Fight against cartelization: CCP's performance, loyalty, credibility questioned

The performance, credibility and loyalty of Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) in its fight against cartelization in the country, is under harsh criticism at the government's highest forum i.e. Federal Cabinet.

Well informed sources told Business Recorder that Prime Minister Imran Khan was annoyed with the recently removed Chairperson of CCP, Vidya Khalil.

However, since the Cabinet has approved acting charge of CCP's top position to a senior member, Mrs Shaista Bano, the question under discussion is whether she will meet the standard set by the Prime Minister for a head of the organisation? Her notification is expected to be issued next week as Finance Division has not received the minutes of federal cabinet meeting held on April 28, 2020.

Finance Division is also facing the ire of Prime Minister for not properly monitoring the performance of CCP.

On April, 21, 2020, Prime Minister Imran Khan said that Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) is infested with bad management and connivance which bolstered cartelization. Prime Minister, who was furious with recently removed Chairperson CCP, being appointee of previous government, maintained that she had a role in perpetuating bad governance and increased injunctive orders against the decisions of CCP.

He also recalled that during presentation on CCP he was not informed about any of the serious issues facing CCP including the questions on its constitutionality and court stays on its various decisions. He expressed his dismay over lax control exercised by Finance Division due to which CCP had been able to preserve vested interests.

He directed Finance Division to proactively pursue cases involving stay orders against penalties imposed by CCP and also directed to pursue constitutional petition filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC) questioning the CCP Act, 2010. In addition, he asked the Law Division to immediately fill vacant positions in the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

During discussion, a member of the cabinet, while expressing reservations on the manner in which court cases of CCP were being handled, pointed out that in the case regarding removal of Chairperson (now removed as a result of intra-court appeal in IHC) and members by the government, CCP's legal team had conceded to the contention of lawyers of the petitioners, leaving no option for the court but to pass an adverse judgment against the government. The Cabinet member was of the view that connivance, therefore, was clearly evident and since the cases wee being contested with CCP lawyers in lead, the fate of all CCP cases remained precarious. An example of lax legal pursuance by the CCP legal team was given that a case of sugar cartelization by CCP was stayed by Sindh High Court which was never properly pursued in the court.

It was further discussed that in the wake of 18th Constitutional amendment the constitutionality of CCP over the provincial entities had been challenged in courts which was done with malafide intentions since there was no such issue with other organizations like SECP.

These cases in the court against the CCP were found to be persisting as a result of lack of professionalism and connivance on the part of CCP which was an autonomous body with an independent and highly paid legal team.

Cabinet members also expressed concern over inordinate delay in filling up of vacancies of Competition Appellate Tribunal and vacation of stay orders against penalties of Rs 27 billion, imposed by CCP for anti-competitive behaviour.

One of the members pointed out that clause 4A0 of article 199 stipulated that any interim order made by a High Court involving state property or assessment or collection of public revenues would cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months. Ostensibly, the CCP legal team failed to plead this point before the courts.

As a way forward, it was suggested that vacancies in Competition Appellate Tribunal be filled within one week. The CCP lawyers should be replaced with government lawyers, nominated by AGP, and an application for vacation of stay, in cases of penalties imposed by CCP, be immediately filled.

Furthermore, early disposal of the case pending before Lahore High Court for last ten years, where constitutionality of the Competition Act 2010 had been challenged, needed to be vigorously pursued as most of the court injunctions had stemmed from that.