3 min read
The Peshawar High Court’s decision to halt the Bank of Khyber (BoK) disciplinary inquiry into two senior officials has stirred widespread discussion across legal, financial, and political sectors. While the petitioners argue they are victims of internal overreach, the situation points to deeper systemic flaws in public sector governance.
The disciplinary action under question stems from the Eclipse Resort Living and Mall financing default. The petitioners claim the matter was previously closed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), citing jurisdictional limits. However, experts argue that NAB’s closure does not equate to acquittal, particularly when it defers to internal institutional mechanisms. In this context, BoK’s right to conduct a disciplinary inquiry under its service rules remains both valid and necessary.
What remains overlooked is a persistent history of disruption linked to certain long-serving officers within the bank. The Bank of Khyber has seen multiple MD-level resignations, often surrounded by internal power struggles and factionalism. According to reports, a small circle of individuals is alleged to have entrenched itself by exploiting divisions between public and private sector board members—effectively controlling key narratives within the institution.
A History of Factional Influence and Executive Turnover
This influence is said to be maintained through strategic alignment with board factions and manipulation of perceived loyalties. The outcome has been a toxic work environment and weakened trust at the executive level. More troubling is the pattern of protection afforded to these individuals by select board directors, effectively shielding them from accountability and enabling long-term institutional capture.
Observers highlight that such systemic impunity undermines reform efforts. In the present case, the urgency to block the disciplinary inquiry before any verdict raises red flags. Normally, legal challenges occur post-decision—but the current attempt to stop the process outright implies fear of exposure and a troubling sense of entitlement.
This case is widely seen as a test of BoK’s commitment to internal accountability. If internal inquiries become subject to legal stalling and media pressure, questions naturally arise about the strength of corporate governance in state-backed financial institutions.
Ultimately, this isn’t just about two officers or one questionable loan. It’s about whether public financial institutions like the Bank of Khyber can resist internal power structures that evade scrutiny and accountability. The court’s decision will either pave the way for institutional reform—or further embolden entrenched actors who consider themselves beyond reproach.
For BoK and similar institutions, the outcome may shape the future of governance: reinforcing the rule of law and transparency—or reinforcing the idea that influence trumps accountability.
