Procurement rules: govt seeks Law Ministry's views on SIFC powers
This move follows a summary submitted by the Ministry of Commerce seeking to hire M/s Haider Global BVBA, a lobbying firm, to assist in the extension of Pakistan's Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Plus status with the European Union (EU).
On June 17, 2025, MD (PPRA) Hasnat Ahmed Qureshi informed the Board that the Ministry of Commerce in a letter of June 12, 2025 had requested the Authority for exemption from application of Rules 20 & 21 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 and other applicable provisions of PPRA framework, for hiring the services of a lobbying firm in Europe, through direct contracting, in terms of Section 21 of the PPRA ordinance, 2002. The lobbying firm will help in the ongoing review and renewal of Pakistan's GSP Plus status.
EU-Pakistan business forum in May: SIFC readying its strategy
Adding background of the case, MoC explained that the current GSP Scheme was introduced by the European Union in 2012 through EU Regulation 978/2012.The scheme was implemented on January 1, 2014, and initially intended to remain in effect for ten years, until December 31, 2023.
The European Parliament has approved an amendment to the said EU Regulation, extending the validity of the existing GSP Regulation by four years, up to December 31, 2027, instead of December 31, 2023.
The scheme provides zero duties on over 66% of EU tariff lines, and exports from Pakistan to the EU have increased from $ 4.6 billion in 2014 to $ 8.38 billion in 2024. Pakistan has undergone four biennial reviews of the GSP Plus, and the next review is now due, with a Monitoring Mission scheduled to visit Pakistan starting on June 22, 2025.
However, the visit has been postponed due to the conflict in the Middle East and unpredictable travel logistics at that time. Now the Monitoring Mission is expected in November or December this year.
According to the MoC, considering the significance of GSP Plus status for Pakistan's exports, the hiring of a lobbying firm is critical for the renewal and extension process. The Ministry highlighted that such a firm should: (i) possess expertise in EU law and conventions to support Pakistan in formulating appropriate legal responses; (ii) assist Pakistani businesses in adapting to evolving EU regulations affecting key sectors; and (iii) maintain access to experienced former EU policymakers who can provide insights on potential political and economic challen8es.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) has enclosed the proposal and payment schedule from M/s Haider Global BVBA regarding the ongoing review and renewal of Pakistan's GSP plus status. The proposal was received from Pakistan's s Mission in Brussels.
According to the proposal, the contract term will be three years, with a total payment of Euro 6 million (approximately Rs 2 billion) to be made as per the payment schedule. In view of the upcoming visit of the Monitoring Mission of the European Commission, the MoC is of the view that it is imperative that a lobbying firm, as proposed by the Pakistan Mission in Brussels, may be hired on an urgent basis to safeguard our national interest.
MD (PPRA) further stated that the MoC, in this regard, submitted a summary to the Prime Minister, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finance Division, and SIFC seeking approval for hiring the services of a lobbying firm by relaxation of the relevant provisions of the PPRA Rules and other financial codal formalities.
The SIFC on June 10, 2025 endorsed the request of the Ministry of Commerce and decided 'given the extreme time constraint and criticality of GSP for national economy, SIFC endorses the request of the Ministry of Commerce for exemption from relevant clause of PPRA rules to enable it to go for direct contracting with a firm which has the required expertise, experience and standing to fulfil task, price reasonability be worked out by the Ministry of Commerce.'
Subsequently, the Prime Minister's Office in a letter of June 12,2025, directed the MoC that the matter be placed before the PPRA Board along with recommendations of SIFC for consideration and approval. 'Before the case is submitted for the orders of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Commerce shall place the case along-with the recommendation of SIFC for the consideration and approval of the PPRA Board and resubmit the summary accordingly for the order of the Prime Minister.'
Secretary Commerce Division, Jawad Paul and the Additional Secretary Europe (MoFA) were present in the meeting to defend the case, while the Deputy Head of Mission, Pakistan's Mission in Brussels, attended the meeting via video link. Responding to a query by a Board member, regarding the urgency of the matter, Secretary Commerce explained that the review Monitoring Mission of European Commission will be visiting Pakistan to consider the status of Pakistan, therefore it is critical for continuation of GSP plus scheme that the firm is hired on immediate basis.
