2017 Amendment to KP Private School Law Raises Questions Over PTI Leaders’ Interests

An amendment to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s private schools regulatory law in June 2017 changed the wording of a provision governing punitive action against schools, raising questions about the impact on the provincial authority’s enforcement powers.

The original Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Private Schools Regulatory Authority Act, 2017, published in the provincial gazette on June 9, required private schools to register with the regulatory authority before operating in the province. Section 22(4) provided that, in cases of subsequent violations covered by the preceding subsections, the authority could close, lock or seal a school.

The provincial assembly subsequently passed the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Private Schools Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Act, 2017. The amendment received the governor’s assent on June 20 and was published in the official gazette on June 23.

Under Section 5 of the amendment, the wording “close or lock or seal such school” in Section 22(4) was replaced with “take such punitive action as may be prescribed.” The change altered the specific enforcement language in the original law and made the provision refer to prescribed punitive action instead.

The original law separately stipulated fines for operating without registration and for other violations. The amendment’s wording, however, does not by itself establish that fines became the only possible penalty or that the authority lost every power to take stronger action. The effect of the change must be assessed alongside the applicable rules and subsequent legal provisions.

Questions have also been raised about whether the amendment benefited private educational institutions associated with political figures, including former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly speaker Asad Qaiser and former provincial assembly speaker Mushtaq Ghani. Sources cited in the allegations have linked the change to the interests of political leaders involved in the private education sector.

However, the available information does not independently establish that the amendment was introduced specifically to protect institutions owned by these politicians or that they personally directed the change. Establishing such a connection would require documentary evidence of the decision-making process, relevant ownership records and responses from the individuals concerned.

The official legislative record confirms the amendment and the change to Section 22(4). The allegation that it was enacted to provide political protection to particular school owners remains unverified on the evidence available.

The controversy highlights the importance of transparency in legislative amendments, particularly when changes affect the regulatory authority’s ability to enforce education standards and hold private institutions accountable.