Idrus: Govt Hasn’t Stopped IPIC Court Case in London

32
- Advertisement - [resads_adspot id="2"]

Attorney-General Idrus Harun today denied that the government has stopped court proceedings in London against International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to recover losses suffered by 1Malaysia Development Bhd.

Putrajaya is always open to offers of a solution, so long as they are in line with its principles and responsibility to have the country’s assets returned, he said in a statement.

Azinuddin Ghazali

“The government is open to considering any resolution in the event that an offer is made that’s in line with the government’s principles and duty to ensure national assets are recovered and justice is upheld.”

He was responding to whistle-blower site Sarawak Report’s article that 1MDB and Minister of Finance Inc have ended the legal action and are instead seeking a settlement over a US$5.87 billion (RM24.8 billion) debt.

DAP lawmaker Tony Pua yesterday demanded that Putrajaya confirm whether the story is true.

He said Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, who has reportedly been tasked with negotiating directly with the United Arab Emirates government for another settlement, should respond to the portal’s claim.

Idrus, meanwhile, confirmed that discussions started by the Pakatan Harapan administration are ongoing between Putrajaya and Abu Dhabi.

“These discussions are only between Malaysia and the UAE, without the interference of other parties,” he said, without giving names.

The PH government in 2018 filed a suit against IPIC in London to undo a settlement reached between the Abu Dhabi firm and 1MDB a year before under Najib Razak’s Barisan Nasional administration.

Under the terms of the settlement, 1MDB would repay IPIC US$1.2 billion by the end of 2017.

The PH government wanted to rescind the settlement as it places the entire burden of repayment for fraudulent bonds on 1MDB and Putrajaya and absolves IPIC of all obligations.

PH succeeded in its case against IPIC at the UK Court of Appeal. The case was to have been tried in open court instead of closed-door arbitration. – TMI