The Chair/ Secretary Finance, Imdad Ullah Bosal pointed out that the PPRA Board could only recommend exemptions from application of the procurement Rules, and that the finalization and hiring of a lobbying firm was to be done by the Commerce Division as a procuring agency in this case.
During the discussion, the Secretary of Commerce also highlighted the need for clarity regarding the recommendation of exemption from application of PPRA rules, both by the SIFC and PPRA Board, as it leads to duplication and consumes considerable time. He was of the view that referring such cases to the PPRA Board should not be required when SIFC had already recommended the case.
Most Board members also expressed similar views on the issue and recommended adopting a consistent and standardized approach for handling cases endorsed by the SIFC for exemptions from the procurement Rules.
One member opined that it is a question of law and clarification should be sought from the Law Division as to whether the PPRA Board should consider exemption from application of procurement rules, already recommended by SIFC under 10-F of Board of Investment Act 2023 'power to relax or exempt from regulatory compliance' or otherwise?
Secretary Commerce emphasized that in line with the recommendations and endorsement of the SIFC and direction of PMO, PPRA Board should recommend the case to the Federal Government, for grant of exemption from operation of Rules 20 and 21 of PPRA Rules, 2024, and other applicable provisions of PPRA Framework for hiring of M/s Haider Global BVBA through direct contracting under Section 21 of PPR Ordinance.
After a thorough discussion on the importance of the matter and legitimacy of the recommendations of the PPRA Board decided to seek opinion from the Ministry of Law &Justice on the legal question as to 'whether exemption recommended/endorsed under Section 10-F of BoI (Amendment) Act, 2023 by the SIFC is sufficient for grant of exemption by the Federal Cabinet or matter is required to be referred to PPRA Board again for consideration of exemption under Section 21 of PPRA Ordinance, 2OO2 in addition to the exemption recommended by SIFC ?'
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Downed jets & dangerous storylines
In May this year, India's prized Rafale jets — once paraded as the crown jewels of its military modernisation — fell from the skies during an unprovoked escalation with its adversary, nuclear-armed neighbour, Pakistan. What followed was less a military debrief than a media spectacle, as New Delhi worked tirelessly to rebrand the skirmish as a triumph, spinning the narrative long after the dust had settled. Two months after the nuclear-armed rivals edged toward open conflict, India's Deputy Chief of Army Staff made a revelation — not in a formal strategic forum or before an international audience, but while addressing a gathering hosted by the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. During 'Operation Sindoor', he claimed, India had confronted not one but three adversaries – Pakistan as the 'front face,' with China and Türkiye allegedly providing critical support to Islamabad behind the scenes. Lieutenant General Rahul R. Singh, stitching together India's latest storyline around Operation Sindoor, reached for an ancient analogy to make his point. Citing The 36 Stratagems, a Chinese military classic, he invoked the tactic of 'killing with a borrowed knife' — the idea of striking an enemy through a proxy. China, he suggested, had done precisely that, using Pakistan as its instrument to inflict damage on India while avoiding direct confrontation. 'China would rather use the neighbour to cause pain [to India] than get involved in mudslinging on the northern border,' he told the gathering — a line that neatly folded geopolitics into parable. The officer went further to claim a-known fact that Pakistan is heavily dependent on Chinese military hardware. 'If you were to look at statistics in the last five years, 81% of the military hardware that Pakistan gets is from China.' By that logic, experts point out, India too was effectively backed by France — and even Russia — given that the weapons deployed against Pakistan were sourced from those very countries. Rafale jets and their SCALP-EG missile systems were used in strikes that left scores of Pakistani civilians dead. The use of these French-supplied arms, critics argue, sits uneasily with the European Union's own arms export regulations, which prohibit the transfer of weapons likely to be used in acts of aggression or against civilian populations. Both the Rafale aircraft and SCALP-EG missiles are exported under the EU's Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, which outlines eight legally binding criteria that member states must apply when granting arms export licences. These are not advisory guidelines, but enforceable obligations under EU law. Failure to comply with these criteria, experts said, not only undermines EU credibility but may also constitute a breach of international humanitarian law. Hassan Akbar, a former Pakistan Fellow at the Wilson Center, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, described the latest iteration of India's narrative as 'convoluted.' 