls through PTCL alone. Members of the Committee hold that the finance minister has been continuously impeding the provision of information, which leads one to conclude that he had been an equal partner in the non-transparent privatisation of PTCL.
The Parliamentary Committee has come to the conclusion that the summary approved for the privatisation of PTCL in January 2006 did not have the condition of properties which was later changed in the summary of March 2006. Thus the ministerial committee violated its own decision, which shows that pressure on the committee was exerted from a higher level.
A note from federal secretary for privatisation is part of the March 2006 summary that the decision to make the condition of transfer of properties a part of the agreement would be in conflict with decisions taken in January 2006. This proves that the Ministry of Privatisation too was not happy with the final shape of the agreement.
The Parliamentary Committee has unanimously held that the earnest money should have been confiscated after its refusal to implement the agreement and the entire process of privatisation should have been taken up afresh. The members of the committee hold that the entire process after October 2005 is a flagrant violation of prescribed rules and regulations. Former minister for privatization Waqar Ahmad Khan agrees with the conclusion of the Committee.

12 Comments


  1. janab

    DUBAI WALOON KA DUBAI TO PAKISTAN MAIN LAGA HOWA HAY


  2. MR.NAEEM RAZA FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE NA STANDING COMMITTEE FOR IT&T RECOMMEND ETISALAT & ALL INVOLVES IN FAKE & NONTRANSPARENT PRIVATIZATION PROCESS TO NAB, NAB IS A JUDICIAL ORGANISATION & SUPREME COURT IS THE HEAD OF JUDICIARY CAN TAKE SUO MOTO JUST LIKE TAKEN IN OTHER CASES WHEREAS THE CASE OF PTCL PRIVATIZATION PURELY AGAINST PAKISTAN.

  3. Naeem Raza says:

    Chief Justice ship is not a democratic post or Supreme Court is not a public elected department. Actual responsible for our problems is the Govt. of Pakistan (the democratic Govt.). Democratic Minister of IT and other democratic ministers eho belongs to the root of nation.

  4. Mirza Riaz Baig says:

    Petition against privatization of PTCL,launched in SC.


  5. MY DEARS
    JUSTICE IS VERY DEFICULT NEVER WILL BE PROVIDE BY GOVT AND CJP.BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT OUR PROPHET PBUH IS SAYING THAT THOSE WHOS CONTROL MUSLIM GOVT AND THEN NOT PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE AND DIED SO THEY NEVER ENTER TO PARADISE JANNATH SO I THINK THAT THIS IS CLEAR FOR ALL .SO DONT ACCEPT LEADERSHIP OF PEOPLE THIS IS VERY HARD .
    MAY ALLAH HELP ALL /PTCL PENSIONERS WE LOOKING WAY OF ALLAH NOT FOR JUSTICE BUT KINDNESS OF ALLAH BECAUSE WE ARE GUILTY OF ALLAH NOT OF GOVT /CJP

  6. Mirza Riaz Baig says:

    You are right Nomi.He is committed to those powers only,which brought him back to the seat of CJ.Now enjoying power and has no interest in delivering justice.


  7. i think Mr Chief Justice is fair only for his own job not for the nation, national interest and the country

  8. javed iqbal says:


    اسلام علیکم و رحمۃ اللہALL THE PREVIOUS & PRESENT LEADERSHIP HAS VESTED INTREST IN DUBAI/UAE, USA & UK .
    THEY WILL NEVER HEAR OUR VOICE.
    THEY CAN SELL OUT PAKISTAN/ITS PEOPLE TO SAFEGAURD THEIR OWN INTREST.
    I PRAY THAT ANY REAL PAKISTANI SHOULD COME ON TOP & TAKE THEM ALL TO HELL.
    PREVIOUS & PRESENT LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE HANGED ON THE MAIN ROADS.
    PAKISTAN WILL REMAIN INSHA ALLAH & THEY WILL NOT.


  9. MY DEAR
    CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN WILL TAKE SOMOTU ACTION OR NOT THIS IS QUESTION FOR WHICH WE ARE WAITING SO LONG .
    I BELEIVE THAT SOMOTO ACTION WILL TAKEN BY ALLAH ……..NO ANY ONE IN PAKISTAN CAN FIGHT WITH STRONG GOVT EVEN CJP, SO POOR PENSIONERS OF PTCL IS LOOKING WAY OF ALLAH …


  10. Supreme Court will listen 3 to 10 Areb fraud scandal involving some major politician because it has MIRCH MASALA but for 2-10 Areb Doller fraud Supreme court/ CJP Mr. Iftikhar Ch. does not has time

  11. Mirza Riaz Baig says:

    Chief Justice of SC has no time for such cases.He is busy in making Bhutto alive and such useless cases.


  12. EVERY AGRIVED PAKISTANI CAN APPROACH ANY INSTITUTION WITHIN PAKISTAN FOR THEIR RIGHTS.

    OUR JUDICIARY PLAYING EFFECTIVE ROLE IN PAKISTAN TO BUILD UP PAKISTAN & SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN TAKING A LARGE NO. OF SUO MOT0.

    ETISALAT MANAGEMENT OF PTCL PRIORITIZATION BASIS IMMEDIATE SUO MOTO IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATION BY NA STANDING COMMITTEE IT&T IS A REAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION OBSERVATION.

    SUO MOTO AGAINST ETISALAT & ALL INVOLVE MUST ESSENTIAL FOR BETTERMENT OF PAKISTAN.

Leave a Reply