Supreme Court seeks expert advice on overseeing dam fund

In an attempt to raise money for the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand dams, the Supreme Court has said that it would be seeking the advice of legal experts over whether or not it should continue to oversee the accounts that were formed under its order.

On Wednesday, a four-judge panel led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa heard a case involving advertisements made by UBL and HBL to raise money for the Diamer Bhasha and Mohmand Dams.

The bench sent notifications to the previous solicitors general of Pakistan, Anwar Mansoor Khan and Khalid Jawed, as well as an amicus curiae to support the court in this case. It requested a report from the State Bank of Pakistan on the balance in the Dam Fund and any other accounts associated with the dams.

Attorney General Aamir Reham announced that the government had established a dedicated account specifically for the Dam Fund and that the funds would be transferred there. He also mentioned that a miscellaneous petition had been filed, requesting the transfer of the Dam Fund to the federal government and the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda).

The chief judge questioned how the project was started and how much money was now in the Dam Fund. In response, the lawyer for the Wapda said that the entire amount of money collected was Rs18.64 billion, of which Rs9.56 billion was created locally, Rs1.9 billion was provided by Pakistanis living abroad, and Rs7.1 billion was profited from it.

Chief Justice asked Wapda counsel what the Supreme Court does with the building status reports for the Diamer Bhasha and Mohmand dams. He enquired further as to why Wapda, rather than the federal government or Parliament, who are primarily in charge of their creation, was obliged to submit the reports to the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice went on to question Wapda about other current initiatives and whether or not the Supreme Court was directly in charge of each one.

Although Aamir Rehman emphasized that cases involving private parties and the dam building had also been considered by the Supreme Court rather than lower courts, Wapda thought these issues should now be addressed by the appropriate legal bodies.

Three weeks were added to the case adjournment.