Business Recorder of 21st November, 2016 carried Nadir Khan's letter on what was proposed in couple of sub-titles in draft of the (then) Companies Act, 2016, pointing out some glaring deficiencies in the draft. It was believed that the government would be going through the Parliament and give the statute what is its due status as an "Act" passed by the Parliament, purging the errors, commissions and anomalies already found. One would have expected that during debate in the Parliament the inaccuracies and shortcomings cited as also the ones found by the parliamentarians will be removed.
The law is complicated, beyond comprehension of an ordinary educated man, as it should be, in view of complex issues. Since 1984, a lot many new graduates and educated otherwise have joined business and professions. They have strong urge to be near the law. But a law on the pattern of the 1913 or 1984 statute forcing them to continue naïve as far as fiscal and regulatory laws are concerned. The phraseology is beyond what an ordinary person can stomach.
It was also expected that this time the SECP would also come with an Urdu version of the law, although for resolution of disputes in courts it could only be English version to be acted upon. Thus in a secular period the English version will be consigned to obscurity. One finds that at certain places instead of endeavoring to have easier English in the law frame, being discussed is pasting.
Another strange feature of the law we have is that the SECP has clothed itself as Faisalabad's Clock Tower, which we confront from all sides. The SECP appears involved in all facets of a company. It is a regulatory agency, beyond which it should not venture. It is this message the law should convey.
Better course for the SECP would be to have the law vetted by the Supreme Court Bar Association in addition on to clearance by the Law Ministry. Officers of the ministry may not be conversant with how a company moves and how barbarous the law may turn when officers are armed with the powers ingrained in the law. To understand a particular law, one needs acquaintance also with other laws. Structure of the SECP does not appear poised for that. Declaration on an issue, court judgements included, it is not solely based on knowledge of the law. Required is also a judicial eye, which the SECP executives do not appear to have.