EDITORIAL: It should come as no surprise that the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC) has finally lost patience with ministries and departments dragging their feet on decisions already taken. These are not isolated lapses. Anyone even vaguely familiar with how Pakistan’s bureaucracy operates will know that delaying tactics are deeply embedded in the system. The fact that they have now drawn the ire of the country’s top investment facilitation body, during a period of acute economic vulnerability, is not just telling—it is damning.
Pakistan’s current situation demands nothing short of administrative urgency. The country is trying to stabilise a fragile economic base while signalling to both local and foreign investors that it has finally shed its long-standing reputation for policy paralysis and institutional bottlenecks. That cannot happen if ministries that are supposed to implement decisions on behalf of the state continue to stall them behind closed doors. The SIFC was formed precisely to break this gridlock—to centralise investment decisions, push them through with the force of a civil-military consensus, and demonstrate seriousness of intent. Yet, here we are.
At its latest meeting, the SIFC’s Executive Committee did what it should have done much earlier—it confronted the obstructionism head-on. It noted, on record, that several key decisions already approved had been left unexecuted by the responsible ministries. That not only undermines the council’s work, it sends the worst possible message to investors already wary of Pakistan’s inconsistent policy environment. If clear decisions taken by a high-powered apex forum cannot be implemented without sabotage-by-delay, then what chance do regular investment proposals stand?
There is a tendency among many in the civilian bureaucracy to treat reform as an optional exercise—to be complied with when convenient, or stalled when politically or personally undesirable. That mindset is no longer sustainable. Pakistan is on a tightrope—dependent on external financing, working through IMF conditionalities, and urgently trying to generate growth through private capital inflows. In this context, administrative foot-dragging is not just inefficient; it is a threat to national economic recovery.
The ministries in question—whichever they may be—must be reminded that they are not passive bystanders in the country’s investment strategy. They are key actors, and their inaction has consequences. The SIFC, for all its structural advantages, cannot afford to become just another high-level committee whose directives are ignored once the meetings end and the communiqués are published. Its credibility now hinges on whether these delays are publicly acknowledged, transparently addressed, and followed up with disciplinary consequences for those responsible.
This is not a call for confrontation, but for clarity. Ministries that repeatedly stall must be identified. Timelines must be enforced. Excuses must no longer be entertained. If Pakistan is to present itself as a viable destination for long-term capital, then it must start by proving it can execute its own decisions—fully, promptly, and without internal sabotage.
For once, the SIFC has said what needed to be said. The test now is whether it will act with the same resolve it has demanded of others.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed.