PESHAWAR: A general body meeting of Peshawar High Court Bar Association (PHCBA) on Wednesday rejected Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines and Mineral Bill, 2025, warning the provincial government to desist from enacting it.

Through a unanimously adopted resolution, the meeting warned that if thebillwaspassedthelegalfraternity of the province would struggle for its revocation so that it should not be implemented.

The participants vowed to strive for saving the people of this province from the proposed law.

It was decided that the resolution would also be sent to the KP chief minister and speaker of the KP Assembly with a request not to adopt the controversial law.

The emergency meeting against the proposed mines and mineral law was convened on requisition of advocates Tariq Afghan and Ijaz Khan Mohmand.

The meeting was addressed by outgoing president of PHCBA Fida Gul, its acting secretary general Ijaz Ali Shah, Awami National Party MPA Nisar Baz, president of KP Minerals Association, Afsar Khan, advocates Muazzam Butt, Ijaz Mohmand, Saleem Khan, etc.

Terming the proposed law an attempt by the federal government to occupy natural resources of the province, the speakers said that it was an issue of provincialautonomy for whichall the forces should join hands while shunning their political differences.

They said that the proposed law was against the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act and an assault on the resources of this province.

President of Minerals Association, Afsar Khan, said that the provincial cabinet had given assent to the controversial bill in undue haste without consulting the stakeholders.

He pointed out that in the proposed law the licencing authority had been assigned vast powers, whereas under section 6 of the proposed law it was mandatory for it to give due consideration to the recommendation of federal mineral wing, which amounted to interference in the affairs of the province.

He said the proposed law was aimed at ousting the local miners from the business as the conditions of capital investment were imposed for large scale and small scale mining including at least Rs500 million for the former and Rs25 million for the latter. Moreover, he added that for large scale mining it was binding for investor to enter into joint venture with a government-owned mining company.

He said the government had also proposed to give membership to dire ctor general of federal minerals wing or his representative in the Mineral Investment Facilitation Authority (MIFA), which would be having wide ranging powers.

MPA Nisar Baz claimed that the bill was against the interest of the prov-ince as mines and minerals was a provincial subject and the interference of federal government in it was unwarranted.

He said that is someone proved to them that the law was in favour of the province then they were ready to support the same in the assembly, otherwise they would fully resist it.

He criticised the functioning of SIFC (Special Investment Facilitation Council), stating that it was a supra constitutional body, which had been interfering in different sectors without any legal backing.

He said the strength of the federation was in the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act and its violation would not be in the interest of the country as well as federating units.

Advocate Muazzam Butt said that when the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act was passed he had stated even at that time that the said amendment had originated from somewhere else and not from the parliament.

He criticised ANP and Jamiat-iUlema Islam-Fazl stating that they had supported identical law in Balochistan, but had been criticising it here. He added that there was also division within the Pakistan Tehreeki-Insaf as several members had opposed it.

He said that members of the provincial assembly should be clearly putting forward their stance on the controversialbillinstead of adopting dual policy of criticising it in public and supporting it inside the assembly