judicial

Sea clean-up contract provokes court battle

A judge has issued a ruling that a contract to clean up maritime spills should be revoked.

víctor arosemena/la prensa

contested:Ocean Pollution Control could lose its contract with the government based on a recent court ruling that decided it was improperly awarded to the company.1145702

A judge has ruled that the country’s maritime authority (formerly known as the National Port Authority) did not have the authority to grant Ocean Pollution Control a contract to clean up pollutants in waters along the coasts, which the Panamanian company has done since October 1997.

According to Judge Adam Arnulfo Arjona, there is no evidence that the signing of the contract was preceded by a public tender or that the company received direct authorization from authorities to take on the work.

“A careful reading of [the contract] suggests that the agreed amount exceeds the sum of $2 million dollars, which would have required the approval of the Cabinet Council, a step that was avoided,” emphasized the judge.

Arjona also argued in his case summary that the contract “granted the concessionaire exaggerated rights and privileges,” insinuating underhanded activities.

Fellow judges within the court have since expressed their disapproval of Arjona’s ruling. Judges Winston Spadafora and Victor Benavides commented that the authority’s then directors Hugo Torrijos and Rubén Reyna were not guilty of “misuse of power,” an opinion that the Comptroller has supported.

The case has been wending its way through the courts since November 2005, when Administrative Attorney General Oscar Ceville requested that the contract be annulled based on the argument that it was illegal.

And the contract was, in fact, suspended briefly on March 16, 2006, by a panel consisting of the same judges, Arjona, Spadafora and Hoyos.

The suspension was eventually lifted in February 2007 after Ocean Pollution Control’s defense presented documentation indicating that it was restricted to collecting pollutants that had been spilled by vessels within Panamanian waters.

Attorney General Ceville countered that submission by focusing on the all but transparent financial aspect of the contract, which had obscured information about the exact amount of the company’s profits.

Additionally, he cited laws explaining that the maritime authority could only grant concessions for the construction of port facilities and not those involving the maintenance or clean-up of territorial waters.

The decisive argument, however, seemed to arrive when Ceville introduced evidence that cast doubt on the company’s capacity to provide the services it offered, citing a lack of up-to-date equipment and the necessary resources.

Además en Herald

• Sandra Noriega’s nomination defended
• Atalaya icon returned
• Farfán port project no closer to reality
• Officials warn of meningitis
• Gas to creep above $2 a gallon
• US extends tariff benefits until 2010
• Sea clean-up contract provokes court battle
• Port company wants to expand
• Free Zone sees continued growth