MNA questions transparency in government's $750m Eurobond-backed borrowing

MNA Aliya Kamran of Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam-F (JUI-F) has questioned whether the federal government followed a competitive procurement process while raising $750 million through a private placement against Eurobonds in April this year, The Express Tribune reported. 

In questions submitted to the National Assembly, Kamran sought details of any tender notices, requests for proposals, bid evaluations and contract awards related to the $750 million Eurobond-backed borrowing, the $1 billion syndicated term finance facility secured in June 2025 and the $250 million Panda Bonds issued in May 2026.

She also asked whether mandates for the three transactions were awarded to Habib Bank Limited (HBL) and Standard Chartered Bank Limited without an open and competitive process under the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules 2024. HBL has previously said it did not receive any fee for the Panda Bond transaction.

According to details cited by the lawmaker, the government borrowed $750 million for three years at 6.98% interest, while Citibank had offered $800 million to $1 billion for a minimum of five years at 7.25%, with six- and seven-year financing also available at slightly higher rates.

Tribune cited a senior Ministry of Finance official as saying that the government opted for the lower interest rate instead of a longer repayment period to reduce borrowing costs. The ministry did not officially comment on Citibank's offer.

MNA Kamran also sought information on the fees, commissions and underwriting charges paid for the three transactions and asked whether the government would order an independent inquiry into the alleged violations of PPRA rules and fix responsibility if any financial loss was caused to the national exchequer.

She confirmed that the questions were submitted in June and have been admitted for reply in the National Assembly.

Last month, Transparency International-Pakistan said no public record of tender notices, bid evaluations or contract awards for the $750 million transaction was available, adding that if confirmed, it could amount to a violation of PPRA rules requiring transparency and competitive procurement.