Khalid Anwar, the counsel for TCCP, told the bench that his client approached the ICSID forum to dispel the impression that TCC was robbing the national mineral resources, arguing it was a statutory duty of the government of Pakistan to encourage foreign investors.
He further contended: "Constitutionally it is our duty to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to all the foreign companies instead of taking arbitrary action against foreign entities which invested US $450 million for feasibility in Reko Diq mining lease". Anwar argued that rights and duties of both the Federal and provincial governments in the Reko Diq mining lease agreement were required to be appropriately decided. He alleged that Balochistan government had violated the agreement with TCC. To which, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked: "to what extent is the ambit of the government of Pakistan in relation to the agreement.
The Chief Justice observed that if the Balochistan government had violated the agreement, it should have been challenged in country's courts instead of any international forum, adding that under Article 5 of the constitution, "everybody is bound to observe the local laws."
"There is a case against the Government of Pakistan before ICSID, let the court know by putting exact proposition of the case before it," the Chief Justice said. Justice Gulzar Ahmed wondered how the federal government could be held responsible for an agreement, of which it had no knowledge. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, the counsel for Balochistan government, submitted that non-issuance of a new licence to a company for Reko Diq mining lease could not be considered an anti-investment act. The bench asked Anwar to complete his arguments by next hearing before it adjourned the hearing of case till November 26.