One body for privatisation and partnerships
The federal government has introduced a bill in the National Assembly to bring the Privatisation Commission and the Public-Private Partnership Authority (P3A) together into a single institution. The proposed body, to be called the Privatisation and Public-Private Partnership Commission, is intended to remove duplication between two organisations that have handled related work — the sale and restructuring of public assets on one side, and partnership projects with the private sector on the other.
The bill would achieve the merger by amending the Privatisation Commission Ordinance of 2000 and repealing the Public-Private Partnership Authority Act of 2017. If passed, the P3A would cease to exist as a separate authority and its functions would pass to the new commission. The stated aim, according to the government, is a more streamlined system for transactions involving public assets and infrastructure, with clearer oversight and a single pipeline of projects.
How the new commission would be run
Under the proposal, the new commission would be headed by the current Privatisation Commission chairman, Muhammad Ali. Its board would include a majority of independent members, drawing on private-sector representatives and specialists in public-private partnerships, with at least two women members. That composition is presented as a way of combining official accountability with outside expertise, a balance that matters when large public assets and long-term contracts are involved.
The commission would be empowered to evaluate, structure, facilitate and monitor partnership projects, maintain a federal project pipeline, and oversee transaction approvals and risk management. It would also be able to set up partnership units inside government agencies and develop mechanisms for resolving disputes. Government departments could be required to provide lists of existing, proposed and planned projects within 15 days of a written request, with failure to comply referred to the relevant ministry or division.
Four funds under one roof
A central feature of the bill is the consolidation of four non-lapsable funds: the privatisation fund, the public contribution fund, the viability gap fund and the partnership project development fund. These funds would draw on federal budget allocations, international lenders, investment income and other sources. The public contribution fund could be used to meet government obligations linked to partnership projects, including land acquisition, site handover and right-of-way arrangements.
Bringing the funds together is significant because partnership projects often stall over who pays for preparatory work, viability support or government-side obligations. A single set of funds, managed by one commission, could in principle make those decisions faster and more transparent. It also concentrates financial responsibility, which is why the governance arrangements around the commission will attract close scrutiny as the bill moves through parliament.
Protection for officials — and questions it raises
The bill also provides legal and investigative protection for current and former chairmen, secretaries, board members, officials and consultants for actions taken in good faith, with public funds available to defend such cases. Supporters argue that officials handling complex, high-value transactions need protection from open-ended personal liability if they are to take decisions at all. Critics, by contrast, tend to ask how good faith is judged and whether protection could weaken accountability when deals go wrong.
What happens to staff and existing deals
For staff, the bill provides continuity. Employees, consultants and other personnel of the dissolved authority would be retained by the new commission for six months or until their contracts expire, whichever comes first, on terms no less favourable than their existing arrangements. Existing contracts would likewise transfer to the new commission, preserving the position of private partners.
The parliamentary test ahead
As a bill rather than a finished law, the proposal must still pass through the National Assembly and the wider legislative process. Its supporters will point to efficiency, a single project pipeline and clearer accountability. Its critics will probe the protection clauses, the concentration of funds and powers, and whether merging two bodies automatically produces better decisions.
Source: Dawn, reported 26 October 2026.
