Nomination Committee in Gulf Boards: Who Chooses the Board

A nomination committee exists to decide who sits on the board and who could one day run the company. The Gulf markets reviewed for this piece now expect one from their listed companies, but in many family-controlled and state-linked boards it does a narrower job. It confirms the candidates the controlling shareholder has already chosen. JOH Partners sees this pattern in the group holdings it works with: the committee meets, the paperwork is correct and the board is still chosen elsewhere. This piece sets out what the UK Corporate Governance Code and the Gulf rules ask of a nomination committee, where the Gulf rules stop short, and what a chair can do to make the committee the place where board composition is actually decided.

What a nomination committee is meant to do

The job is simple to state. The nomination committee leads the process for appointing directors, makes sure there is a plan for who succeeds the chief executive and other senior managers, and keeps a pipeline of future candidates. The UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, published by the Financial Reporting Council, puts those duties in Provision 17. It also asks that a majority of the committee be independent non-executive directors, and that the chair of the board does not chair the committee when it is dealing with the appointment of their own successor.

Provision 20 goes a step further. It says open advertising or an external search consultancy should generally be used for the appointment of the chair and the non-executive directors, and that the annual report should name any consultancy used and any other link it has with the company or its directors. Provision 23 asks the committee to report each year on how it ran appointments and succession.

None of that is exotic. It describes a committee that has its own agenda, its own paper trail and its own budget for finding people. The question for a Gulf board is whether its committee works like that, or whether it waits to be told a name.

What the Gulf rules ask, and where they stop

The Gulf rules agree on the main point and differ on detail. Kuwait's Capital Markets Authority sets out its requirement in Book Fifteen of its Executive Bylaws. As JOH reads the Arabic text, the board must form a nomination and remuneration committee of at least three members, at least one of them independent and with a non-executive chair. The committee recommends the nomination and re-nomination of board members and executive management, reviews the skills the board needs each year and confirms that independent directors remain independent. Those provisions follow a comply-or-explain approach, so a company that departs from them can say why.

Qatar's new Governance Code for Listed Companies, issued under Financial Markets Authority Board Decision No. 5 of 2025, requires main market companies to set up a combined nomination, remuneration and incentives committee. The PwC summary lists director nominations, independence assessment and succession planning among its duties, and notes that the chair of the board may not sit on any board committee. The code gave listed companies twelve months to comply from August 2025, which could be extended by the regulator.

For Saudi Arabia, the Baker McKenzie summary of the Capital Market Authority's governance regulations describes a nomination and remuneration committee with no executive directors, at least one independent member and an independent chair, and says nomination and remuneration may be combined under conditions. The published charters of Saudi-listed companies show the combined form is the usual one. The Authority also opened a consultation on 29 October 2026 that, according to its own announcement, would require nomination committees to record the reasons for rejecting a candidate. The draft is provisional and a board should read the final text.

In Bahrain, the Central Bank's rulebook for licensed banks requires a nomination committee with an independent chair that recommends candidates for the board, the chief executive and other senior roles, and recommends succession plans. That rule covers banks, not listed companies generally.

Look at what these rules share. They require the committee to exist. They say who should sit on it. They list what it should do. None of them says how the committee should behave when the controlling shareholder has a different view, and no code can. That part depends on the board.

The committee in a family-controlled board: confirming, not choosing

JOH works with listed family groups, sovereign-adjacent platforms and holding companies across the GCC. In those mandates, the pattern is consistent. The controlling shareholder or the family council forms a view about who should join the board. The committee's members, who are often the shareholder's nominees together with one or two independents, are told the name or the shortlist. The committee meets, reviews the candidate against the skills list, and recommends the appointment. The board approves it. The paper trail is spotless and the decision was made months earlier in another room.

This is understandable. A shareholder with a majority is entitled to a say in who sits on the board, and in many groups the family has built the company and carries the risk. The difficulty is that the committee then has nothing to offer the minority shareholders, the independent directors or the chief executive, who would all expect the committee to be the place where the board's balance is actually judged.

The same pattern shows up in succession. The nomination committee has the succession brief on paper, but the person who will run the group is discussed between the owner and the chair, and the committee hears about it afterwards. JOH's research on the chairs of Gulf-listed family businesses looks at why the chair's authority in these groups is often informal.

If a nomination committee has never said no to the controlling shareholder's candidate, it is not choosing the board. It is recording the choice.

A composite: the director who was never shortlisted

The details are changed and combined from several situations. This is not any one client's story.

