Who Owns the Game? The Legal Questions Behind KP's Sports Complex Leases -

Musarrat Ullah Jan

In Pakistan, sport is often defeated long before the whistle blows.
Not by poor athletes. Not by a lack of talent. But by paperwork, legal ambiguity and an administrative culture that treats public documents as state secrets.
The latest example is the provincial government’s move to invite private operators to manage the Hayatabad Sports Complex and the Peshawar Sports Complex. On paper, it looks like another public-private partnership aimed at improving sports facilities. In reality, it raises a far more important question.
Does the Directorate of Sports have the legal authority to sublease assets built on land it does not own? That question deserves a documented answer, not a press statement.
The Hayatabad Sports Complex stands on land owned by the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA). The Peshawar Sports Complex, also known as Qayyum Sports Complex, is located on land belonging to the Cantonment Board.
In both cases, the Directorate of Sports is understood to be the leaseholder rather than the landowner. That distinction is not a technicality. It is the foundation of the entire debate.
Across property law, one principle is generally recognised. A tenant cannot ordinarily transfer or sublease leased property unless the lease agreement expressly permits it or the owner grants written consent.
If that principle applies to private citizens, should it not apply equally to government departments? If the answer is yes, then another question naturally follows.
Does the original lease agreement authorise subleasing? If it does, the controversy ends with a simple disclosure. If it does not, then the legal basis of the tender deserves careful examination.
This is not fundamentally a debate about privatisation. Nor is it a debate about attracting private investment. Private sector participation in sports infrastructure can improve facilities, generate revenue and reduce the burden on taxpayers. Around the world, governments successfully partner with private operators. The issue is governance.
Public confidence depends on public documentation. If the Directorate possesses written permission from the PDA and the Cantonment Board, why not publish it? If the original lease contains a sublease clause, why not release the relevant pages? These are not confidential military files.
They concern publicly owned land, publicly funded infrastructure and decisions taken by public institutions.
Pakistan’s bureaucracy has developed an unfortunate habit. Information remains hidden until someone asks for it. When citizens ask, they are told the matter is under consideration. When journalists ask, they are accused of negative reporting. Yet when courts demand records, entire files somehow appear within hours. That pattern weakens public trust far more than any critical news report ever could. Transparency should never be treated as a concession. It is a legal and democratic obligation.
Investors also deserve clarity. A private company bidding for the management of a sports complex will expect the legal framework to be beyond challenge.
If questions later arise about the authority to sublease the property, the consequences could extend beyond politics. Contracts, investments and future operations could all become vulnerable to legal disputes. Good governance protects not only public assets but also private investors acting in good faith . Legal certainty benefits everyone.
The issue can be settled with remarkable ease. Publish the original lease agreements. Publish any written approvals from the PDA and the Cantonment Board. Explain the legal provision authorising the Directorate to transfer operational rights through a competitive tender.Once those documents are available, speculation gives way to evidence. Without them, questions naturally multiply.Sports facilities are not ordinary commercial properties.
They are public assets developed for athletes, communities and future generations. Every administrative decision affecting them should withstand legal scrutiny and public examination. That is not hostility towards government. It is the very purpose of accountability. No one is suggesting that the tender process is unlawful. No one is alleging misconduct.
The point is far simpler. When a government department exercises powers over property it does not own, the legal authority for those powers should be visible, documented and open to public inspection.
Imagine that tomorrow either the PDA or the Cantonment Board publicly states that no permission for subleasing was ever granted. What becomes of the tender process? Conversely, if written approval already exists, why has it not been disclosed? Those two possibilities define the entire controversy. One document could answer every question.
Until then, the debate is not really about sports. It is about whether transparency remains an optional extra in public administration. The province needs modern sports facilities. It needs investment.It needs professional management. But above all, it needs confidence that public assets are being managed according to the law, not simply according to administrative convenience.
Because when transparency is absent, every tender becomes a question mark, every file becomes a mystery, and every public institution pays the price in credibility. The ball is now in the government’s court. It can answer the questions with documents, or allow the silence to speak for itself.