What bankers sought from the PMO
- A standardized, merit-based framework for CEO and board appointments with published criteria, timelines, and objective evaluation metrics. Bank executives argued that a formal, transparent process would reduce ambiguity and curb discretionary practices that can delay leadership transitions or compromise independence.
- Independent search and selection panels comprising respected industry professionals, with observers from the central bank or regulators to ensure adherence to governance norms. The aim is to balance professional appointment standards with necessary regulatory oversight.
- Expedited approvals while maintaining safeguards through a fast-track track for routine leadership changes, coupled with clear provisions for cases that require deeper scrutiny, performance reviews, or risk considerations.
- Clear delineation of roles between the government, the bank’s board, and management to minimize the potential for political interference in routine appointments. Bank officials called for a published policy that spells out the responsibilities and limits of each stakeholder in the process.
- Diversity, governance, and tenure norms including broader diversity on boards, and tenure policies linked to performance and strategic outcomes, to foster continuity and accountability in leadership.
- Strengthened board oversight mechanisms through enhanced risk, audit, and nomination-and-renewal committees that operate with greater independence from day-to-day political oversight and short-term considerations.
PMO position and regulatory context
Governance history and sector context
Implications for banks, regulators, and policymakers
What comes next