Residents of Clifton and Defence in Karachi, together with Jamaat-e-Islami, are preparing to file a petition in the Sindh High Court on Friday, seeking protection of the Nehr-e-Khayyam canal’s natural waterway and effective drainage to prevent urban flooding. The planned legal action brings a local environmental controversy into the courts, and it questions the project’s environmental clearances, engineering design and impact on drainage.
The project at the centre of the dispute is the ‘Rehabilitation of Nehr-i-Khayyam including Diversion of Sewerage Water (District South)’ scheme. Nearly 80 per cent of construction on the scheme is reportedly complete. That high level of completion is central to the controversy: residents and critics argue that major work has already been carried out, while questions about environmental approval and design remain unresolved. When a project is four-fifths complete, the scope for changing its design or addressing environmental concerns through a fresh assessment is inevitably reduced, and that is a key part of the residents’ case.
A letter from the project’s management illustrates the timing issue. The Local Government Department’s project manager wrote to the director general of the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency, SEPA, on 26 October, seeking guidance on required environmental approvals after construction had substantially progressed. In other words, guidance on environmental approvals was sought at a stage when most of the construction was already done. For critics, that sequence — build first, seek environmental guidance later — reverses the normal order, in which environmental approval should precede major construction. The letter itself is a matter of record, and its date, 26 October, places it very recently, just days before the planned court petition.
Rasha Tariq of the Clifton Residents Committee told the Express Tribune that construction was continuing round the clock despite provincial assurances. That claim, if accurate, suggests residents feel assurances given by the provincial authorities have not translated into a pause in work. Round-the-clock construction would mean the project continues to advance even while residents raise objections and prepare legal action, increasing the sense of urgency behind the planned petition. The residents’ committee, as a local body, is one of the main channels through which Clifton residents have organised their opposition.
Dawn reported that critics, including SEPA insiders, dismiss the late environmental review as “eyewash”. The term, used by critics, conveys scepticism that a review conducted at this late stage can be meaningful. Their argument, as reported, is that a credible independent assessment cannot be carried out when construction is already advanced. An environmental impact assessment is intended to examine a project’s effects before it is built, so that harmful effects can be avoided or mitigated. When construction is nearly complete, critics argue, the assessment can at best document what has already happened, rather than shape what should happen. That is why they describe the late review in such dismissive terms.
The controversy erupted weeks ago, when environmentalists and residents protested at the Clifton site. Their fear, as expressed at the time, was that the project represented an attempt to turn the waterway into a commercial belt, including a possible food street. That fear goes beyond technical questions of drainage and engineering: it concerns the future character of the waterway itself. A natural waterway, in the residents’ view, should be protected as a drainage channel and as part of the local environment. A commercial belt, with a food street, would represent a very different use, prioritising commercial activity over the waterway’s natural and drainage functions. The protest at the site weeks ago was the public expression of that concern, and the planned court petition is its legal continuation.
The government side has defended the project. The chief minister’s aide, Syed Najmi Alam, defending the project, said construction will not stop and that the government has asked SEPA to examine the scheme so that objections can be resolved. That position is clear: work continues, and the SEPA examination is presented as the mechanism for addressing objections. From the government’s perspective, asking SEPA to examine the scheme shows a willingness to engage with environmental concerns, even at a late stage. From the critics’ perspective, as noted, a late examination cannot substitute for an assessment carried out before construction advanced.
Sources: Express Tribune, Dawn, 30 Oct
