CIP researcher Borges Nhamirre believes that the out-of-court agreement made by the Mozambican state with three creditor banks in the London dispute over hidden debts is “good” and “does not harm” Mozambique.
The new agreement provides for a reduction in “state exposure” from 1.4 billion dollars to 220 million dollars. However, the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) believes that the agreement harms the state and protects leaders of the ruling Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO).
In an interview with DW Africa, Borges Nhamirre, a researcher at the Centre for Public Integrity (CIP), has a different assessment and believes that the Mozambican state was right to sign these agreements. He also says that the government’s strategy has worked well since the beginning of the process five years ago.
Borges Nhamirre, researcher at the Centre for Public Integrity (CIP)
DW Africa: Do you think the judgement in London will lead to the defeat of the Mozambican state?
Borges Nhamirre (BN): This case started a long time ago, Mozambique started the process in 2019. A lot has changed since then. Since then, the number of defendants who were sued by Mozambique has been reduced due to the agreements between Mozambique and Credit Suisse, which means that Credit Suisse and its subsidiaries have withdrawn from the case. So it has already reduced the number of defendants, but also the death of Iskander Safa [owner of Privinvest] doesn’t remove him, because his estate will answer for itself, as this is a civil liability case. The VTB agreement doesn’t affect the case much because Mozambique hadn’t initiated any proceedings against VTB. VTB had initiated proceedings against Mozambique. So that case also ceases to exist. At the moment, in technical terms, it means that the judgement announced by the court will decide the relationship between Mozambique and Privinvest, plus the three former Credit Suisse employees.
DW Africa: In other words, there is no major impact of the agreements between the Mozambican government and the banks on this process?
BN: No. The main impact is the departure of three defendants, which are the banks of the Credit Suisse group, essentially nothing else. Because, all in all, it was a case with 12 defendants, from whom Mozambique was demanding compensation. So, with the departure of Credit Suisse, the number of defendants goes down, but so does the amount that Mozambique was demanding.
DW Africa: Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Mozambique believe that out-of-court settlements protect FRELIMO, the ruling party. If this is true, how can the interests of the Mozambican state be protected?
BN: Technically, these agreements are very good for Mozambique, because it means that Mozambique is no longer in default, no longer a defaulter. Technically, theoretically, it means that Mozambique will once again have access to the international capital market. It’s true that the agreements aren’t enough. But I think it’s a good agreement. With regard to the FRELIMO leaders, they were not defendants in that case in London. Those who are known to be defendants are defendants in the case in the United States of America, who are also not necessarily FRELIMO leaders, apart from Manuel Chang, but people who have held important state positions.
So I think this statement makes a lot of sense for the legal profession, but from a technical point of view, the evil of the agreements is not necessarily there. I think we can say that these agreements were bad for Mozambique, because Mozambique has to pay money, it has to pay around 366 million dollars to reach these agreements. But even so, if we compare it to the case of the Ematúm debt, which didn’t have an agreement, Mozambique has to pay a lot more.
DW Africa: In other words, do you also agree that it was worth investing so much in this action in London, with the government now reaching out-of-court settlements with those they accused?
BN: If Mozambique hadn’t started this process in 2019, these agreements wouldn’t have been reached. So these are not voluntary agreements: the parties felt obliged to reach an agreement – I’m referring to the banks, because they were in court. In that respect, Mozambique’s decision to start the process to force them to reach an agreement was very rational.
DW Africa