'It is being peddled by New Delhi in an attempt to explain away the failures of its military against a smaller adversary, and to paint Pakistan as a proxy of China—particularly for Western audiences,' he said. Pakistan's success, he noted, was primarily the result of indigenous advancements that enabled its fighter jets, radars, electronic warfare platforms, and sensors—sourced from various countries—to operate seamlessly in a networked, multi-domain environment. 'If one follows India's logic, then Pakistan wasn't just fighting the Indians, but also the Russians, the French, and others from whom India procures its defence equipment. It's evident that India's narrative lacks both evidence and coherence,' said Hassan. But India has, by now, earned a reputation for narrative-building. Investigations by the Brussels-based EU DisinfoLab previously uncovered a sprawling network of fake news websites linked to New Delhi — suggesting that the Modi government has long been engaged in shaping favourable perceptions abroad, particularly to keep Western allies firmly in its corner. Its latest attempt to rope in China and Türkiye — apparently to deflect international embarrassment over Operation Sindoor — appears to follow that same well-worn playbook. 'Shifting Indian narratives around Operation Sindoor — particularly the effort to draw China and Türkiye into the equation — only undermines whatever credibility is left,' said Dr Talat Wizarat, former head of international relations at the University of Karachi. For a country that claims regional power status, she added, 'India has shown remarkably little control over keeping its own storyline steady and consistent.' Shifting lines in the sand In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, India was drawing lines in the sand—each washed away for the next. What began as a brief military flare-up with Pakistan quickly morphed into a campaign of narrative consolidation, where the facts of the operation were overshadowed by the story New Delhi wanted the world to see and believe. The Modi government packaged the operation as a masterstroke in strategic deterrence, but the cracks were visible from the start. India's own Rafale jets crashed, yet the official line barely acknowledged that, choosing instead to inflate the scale and scope of the threat. So extreme was the narrative that India claimed it wasn't merely facing Pakistan but a coordinated axis including China and Türkiye—an assertion that lacked substantive proof and seemed more geopolitical theatre than military assessment. This reframing allowed India to sidestep uncomfortable scrutiny over intelligence gaps and civilian casualties. The use of French-supplied Rafales and missile systems against Pakistani targets, some of which struck civilian zones, also threw a wrench into the European Union's arms export standards, which ostensibly forbid such end-use. In Brussels and Paris, the silence was telling. India's post-operation messaging relied heavily on volume and repetition rather than verifiability, in keeping with its now-familiar strategy of managing perception rather than consequence. Critics argue that Operation Sindoor wasn't a turning point in regional security dynamics but rather a continuation of a pattern – military engagement followed by information warfare, where ambiguity is weaponised and accountability conveniently disappears. 'The fact that the Indian government had to offer so many versions of what it called a victory over Pakistan suggests there was no real victory to begin with—if any at all,' quipped Wizarat, a keen observer of regional affairs. The great embarrassment Prime Minister Narendra Modi has developed a reputation for his showmanship. After every major international event, the BJP leader tends to fire off posts on X, formerly Twitter, calling most — if not all — foreign leaders his dear friends. His image as India's prime minister, experts argue, has been carefully choreographed. At the consecration of the Ram temple — built on the site of the Mughal-era Babri Masjid — it was not the high priest but Modi himself who led the ceremony, performing rituals traditionally reserved for Hindu religious leaders. The aftermath of Operation Sindoor has, in many ways, proved an embarrassment for Modi's curated image — both at home and abroad. 'The chorus of critical voices has been louder,' said one expert, who did not wish to be named. The extent of the unease was captured in a recent post by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who shared a clip of US President Donald Trump suggesting that India lost five jets during the escalation. 'Modi ji, what is the truth about the five jets? The country has the right to know,' Gandhi posted — a pointed jab at his political rival and India's sitting prime minister. But the embarrassment hasn't been confined to India alone. Shares of Dassault Aviation — the French manufacturer of Rafale jets used by India during 'Operation Sindoor' — slumped on European stock markets. A symbolic fall, some noted wryly, echoing the very aircraft reportedly brought down by Pakistani fire. 