Reko Diq case: UK High Court blocks Pakistan from raising corruption allegations: The News

166
Reko Diq case: UK High Court blocks Pakistan from raising corruption allegations: The News
Reko Diq case: UK High Court blocks Pakistan from raising corruption allegations: The News
Advertisement

The London High Court has blocked Pakistan from pleading corruption allegations in the famous Reko Diq case in a challenge to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) partial award won by the Australian mining firm Tethyan Copper Company (TCC) – ruling that the province of Balochistan can no longer plead corruption allegations against the gold mining giant as the Supreme Court of Pakistan had not based its decision in the Reko Diq on corruption allegations, reported The News.
The News has exclusive access to the 98-page decision by Justice Robin Knowles. The court ruling by Judge Robin Knowles of the High Court of Justice comes as a setback as Pakistan’s legal team had sought to get the whole case nullified using the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision, but the London High Court found that Balochistan opted not to raise the issue of corruption during the international arbitration and in fact didn’t even allege corruption – while raising the corruption allegations in London High Court.
Balochistan had started claim against TCC in UK High Court on the allegations that TCC paid significant bribes to Pakistan government officials mainly in Balochistan, before and after the joint venture agreement was agreed, in order to secure the mining deal and in exchange for various “illegitimate benefits” under the agreement.
Rejecting the claim by Balochistan, Judge Robin Knowles ruled that Balochistan forfeited its right to mount corruption allegations to challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal adjudicating claims over the Reko Diq gold and copper mines in Balochistan. Balochistan had alleged corruption and also pleaded that the ICC lacked jurisdiction, but the English court ruled that the English arbitration law barred parties from raising issues before the court that were not raised during the arbitration in the same case.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here