A listed family group has nine directors and a combined nomination and remuneration committee of three: the chair's nominee, a family representative and one independent director. The board has no one with experience of digital operations, and two directors have served for more than nine years. The independent director raises the gap twice. Each time the committee agrees and asks the company secretary to note it.

Eight months later, a place on the board falls vacant. The family proposes a retired executive from a company the family has done business with for twenty years. He is a decent candidate. The committee reviews his career against the skills list, finds nothing to object to, and recommends him. No one asks whether the digital gap has been closed, because no one wrote down who was meant to close it. The independent director abstains and says so in the minutes.

The appointment is not a mistake. The point is that the committee had identified a need and then had no way to act on it. The need stayed in the minutes. The vacancy was filled from the family's list.

What a committee that owns the board does differently

A committee that genuinely owns the composition of the board has four habits, and none of them needs a change to the articles.

The first is a live skills matrix. This is a one-page record of what the board needs, who currently supplies it and when each director's term or independence is due for review. The committee updates it every year and brings it to the board. A gap on that page is the brief for the next search.

The second is a standing succession file. It names the people who could step into the chair and chief executive roles, today and in two or three years, and it is reviewed at every meeting where succession is on the agenda. It also names the people for the layer just below. The file does not need to be a secret from the family. It needs to exist.

The third is an independent search for at least one appointment a year. The committee writes the brief, agrees the criteria and sees the candidates the owner has not seen. That is the habit the UK Code reflects in Provision 20. It does not stop the family proposing names. It makes sure the family's candidate is compared against others.

The fourth is an annual read on the executive layer. A committee that is expected to plan for senior succession needs to know, through the year and not once at an away day, how the executives below the chief executive are performing and what the board's directors think of them. Platforms such as Board Pulse are built to give a committee that continuing read, so the succession file is based on current evidence and not on last year's impression.

Where the chief executive is really chosen

Boards often discover that the question of who chooses the chief executive has no agreed answer. The charter may say the board appoints the chief executive on the recommendation of the nomination committee. In practice the owner has often decided, and the committee is asked to run a process around a name.

JOH's perspective on CEO succession in a GCC family business describes why this is really two transitions, one of the person and one of the relationship with the owner. A nomination committee that has kept a succession file for the role can have the first conversation with the owner on its own terms. A committee that starts when the incumbent resigns is almost always reacting.

The independent directors have a part to play. JOH's research on independent directors on Gulf boards looks at how independence holds up under family control, and the perspective on appointing a non-executive director covers what a single appointment looks like when it is done well. This piece is about the committee as a standing institution; the research report that follows it, Nomination Committees in the Gulf, 2026, sets out what each Gulf code requires.

Ask a nomination committee who would run the company if the chief executive resigned tonight. If the answer is not already written down, the committee has not started its main job.

Starting with the next appointment

A chair who wants the committee to do more does not need a reform programme. The simplest start is to take the next board vacancy and run it differently. Ask the committee to write the brief before any name is mentioned. Ask for a long list that includes people the family does not know. Ask the independent member to lead the interviews with the chair. Then see what happens when the owner's candidate sits against two others.

Two things usually become clear. The first is whether the committee has room to choose, which depends on whether the owner is willing to be compared against a field. The second is whether the committee has the people and the time to do it. A combined nomination and remuneration committee that meets four times a year, with most of that time spent on pay, will struggle to give board composition the attention it needs. Some groups split the two. Others keep the combined form and set aside one meeting a year that deals only with nominations and succession.

A sovereign-anchored or family-controlled group has a decision to make here, and it is a fair one. If the owner intends to choose the board, the committee should be honest about its role and the board should not claim otherwise. If the owner is prepared to let the committee choose, the committee needs a mandate and a calendar to match. JOH's engagement placing the first non-family chief executive into a Saudi industrial group shows what it takes when a family does decide to let an independent process run, and the group holdings sector page sets out where JOH sees these structures most often.

Candidates who are approached for a non-executive role can also learn a lot from the committee. Obediah Ayton, in his conversation on family office leadership in the UAE, describes access in the region as built on trust over time and not on a presentation, which is a fair description of how a family board forms a view of a new director. A candidate preparing to meet a committee should read the interview guide on the nomination committee assessment, and a chair who wants to see the other side of the table can read it too. The related question of who sets executive pay, which often sits in the same committee, is covered in JOH's perspective on the remuneration committee.

---

Key takeaways

---

JOH Partners is an executive search and senior executive recruitment firm advising chairs, nomination committees and family groups on board, chair and chief executive appointments across the GCC, the UK and Singapore. A board that wants a continuing view of its executive layer and its succession readiness can request a Board Pulse demo, or engage a partner for a confidential conversation about how your nomination committee works today.