KARACHI (June 12 2005): The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has withdrawn from performing its regulatory role in disputes relating to the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI).
The SECP Deputy Registrar of Companies, in a letter to Businessmen Forum (BF) spokesman Captain Rasheed Abro, has informed him that the SECP had called for comments of the FPCCI on the allegations made by him in his complaint.
Since the FPCCI had denied all the allegations and after due consideration by the SECP, “it has been felt that the FPCCI is primarily regulated by the Trade Organisations (DTO) Director,” it would be appropriate to approach him “if you have reservations in this regard,” he said further.
Earlier, the Deputy Registrar of Companies had advised Captain Abro to submit an affidavit on stamp paper to enable the SECP to proceed further in the matter. The affidavit was duly submitted last month.
The FPCCI Secretary General, in his comments submitted to the SECP on the queries raised by the complainant, pointed out that “a handful of persons, including the complainant, after loosing the last FPCCI elections miserably, continued to spread incorrect and malicious information about the FPCCI management and its operations.”
He requested that the complainant should be advised to use his energies positively for promoting the interests of trade and industry through the FPCCI.
Captain Rasheed Abro, commenting on the situation, regretted that the SECP, which was the regulatory body to see proper management and enforcement of companies' ordinance had shifted the onus of responsibility to the DTO in matters, related to the FPCCI.
He said a company, violating companies' ordinance 1984, was primarily answerable to the SCEP and not the DTO, whose jurisdiction was confined to ensuring that the provisions of Trade Organisations Ordinance (TOO) 1961, were being followed.
The SECP's prime role is to take note of the violations of the companies' ordinance. The FPCCI is registered under companies' ordinance and not under the TOO, and as such it was the responsibility of the SECP to undertake necessary investigations to uncover the truth.
He said the BF was seeking probe into violations of obligations, the FPCCI owned as a registered company under the companies' ordinance. “We would consult our legal advisors on the issue if the SECP was shirking in not taking the charge of its responsibility in terms of companies' ordinance, then which forum would be appropriate to appeal against the vindication of our grievances,” Abro said.