'New Delhi's credibility as a country claiming military superiority over its adversaries came crashing down with those jets. Had it maintained a consistent narrative, the embarrassment might have been avoided,' said Wizarat. Akbar, in his precise assessment of Modi's predicament, noted -- 'India's political and military leadership has been trying to sell their shortcomings during the conflict as a victory to domestic audiences.' The former Wilson Center fellow's view rings true in light of Prime Minister Modi's actions. Shortly after the operation — and despite the humiliation of Indian fighter jets smouldering in the wake of Operation Sindoor — Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as The Wire reported, positioned himself squarely at the heart of a triumph he had all but choreographed. His public addresses became rituals of symbolism, thick with invocations of sindoor, however, conspicuously devoid of any reference to the militants behind the Pahalgam attack. Then, on 12 May — a full forty-eight hours after US President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan — Modi launched into an unrelenting campaign blitz -- nine rallies in eight days across six states, as if electoral momentum could be spun from the ashes of a fractured narrative. Wizarat described the entire operation as meticulously timed for electoral gain. 'It has become almost predictable,' she noted, for India's political leadership to invoke the threat of Pakistan — or the spectre of Muslims — in the run-up to elections, as a way to consolidate support among its Hindu base. The China conundrum They say one lie begets another — a spiral of invention to conceal what never truly was. India now finds itself tangled in precisely such a mess. Despite New Delhi's persistent evasions over the fate of its downed fighter jets during the skirmish, new reports have emerged confirming what the government has long tried to bury -- that its prized aircraft were indeed shot down — not by a technologically superior Western force, but by Chinese-made weapons in Pakistani hands. Armed with that uncomfortable truth, Indian officials have begun aiming their rhetorical fire at Beijing, painting China as the main villain in the conflict. However, experts argue that the accusation stretches the boundaries of credibility. 'The sale of arms — however consequential — does not make China a combatant, any more than France or Russia were deemed parties to the conflict for supplying India with the very weapons it used against Pakistan,' said Wizarat. India, Wizarat argued, must move past its obsession with outpacing China in the regional — or even broader global — power race. 'If anything, the recent escalation between Pakistan and India has shattered the myth of Western superiority in the arms race,' she concluded. According to Akbar, India's attempt to reframe the narrative was less about facts on the ground and more about courting Western sympathy — achieved by invoking alleged Chinese involvement in the tit-for-tat exchanges with Pakistan. The insult that bleeds If the downing of the Rafales was an insult, the injury hasn't let up — not because it must, but because India's persistent denial and deflection keep inviting it. The most recent blow came from The Economist, which detailed an incident Indian authorities still refuse to acknowledge. On May 7, the London-based publication reported, residents of Akalia Kalan — a village near a northern Indian airbase — were jolted awake by an unfamiliar roar and a series of explosions. A ball of fire streaked across the sky before crashing into a field. The wreckage, unmistakably a fighter jet, killed two villagers. The pilots had ejected and were later found injured in nearby fields. India has yet to officially confirm the incident — one of several aircraft losses during a brief but intense four-day conflict with Pakistan. While New Delhi disputes Islamabad's claim of downing six jets — including three French-made Rafales — foreign military observers, The Economist noted, have verified that at least five Indian aircraft were lost. Indian military sources have since quietly conceded losses, though they suggest operational errors, not technological failure, may be to blame. The implications are far-reaching. According to defence experts, this was the first time advanced Chinese weapons — Pakistan's J-10 fighters and PL-15 missiles — were deployed against Western and Russian systems. Early assessments, The Economist reported, pointed to the superiority of Chinese systems — and possible real-time intelligence sharing from Beijing. But the most damning revelation may have come from within -- a leaked recording of India's defence attaché in Jakarta, Captain Shiv Kumar, aired in June. In it, he admits India's initial losses were due to political constraints that barred the air force from targeting Pakistani military installations. Only after suffering setbacks, he said, were the rules of engagement expanded. 'The fact that India continues to deflect questions about gains and losses shows there were real issues not only during the operation, but also in its aftermath — where any victorious side would have flaunted its trophies right away. India, however, has been on the back foot ever since,' said Wizarat. 'Instead of adding China to the equation, India must fix its own equation,' she concluded.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Patchwork or reformed justice?
