ISLAMABAD: The Competition Bill, 2009, adopted recently by the National Assembly was different from the draft which had been approved by the standing committee on finance.

Investigations reveal that a key amendment to the Competition Ordinance, 2009, was made by the committee’s chairperson Fauzia Wahab after a consensus draft had been approved by the committee.

Ms. Wahab recommended that the right to appeal against an order issued by the Competition Commission should be changed to ‘high court’ from the ‘Supreme Court’ in the bill.

However, the draft approved in the presence of officials of the CCP and the finance ministry and media, and signed by Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin, says that appeals against an order issued by the commission can be made in the Supreme Court within 60 days.

Members of the committee said the draft had been approved unanimously on Nov 11 last year and ‘minutes’ of the meeting, which was attended by Nafisa Shah, Khalida Mansoor, Riaz Fatyana, Aftab Shaban Mirani and Arif Aziz Shaikh and officials from the finance ministry and the CCP, would prove that.

PPP MNA Aftab Shaban Mirani told this correspondent the committee was impressed with the performance of the CCP and the draft of the bill had been approved by consensus.

“The committee had a thorough briefing on the ordinance and members raised queries before approving it,” he said.

But the draft signed and forwarded by the chairperson of the committee to the National Assembly secretariat says: “In clause 42 for the words ‘Supreme Court’ the words ‘High Court’ having jurisdiction shall be substituted.”

It was received by NA secretary Karamat Hussain Niazi on Nov 25.

Fauzia Wahab told Dawn the amendment had been made with the approval of the committee, adding that consultation with members was a regular process and continued even after meetings of the committee.

Committee members Riaz Fatyana and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said that they had held no informal discussion over the ordinance with the chairperson.

Mr Fatyana said the draft had been approved with the words of ‘supreme court’ and informal meetings of the committee had no legal validity.