Too high a price: Court allows Chinese firm to defend its case
Securing the federal capital, at a ‘higher’ cost of $124 million.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Monday accepted a Chinese firm’s request to become a party in the $124 million Safe City Project case and defend itself in the court.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry while hearing the case observed that if the requirement for the same project was $8 million in Karachi, then allocation of such a huge amount for a small city like Islamabad needed some explanation.
The court, has shown its displeasure over the costly deal with the Chinese firm, Huawaei Technologies and asked the government to ensure transparency in the deal and sought complete records of the project.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer for the Chinese firm, contented before the court that the case was directly linked with his client and as per justice, it was right of his client to be heard. The court allowed his application. On the other side, Shahid Orakzai, the complainant in the case, submitted before the court that it was unlawful to allow a foreign firm to become party. He said that this practice was contrary to the Article 18 of the constitution. He also requested the chief justice to shift the case to some other bench. However, the court adjourned the matter for indefinite period.
Raza Kazim, the lawyer of the Ministry of Interior, also appeared before the court. In its statement, interior ministry had defended the deal about the project, which was awarded to Huawei Technologies, saying that the latest technology for the capital city was necessary to counter any security threat.
As per interior ministry’s document, submitted before the court, the initial estimate for the project was $151 million but after a number of meetings and negotiations the cost was reduced to $124 million. The document also claims that the project was more advanced than the Karachi’s version of Safe City Project.
Initiated by the interior ministry, the series of projects aim to strengthen security in cities, to protect them against terrorist threats and criminal activities. Under the project, equipment like CCTV cameras, explosive detectors and scanners will be installed at all the entry and exit points of different cities.
The complainant raised an objection before the court that the project was never advertised. He said that the New Chinese Company offered to execute the project at a much lesser amount than Huawei Technologies, but their bid was ignored.
The petitioner alleged that on the recommendation of the interior ministry, the prime minister had exempted the project from the rules and regulations of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, allowing Huawei to quote any price for equipment of its own specifications.
The petitioner claimed that the government was initially gearing up to initiate a $233.7 million (Rs20 billion) Safe City Project for Islamabad and Peshawar with a Chinese firm without following the legal process. He said that the price of the equipment for the project was three times higher than the market price.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2011.
The Supreme Court on Monday accepted a Chinese firm’s request to become a party in the $124 million Safe City Project case and defend itself in the court.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry while hearing the case observed that if the requirement for the same project was $8 million in Karachi, then allocation of such a huge amount for a small city like Islamabad needed some explanation.
The court, has shown its displeasure over the costly deal with the Chinese firm, Huawaei Technologies and asked the government to ensure transparency in the deal and sought complete records of the project.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer for the Chinese firm, contented before the court that the case was directly linked with his client and as per justice, it was right of his client to be heard. The court allowed his application. On the other side, Shahid Orakzai, the complainant in the case, submitted before the court that it was unlawful to allow a foreign firm to become party. He said that this practice was contrary to the Article 18 of the constitution. He also requested the chief justice to shift the case to some other bench. However, the court adjourned the matter for indefinite period.
Raza Kazim, the lawyer of the Ministry of Interior, also appeared before the court. In its statement, interior ministry had defended the deal about the project, which was awarded to Huawei Technologies, saying that the latest technology for the capital city was necessary to counter any security threat.
As per interior ministry’s document, submitted before the court, the initial estimate for the project was $151 million but after a number of meetings and negotiations the cost was reduced to $124 million. The document also claims that the project was more advanced than the Karachi’s version of Safe City Project.
Initiated by the interior ministry, the series of projects aim to strengthen security in cities, to protect them against terrorist threats and criminal activities. Under the project, equipment like CCTV cameras, explosive detectors and scanners will be installed at all the entry and exit points of different cities.
The complainant raised an objection before the court that the project was never advertised. He said that the New Chinese Company offered to execute the project at a much lesser amount than Huawei Technologies, but their bid was ignored.
The petitioner alleged that on the recommendation of the interior ministry, the prime minister had exempted the project from the rules and regulations of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, allowing Huawei to quote any price for equipment of its own specifications.
The petitioner claimed that the government was initially gearing up to initiate a $233.7 million (Rs20 billion) Safe City Project for Islamabad and Peshawar with a Chinese firm without following the legal process. He said that the price of the equipment for the project was three times higher than the market price.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2011.