Listen to article Selective morality does not make for sound legislation. That, unfortunately, is what Pakistan's latest move to curtail the death penalty seems to embody. In a bid to retain GSP+ trade concessions from the EU, the Senate of Pakistan has passed a bill that abolishes capital punishment for harbouring hijackers and for the public stripping of women — two serious offences — while leaving more than a hundred others untouched. This piecemeal amendment reeks of convenience rather than conviction. It appears designed to tick boxes for international partners rather than reflect any meaningful shift in the state's approach to justice or human rights. No broader framework has been presented to justify why certain crimes merit the death penalty while others do not. Instead, the government has opted for selective rollback without a principled foundation. Criticism from both treasury and opposition benches in the Senate points to this very disconnect. PTI's Barrister Ali Zafar equated the public stripping of a woman with murder, arguing that such crimes warrant the harshest possible punishment. Senator Samina Mumtaz Zehri cautioned that lighter sentences in such cases may embolden criminals rather than deter them. There is merit in these concerns — not necessarily because the death penalty is the answer, but because the reform itself lacks depth and cohesion. If capital punishment is to be curtailed, it must be done with a comprehensive review of all offences that currently carry the sentence, followed by a national debate on what constitutes a "most serious crime". The removal of the death penalty for just two offences, without a broader review of Pakistan's capital punishment regime, reflects an ad hoc approach that neither satisfies moral imperatives nor strengthens the justice system. It only deepens the confusion. Eventually, lawmakers must consider the role of capital punishment in a modern justice system and within the context of Pakistan's socio-economic paradigm, through proper consultation with legal and human rights experts.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Senate clears Criminal Laws (Amend) Bill: Push to end death penalty for specific crimes
ISLAMABAD: The Upper House of the Parliament, Friday, passed the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, a legislative draft that seeks to abolish death penalty for anyone found guilty of the crimes like 'assault or criminal force to women, and stripping her of her clothes,' and 'harbouring hijacker.' The bill mainly replaces death penalty with life imprisonment in the cases involving aforementioned offences. Interior State Minister Talal Chaudhry presented the bill in the Senate session, following its passage by the relevant standing committee earlier, presided over by Deputy Chairman Senate Syedaal Khan. The senators including Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Parliamentary Leader in Senate Ali Zafar and Samina Mumtaz Zehri from Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) opposed the bill— that was still passed by the House. 'In my opinion, this is a very serious offence—that warrants death penalty,' Zafar said, adding that the law endorsing death penalty in above-mentioned cases was passed by the Senate and the National Assembly after thorough consideration. Zehri, who is also the Chairperson of Senate's Functional Committee on Human Rights, supported death penalty in cases involving serious assault on women, saying, more stringent laws be introduced and implemented in this regard. 'From where did this thought come to our minds that severity of a punishment can stop a crime?' the law minister responded. 'This myth is wrong,' the minister argued. 'There is no death penalty in the entire Europe. The crime rate is only two percent. Jails are empty there. They are converting their jails to museums—on the other hand, we have death penalty for 80, 90 or 100 crimes—but crime rate here touches the sky,' he added. 'Unfortunately, the Senate and the National Assembly did not pass this law. It came from a martial law administrator,' he said, referring to Zia-ul-Haq. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in an effort to comply with the requirements of GSP+, and Pakistan's international commitments under ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), three meetings with all stakeholders were held—to review reduction of the death penalty in order to bring it in line with international law and Islamic jurisprudence. The Statement adds that the Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control proposed the draft Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposing omission of death penalty from Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 with an alternative punishment of life imprisonment in the relevant sections. Meanwhile, the House also passed the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 2025, Pakistan Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Also, the National Agri-trade and Food Safety Authority Ordinance 2025 was laid in the House. The Senate session was adjourned till Monday. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
