In July 1993, a provincial government entity entered into a joint venture with a foreign entity to prospect for gold and copper in a lease area called Reko Diq. In late 2011, the licensing authority of Reqo Diq cancelled the mining lease. The foreign investors brought two international arbitrations; one, against the Pakistan Government in ICSID and the other against the provincial government in ICC. Simultaneously, the joint venture was challenged in the domestic courts and in 2013, it was annulled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for non-transparency and regulatory non-compliance. However, in 2019, ICSID rendered an award for the foreign investors to recover
damages of US$ 5.9 billion plus interest and costs from the Pakistan government. In the ICC arbitration, the experts believed that damages of US$ 2-3 billion were likely to be made against the provincial government. 
With US$ 8-9 billion of claims in sight, the Pakistan government prudently entered into settlement with the foreign investors of Reqo Diq. The government agreed to pay US$ 900 million for settlement of claims of one of the foreign investors who would be succeeded by another foreign entity. The joint venture was reorganised such that the foreign investors would get 50% share in it while Pakistan government would hold 25% share and the provincial government would get 25% share and 5% royalty. The foreign investors would be entitled to fiscal incentives including stable taxation for a set time. 
A unique condition of the settlement was that the President of Pakistan would get opinion from the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the validity of (a) the settlement arrangement, (b) a proposed federal legislation to protect foreign investment and (c) a provincial legislation to provide legal basis for mining. Recently, the Supreme Court has granted the opinion to the President validating the Reqo Diq settlement by distinguishing it from the annulment decision of 2013. 
The judicial intervention of 2013 appears to have necessitated the recent demand by Reqo Diq’s investors for the Supreme Court opinion. The underlying objective is evidently to achieve clarity and certainty in the governmental deal. However, it remains a highly onerous and unusual condition which was perhaps accepted by the government in view of the colossal claims and current economic challenges. Reqo Diq is not the only case where the superior judiciary’s direct intervention in commercial matters exposed Pakistan to humongous damages; Karkey Karadeniz case is another example where ICSID awarded damages of US$ 1.2 billion against Pakistan
after the Supreme Court directly annulled the Karkey project. The question thus arises whether direct intervention of the Supreme Court into commercial disputes might be revisited or whether our investment and procurement laws should be further strengthened.