ANP to challenge minerals bill in court
The Awami National Party (ANP) has rejected the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government's Mines and Minerals Bill and announced plans to consult with other political parties to oppose it.
Speaking at a press conference held at the Bacha Khan Center on Friday, alongside the party's provincial cabinet, ANP Provincial President Mian Iftikhar Hussain said that the party will challenge the legislation in court and mobilize public support against it.
"We will not allow anyone to plunder the resources of our province. The bill amounts to an attack on the 18th Amendment," he said.
Senior Vice President Syed Aqil Shah, General Secretary Hussain Shah Yousafzai and other central and provincial leaders were also present on the occasion.
Mian Iftikhar said that ANP completely rejects the K-P Minerals and Mines Act 2025.
According to reports, the draft of this bill was prepared by two American consultants. He said that a comprehensive law for mines and minerals already exists in K-P since 2017, making a new law unnecessary. He added that the Mines and Minerals Department has raised 73 objections to the proposed bill, while the Mines and Minerals Association has submitted 47 objections.
The provincial government had assured to remove these objections, but despite the assurance, the draft prepared without any amendments was approved by the cabinet and presented to the assembly.
He said that even the government's own members are unaware of the bill being presented in the assembly. The bill presented by the provincial government is against the 18th Constitutional Amendment, which all political parties had jointly passed to end frustration in the provinces.
He said in the past, the denial of provincial autonomy led to the division of Pakistan and the loss of its eastern wing. Constitutionally, the first right and authority over natural resources belongs to the people living on this land.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
The top sources of US steel and aluminium imports
US President Donald Trump said on Friday he planned to double tariffs on steel and aluminium imports to 50% from 25%, starting from Wednesday, ratcheting up pressure on global producers and deepening his trade war. Here's a summary of the major trade partners it will affect. Steel Roughly a quarter of all steel used in the U.S. is imported, the bulk of it from neighbours Mexico and Canada or close allies in Asia and Europe such as Japan, South Korea and Germany. While China is the world's largest steel producer and exporter, it sends very little to the United States. Tariffs of 25% imposed in 2018 shut most Chinese steel out of the market. China exported 508,000 net tons of steel to the U.S. last year or 1.8% of total American steel imports. India's NALCO says profit doubles as higher aluminium, copper prices boost margins Aluminium For aluminum, the U.S. is more heavily reliant on imports. Roughly half of all aluminium used in the U.S. is imported, with the vast majority coming from Canada. At 3.2 million tons last year, Canadian imports were twice those of the next nine countries combined. The next largest sources of imports are the United Arab Emirates and China, at 347,034 and 222,872 metric tons, respectively. The U.S. aluminium smelting industry is small by global standards. Total smelter capacity in the country was just 1.73% of the global total according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Tariff comfort, consumer cost, Nepra's gamble
In a move that will raise eyebrows among those advocating for performance-based regulation, Nepra has sided with K-Electric in allowing a recovery shortfall allowance based on a 92 percent recovery ratio — a decision that flies in the face of the Ministry of Energy's more disciplined proposal. KE had argued that, unlike state-owned discos whose losses are quietly absorbed into the circular debt, its commercial shortfall should be treated as a legitimate pass-through cost. But instead of asking why a privatized utility with over 100 years of history and significant capital investment still needs regulatory shelter for basic operational efficiency, the regulator has chosen to codify KE's weakest performance year (FY24: 92.8 percent) into its future tariff framework. Worse still, the benchmark recovery percentage even by the end of the MYT in FY30 period does not reach the levels seen in FY22. The Ministry's stance — rooted in logic, precedent, and consumer interest — was brushed aside. The MoE had argued for using a 'high watermark' recovery ratio from FY22 or FY23 (96.6 percent and 96.7 percent, respectively) to prevent one off-year from becoming the baseline for tariff calculations. That approach would have halved the burden on consumers, reducing KE's claimed recovery loss allowance from Rs2.88/kWh to Rs1.41/kWh. Instead, with Nepra's green light, KE has now locked in a structural inefficiency at a time when the rest of the sector is — at least on paper — moving toward performance benchmarking and fiscal discipline. Nepra's ruling signals a worrying precedent: if a private utility can socialize its commercial inefficiencies while retaining operational autonomy, then the case for privatization or performance-linked regulation becomes weaker. What message does it send when a regulator backs comfort over competition? If the regulator's decision to validate KE's recovery allowance set a risky precedent, its approval of actualization of units sent-out could also be problematic. In theory, adjusting tariff revenue to reflect real demand variations — much like what is allowed for discos — sounds reasonable. But in practice, it opens up a perverse incentive: KE's revenue is now insulated from shortfalls in demand, even if those shortfalls are partially self-inflicted. Given the regulator's own acknowledgment that this framework could encourage increased load shedding in high-loss areas, the decision feels like an open invitation for KE to game the system — maximizing revenue protection while shifting risk onto the consumer. The regulator has held on to usual warnings: KE is 'directed to ensure uninterrupted supply' and its performance will be monitored on benchmarks like SAIFI, SAIDI, and load-shed adherence. But let's be honest — the track record doesn't inspire confidence. KE has flouted load-shedding rules in the past, often citing commercial losses, and faced penalties so negligible they barely qualify as deterrents. If the regulator is serious about disincentivizing this behaviour, it needs to do more than issue legalese-laden warnings. It must link revenue protections directly with performance metrics, impose penalties that bite. Otherwise, what Nepra has created is a regulatory shelter — one that could make blackouts not just a coping mechanism, but a profit-maximizing strategy. This also comes at a time when KE's future demand growth is under serious question. With overall electricity consumption falling by 7.2 percent in FY23 — and 7.9 percent in residential and 1.5 percent in industrial segments — and with net metering and competitive CTBCM dynamics gaining traction, KE's captive market is eroding. The Ministry of Energy had flagged this, rightly recommending a downward revision in demand projections and capital spending. But KE continues to push ahead with an ambitious investment plan, and now has the regulatory cushioning to shift the consequences of demand shortfalls onto consumers. In such an environment, the risk isn't just of rising tariffs — it's of deepening the disconnect between consumer experience and utility accountability. Nepra's accommodation — from recovery shortfall allowances to actualization of sent-out units — may seem like one-off technical approvals, but they carry deeper structural implications as Pakistan inches toward privatizing other discos under the IMF's watch. By allowing revenue protection mechanisms that decouple financial performance from operational efficiency, Nepra risks embedding regulatory moral hazard into the very model it aims to scale. If a legacy private utility is allowed to socialize commercial inefficiencies and manage demand risk without tight performance-linked conditions, what incentive remains for future investors to run leaner, consumer-centric utilities? Worse, it sets a precedent where privatization becomes a risk-free return model underwritten by public consumers, undermining the very fiscal discipline that the IMF reforms seek to instill.
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Global universities seek to lure US-bound students amid Trump crackdown
TOKYO/BEIJING/LONDON: Universities around the world are seeking to offer refuge for students impacted by US President Donald Trump's crackdown on academic institutions, targeting top talent and a slice of the billions of dollars in academic revenue in the United States. Osaka University, one of the top ranked in Japan, is offering tuition fee waivers, research grants and help with travel arrangements for students and researchers at US institutions who want to transfer. Japan's Kyoto University and Tokyo University are also considering similar schemes, while Hong Kong has instructed its universities to attract top talent from the United States. China's Xi'an Jiaotong University has appealed for students at Harvard, singled out in Trump's crackdown, promising 'streamlined' admissions and 'comprehensive' support. Trump's administration has enacted massive funding cuts for academic research, curbed visas for foreign students - especially those from China - and plans to hike taxes on elite schools. Trump alleges top US universities are cradles of anti-American movements. In a dramatic escalation, his administration last week revoked Harvard's ability to enrol foreign students, a move later blocked by a federal judge. Masaru Ishii, dean of the graduate school of medicine at Osaka University, described the impact on US universities as 'a loss for all of humanity'. Japan aims to ramp up its number of foreign students to 400,000 over the next decade, from around 337,000 currently. Jessica Turner, CEO of Quacquarelli Symonds, a London-based analytics firm that ranks universities globally, said other leading universities around the world were trying to attract students unsure of going to the United States. Germany, France and Ireland are emerging as particularly attractive alternatives in Europe, she said, while in the Asia-Pacific, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, and mainland China are rising in profile. SWITCHING SCHOOLS Chinese students have been particularly targeted in Trump's crackdown, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday pledging to 'aggressively' crack down on their visas. More than 275,000 Chinese students are enrolled in hundreds of US colleges, providing a major source of revenue for the schools and a crucial pipeline of talent for US technology companies. International students - 54% of them from India and China - contributed more than $50 billion to the US economy in 2023, according to the US Department of Commerce. Trump's crackdown comes at a critical period in the international student application process, as many young people prepare to travel to the US in August to find accommodation and settle in before term starts. Dai, 25, a Chinese student based in Chengdu, had planned to head to the US to complete her master's but is now seriously considering taking up an offer in Britain instead. 'The various policies (by the US government) were a slap in my face,' she said, requesting to be identified only by her surname for privacy reasons. 'I'm thinking about my mental health and it's possible that I indeed change schools.' Students from Britain and the European Union are also now more hesitant to apply to US universities, said Tom Moon, deputy head of consultancy at Oxbridge Applications, which helps students in their university applications. He said many international students currently enrolled at US universities were now contacting the consultancy to discuss transfer options to Canada, the UK and Europe. According to a survey the consultancy ran earlier this week, 54% of its clients said they were now 'less likely' to enrol at an American university than they were at the start of the year. There has been an uptick in applications to British universities from prospective students in the US, said Universities UK, an organisation that promotes British institutions. It cautioned, however, that it was too early to say whether that translates into more students enrolling.
