Business Recorder
EDITORIAL: Holding a manufacturer liable for a substandard fertiliser sample solely because its brand appears on the product even before verifying authenticity raises serious questions about due process and legal fairness. The concern, flagged by the Fertiliser Manufacturers of Pakistan Advisory Council (FMPAC) in response to the Punjab Fertiliser Control Act’s enforcement guidelines, goes beyond sectoral regulation; it touches the core principle that liability must follow evidence, not assumption. The current framework, as described, allows enforcement action to be initiated against a branded manufacturer without first establishing whether the product in question is genuine or counterfeit. In a market where unauthorised replication, trademark misuse and adulteration are well-documented risks, such an approach shifts the burden of proof onto compliant firms. This inversion of responsibility is problematic. It places legitimate businesses in a position where they must disprove allegations before the state has established a credible evidentiary basis. The legal implications are difficult to ignore. A system that enables coercive action, including the registration of FIRs or the sealing of facilities, prior to forensic verification risks undermining established prosecutorial standards. Liability in commercial and criminal contexts is expected to rest on demonstrable control over production and distribution. When that standard is diluted, enforcement becomes vulnerable to error, overreach and, in some cases, misuse. The economic consequences are equally significant. The fertiliser sector occupies a central position in Pakistan’s agricultural economy. Disruption to compliant manufacturers, whether through premature legal action or reputational damage, can affect supply chains at a critical time. Farmers depend on consistent access to quality inputs, and any instability in production or distribution can have downstream effects on crop yields and food security. There is also a practical concern regarding enforcement effectiveness. By focusing initial action on identifiable, formal-sector entities, the framework risks diverting attention from the informal networks that are often responsible for counterfeit or substandard products. Effective regulation requires tracing the supply chain, identifying points of adulteration and holding the actual source of the violation accountable. Short-circuiting this process may create the appearance of enforcement while leaving the underlying problem intact. The broader regulatory environment makes this issue more pressing. Concerns about the misuse or overextension of laws in other domains have already highlighted the need for precision and restraint in legislative design. When enforcement frameworks are perceived as arbitrary or excessively punitive, they erode confidence in institutions and discourage compliance rather than strengthening it. A balanced approach is both possible and necessary. Strict action against counterfeit and substandard fertilisers is essential. The risks associated with poor-quality inputs extend from reduced agricultural productivity to long-term soil degradation. However, firmness must be accompanied by procedural clarity. Enforcement should begin with verification, followed by traceability and only then the assignment of liability. Deferring the implementation of the current guidelines until the corresponding rules are finalised, as suggested by FMPAC, may provide an opportunity to address these concerns. Clear protocols for sample testing, authentication and supply-chain investigation would strengthen the legal foundation of enforcement actions and reduce the risk of wrongful attribution. The objective of regulation should be to deter wrongdoing while protecting legitimate economic activity. When frameworks tilt too far in one direction, they risk undermining both goals. In this case, ensuring that enforcement is evidence-based and proportionate would not weaken the state’s hand; it would make it more effective. The fertiliser sector’s strategic importance demands careful calibration of policy. Protecting farmers from substandard inputs and protecting manufacturers from unjust liability are not competing priorities. Both are necessary for a system that is fair, credible, and capable of delivering the outcomes it seeks. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Go to News Site