EDITORIAL: The recent episode between the Power Division and the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) may appear to some as an ordinary bureaucratic spat, but in truth it strikes at something far more consequential: the health of Pakistan’s institutional framework and the respect that the sovereign must show to the very rules it has itself created.
Reports indicate that during a Nepra hearing, the government’s representatives not only failed to comply with the regulator’s requirement of payment against review petition fee, but also conducted themselves in a manner that the regulator described as unruly.
This is not a matter to be brushed aside as a minor lapse in decorum. It raises fundamental questions about the rule of law, the independence of regulators, and the balance between the executive and statutory authorities.
The specific dispute involved Nepra’s earlier decision to allow K-Electric write-off claims amounting to tens of billions of rupees. The Power Division had contested certain aspects of that determination, including questions over the recoverability of GST.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with the government disagreeing with a regulator’s decision. Review petitions and appeals exist precisely for this reason.
But those disagreements must be voiced in the prescribed manner. Nepra’s rules require the payment of a review fee before such petitions are entertained.
Instead of ensuring compliance with that basic prerequisite, representatives of the Power Division reportedly sought to argue their case without fulfilling the condition, and in the process disrupted the hearing itself.
The regulator was well within its mandate to point out that no one, not even the government, can be above the rules.
It is worth emphasising here that the merits of Nepra’s underlying decision are not the focus of this discussion. Whether K-Electric’s claims should or should not be allowed, whether GST is properly accounted for, and whether consumers or taxpayers should ultimately bear these costs are all legitimate questions. They deserve a full and proper hearing, and if necessary, subsequent scrutiny before appellate tribunals or the courts.
What should not be in dispute, however, is the manner in which those questions are pursued. Procedure is not an ornament; it is the very skeleton that gives institutional life its shape. Without procedure, decisions risk being seen as arbitrary, processes descend into disorder, and faith in regulatory outcomes evaporates.
This is why the government must pause and reflect on the message its representatives are sending. Pakistan’s regulators are created by statutes. They are meant to exercise independent, quasi-judicial authority in order to ensure that highly technical and often contentious matters are adjudicated in an impartial environment.
If the executive branch, in whose name sovereignty resides, cannot bring itself to respect the rules of its own regulators, then what confidence can citizens or investors place in those regulators? Rules that apply to one party must apply to all.
When the government disregards even a seemingly minor requirement such as a filing fee, it undermines the very principle of equality before the law.
Supporters of the Power Division might argue that such requirements are technicalities that should not stand in the way of substantive justice. But that is precisely the path that leads to arbitrariness.
If a government representative may bypass a fee requirement today, then a private utility may seek exemption from disclosure obligations tomorrow.
Soon every party has a reason to carve out exceptions for itself, and the regulator is left powerless to enforce its own framework. In the long run, such behaviour corrodes not just the authority of Nepra, but the credibility of the government itself.
Nor should it be forgotten that Pakistan’s institutional culture already suffers from deep mistrust.
Investors often complain that rules change mid-stream, commitments are not honoured, and regulators bend under political pressure. In such an environment, the government should be taking extra pains to demonstrate that it respects process, not cutting corners before its own regulator. The executive cannot demand deference if it is unwilling to offer deference in return.
There is, of course, a legitimate path open to the government if it feels aggrieved. It can comply with Nepra’s requirements, submit its review petition properly, and let the matter run its course. If dissatisfied, it can appeal before the appropriate tribunal or court. This is the orderly sequence envisioned by law.
What it must not do is seek to short-circuit that sequence through intimidation or procedural nonchalance.
The broader point is not confined to Nepra alone. It is about the culture of governance. In Pakistan, too often governments take pride in being able to “influence outcomes” rather than in strengthening institutions. This habit is corrosive.
The legitimacy of a sovereign does not come from the ability to bend rules at will; it comes from the willingness to be bound by them. Citizens take their cue from the conduct of the State. If the State itself disregards rules when it is inconvenient, why should anyone else take them seriously?
The encounter between the Power Division and Nepra is therefore more than a quarrel over filing fees. It is a test of whether Pakistan can move towards a governance model that prizes institutional respect over ad hocism.
The regulator has reminded the government that procedure matters. It is a reminder that should not be ignored. For, in the end, sovereignty exercised without respect for law is little more than raw power. A sovereign bound by rules, on the other hand, is one that commands respect, builds trust, and strengthens the foundations of the State.
The government must choose which path it prefers.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.