Exclusive Interview With P@SHA Chairman Sajjad Syed Over No-Confidence Vote and DGTO Intervention

P@SHA Chairman Sajjad Mustafa Syed has challenged the process behind the no-confidence vote against him, questioned the handling of Central Executive Committee meeting records, and confirmed that he has approached the Directorate General of Trade Organizations (DGTO) for intervention under the applicable rules.

His comments come after P@SHA’s Central Executive Committee announced that a no-confidence motion had been passed against him by a two-thirds majority and that Senior Vice Chairman Muhammad Umair Nizam would assume acting charge.

Syed has rejected the move, calling it illegal and procedurally questionable. In an exclusive interview, he outlined his concerns over the 37th CEC meeting, the timing of the vote, an earlier NCCIA complaint, and the future direction of Pakistan’s leading IT industry association.

Q. What is your main objection to the no-confidence vote?

Sajjad Syed: My principal concern is the process and the governance surrounding it.

The minutes of the 37th CEC meeting that have been published were, to my understanding, not approved by the majority of the CEC at the time they were released. Some members have also rejected those minutes.

If that is the case, the question is how those minutes were published and who authorized their publication.

There is also another issue. The minutes of the 37th meeting have been published, but what happened to the minutes of the 35th and 36th meetings? Why were those not published in the same way?

Q. Was the no-confidence motion part of the original agenda for the 37th meeting?

Sajjad Syed: That is one of the central questions that needs to be answered.

What was the actual agenda of the 37th meeting, and what had been approved for discussion?

Was the motion of no confidence against the chairman included in that agenda? If it was not, then when was it added, under what authority was it introduced, and how was it executed despite not being part of the original agenda?

These are basic governance questions, and members deserve clarity.

Q. You have also questioned the notification announcing the leadership change. What is your concern?

Sajjad Syed: If the minutes of the 37th meeting had not been formally approved, then how could a notification based on those proceedings be issued before the approval of the minutes?

The sequence matters. When an organization represents an entire industry, its internal decisions must follow proper procedure and be supported by an approved record.

Q. Why do you believe the timing of the vote is significant?

Sajjad Syed: The current term was already nearing its end, and elections were around the corner.

That raises a straightforward question. What was so critical that the chairman had to be removed approximately one month before the completion of the term?

If elections were already approaching, why was such an extraordinary step considered necessary at that stage?

The timing naturally raises questions and deserves an explanation.

Q. You have suggested the vote may be part of a broader campaign against you. What happened before the no-confidence move?

Sajjad Syed: A few weeks earlier, an anonymous email was circulated that I considered defamatory toward me.

I asked the CEC to approach the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) over the matter, but the CEC did not agree to pursue it as an organization.

I then informed the CEC that I would approach the NCCIA in my personal capacity because I was the person who had been defamed.

The CEC acknowledged that I had the right to do so as the affected individual.

Q. Did your NCCIA application accuse any P@SHA member or official?

Sajjad Syed: No.

The application was filed against an anonymous person or source. No individual was named as an accused.

People who had access to relevant P@SHA records were mentioned as part of the background, but they were not named as accused persons.

After the application was filed, the NCCIA followed its own investigative process. That was the agency’s decision and not something directed by me.

Editor’s note: PhoneWorld has not independently verified the details of the NCCIA investigation, and the involvement of any individual in an inquiry should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

Q. Do you believe there should be greater transparency about those who voted against you?

Sajjad Syed: Yes. When a decision of this significance is taken within an industry association, transparency is important.

Members should know who participated in that decision.

They should also be able to look at the professional backgrounds of those individuals, the companies they represent, their market credibility, their businesses, and their technology experience.

This should not become personal. The real question is whether the people making major decisions for the association have the experience and credibility required to represent Pakistan’s technology industry effectively.

Q. Are you open to resolving the dispute internally?

Sajjad Syed: Absolutely.

I am open to discussing and resolving the matter with anyone who genuinely wants to engage constructively.

However, because I believe there are procedural and legal questions involved, I have approached the DGTO and asked it to intervene in accordance with the law and applicable rules.

I believe institutional disputes should be resolved through legal, transparent, and professional channels.

Q. What do you want to see happen as P@SHA elections approach?

Sajjad Syed: I think the focus should now move toward the elections and the next generation of leadership.

We should encourage competent people to participate, contest, and get elected.

P@SHA needs people whose own businesses are successful and who want to increase the business and influence of the industry, rather than people whose business becomes P@SHA itself.

We need leaders who understand artificial intelligence, startups, software exports, and emerging technologies.

We need people who have built successful technology companies and who understand what is happening globally.

AI is creating a disruptive environment. It can either make our industry significantly stronger or create serious challenges for it.

The next leadership of P@SHA needs to understand that reality and be capable of guiding the industry through it.

Syed’s position shifts the focus of the controversy beyond the no-confidence vote itself and toward the process through which the decision was taken and implemented.

His key concerns center on whether the motion was properly included in the meeting agenda, whether the minutes were approved before publication, and whether a leadership-change notification could be issued before those minutes were formally confirmed.

These remain Syed’s account and interpretation of the events. Members of the CEC who supported the no-confidence motion may have a different view of the association’s procedures and governing provisions.

The dispute now appears likely to move on two tracks: an internal governance battle ahead of the elections and a regulatory process involving the DGTO.

Syed, however, argues that P@SHA should move beyond internal conflict and focus on electing experienced technology leaders capable of representing Pakistan’s IT industry at a time when artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies are rapidly reshaping the global technology landscape.

Also read:

P@SHA Leadership Crisis Erupts as Chairman Rejects No-Confidence Vote, Calls Removal Illegal