BY DR . Dr Syed Akhtar Ali Shah.
A seminar to discuss proposed Mines and Mineral Bill 2025 was held under auspices of Pabbi Intellectual Forum, the other day.
The Chairman of the forum Dr Mian Iftikhar a renowned psychocrist high lighting the objective of the forum said that intent and purpose was to generate dialogue on critical issues for the progress and well- being of the society . He said that it was in that context that the bill was discussed.
Speaking on the occasion Dr Syed Akhtar Ali Shah Chairman, Good Governance Forum and also constitutional expert said that the Constitution of being federal in nature has demarcated the areas for the legislative, executive and financial authority of the federal government and provincial governments. The Constitution binds all to act their own spheres.
He said that proposed bill was a veiled attempt to centralize control over natural resources. These apprehensions were not new; they stem from a legacy of perceived economic exclusion and federal overreach in resource governance.
He said that a closer look at the constitutional framework and the structure of the bill raises serious questions about its legality and intent.
Further elaborating he said that under Article 97, the federal government’s executive authority is clearly limited to matters within the jurisdiction of Parliament. It explicitly states that this authority shall not extend into areas where the provincial assembly has exclusive powers, unless expressly permitted by the Constitution or federal law. This article acts as a safeguard against federal intrusion into provincial domains, such as mines and minerals.
He said that moreover, the distribution of legislative authority under the Constitution confines the federal government to matters listed in the Federal Legislative List. Residual matters, including mineral rights within provincial borders, fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
Dilating upon Articles 158, 161, and 172 of the Constitution he said those provide further clarity:Article 158 grants priority to the province where a natural gas well-head is located, allowing it to meet its own needs first. Yet, many regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa continue to suffer from gas shortages and load shedding, in defiance of this provision.
Article 161(a) mandates that excise duties and royalties from natural gas and oil must be paid to the province of origin. Despite this, long delays and arrears persist, hampering socio-economic development.
He said that Article 172(2) and (3) distinguishes between ownership of offshore and onshore resources. While resources within the territorial waters belong to the federal government, ownership ofmines &minerals,outside the continental shelf and seas vets in the provinces, oiland gas within provincial boundaries are jointly owned by the provinces and the federation, with the province having significant control.
He said that those provisions form the basis of argument of the almost all parties including many of the PTI’s members of the Parliament and the provincial assembly that the bill infringed upon constitutional guarantees and undermines the spirit of devolution.
He said that the bill introduces concerning ambiguities, particularly in the definition of “rare earth minerals.” Under the 2017 Act, rare earths were treated as part of general mineral classifications. However, the proposed bill allowed the government to declare or remove any mineral as “rare” through notifications, without requiring legislative oversight. This would open the door to arbitrary reclassification, potentially restricting provincial control over lucrative resources.
He said that thismechanism could be used as a coercive tool, effectively taking high-value minerals out of provincial jurisdiction. A clear and consistent definition of rare earth minerals within the bill’s framework is urgently needed to avoid exploitation and legal uncertainty.
He said that the bill also proposed the establishment of a Mineral Investment Facilitation Authority (MIFA), with intrusive role of Federal Mineral Wing, which would the body that centralizes decision-making. This was viewed as a backdoor to federal control over provincial mining operations, contradicting the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.
He said equally troubling was a significant gap in provincial capacity. One critical question remained unanswered: What was the true commercial value of KP’s mines and minerals? Shockingly, even the Mines Department lacked precise data on this issue.
Currently, the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa earned around Rs. 10 billion annually from its mining sector. Yet, estimates suggested the actual value of licensed mines could run into trillions of rupees. Consider that :A single truckload of Ziarat marble could sell for Rs. 2 million.
Nephrite, a semi-precious stone, can fetched up to Rs. 40 crore per truck in international markets.
Such numbers reveal a staggering disconnect between resource wealth and revenue generation. Without proper valuation, Khyber Pakhtunkhwawas negotiating from a position of weakness, which only exacerbated concerns over external exploitation.
.
He said that in view of those observations, it was recommended to withdraw the bill and make necessary amendments that aligned with the Constitution and provincial autonomy, define rare earth minerals clearly within the bill to prevent arbitrary classification, ensure local consultation through legally binding mechanisms, empower constitutional forums like the Council of Common Interests (CCI) and National Economic Council to resolve resource disputes and development while ensuring regional equity, invest in geological surveys and resource valuation to strengthen provincial negotiating power, establish provincial geological survey directorate, ensure corporate social responsibility, enhance duties on transportations and lenience’s on the basis of commercial value for enhanced revenues .
The event was also addressed by former Senator, Farhat Ullah Babar, Dr Noorjehan former Vice Chancellor and MualanaKhanziab, Member Central Committee Awami National Party
