Pidico ghost walks again

PIDICO, the Government’s spectacular failure in an attempt at rapid economic growth in the early 1990s, may have returned to haunt the authorities.

The High Court this week heard argument in a case brought by an Isle of Man-based company, Dowles Manor Properties Limited, suing the Bank of Namibia for about US$3 million that it claimed was guaranteed on behalf of Pidico. Pidico came to Namibia in 1992, promising to set up successful export processing zones (EPZ) that would create massive employment opportunities in Namibia.Pidico (Projects Industrial Developments Investment Co) was set up by Egyptian businessman Mohammed Hassan, owner of Fidico Ltd, with a push from the Ministry of Trade and Industry under former Minister Hidipo Hamutenya.State House also played a major role.The company started on a high note by launching the industrialisation campaign with a shell structure in the desert at Walvis Bay as a site for the EPZ.Soon afterwards, one project after the other collapsed, including attempts to get land for agriculture in Caprivi.The collapse appeared to have been precipitated by media reports that portrayed Hassan as a questionable businessman who was hedging his company’s growth on bad debts in former communist states.Dowles Manor filed the lawsuit more than two years ago after reportedly failing in UK courts.They claimed that the Bank of Namibia owed the company US$2,9 million as a guarantee for Fidico, which borrowed the money to buy goods and equipment for the EPZ projects.The company argued that then Deputy Governor of the Bank, Tom Alweendo, who is now the Governor, signed the surety in December 1993 at the request of Hamutenya’s ministry and President Sam Nujoma.Lawyers for the central bank, Dave Smuts and Theo Frank, argued that Dowles had no case because the Deputy Governor had no authority to sign the guarantee or commit the bank to issuing loans.The bank’s lawyers have also “put in issue the plaintiff’s [Dowles] compliance with the agreement including the delivery of item”.But this week’s arguments were about a technicality whereby Dowles’s lawyers amended their application for the lawsuit, adding fresh allegations to strengthen their case.The Bank opposed the changes, arguing that they should not be permitted.Justice Gerhard Maritz, who heard the matter, reserved judgement.Arguments about the lawsuit are yet to be made, and these could bring back the controversial entry of Pidico into Namibia and how the company managed to get the support of Government leaders.Pidico came to Namibia in 1992, promising to set up successful export processing zones (EPZ) that would create massive employment opportunities in Namibia.Pidico (Projects Industrial Developments Investment Co) was set up by Egyptian businessman Mohammed Hassan, owner of Fidico Ltd, with a push from the Ministry of Trade and Industry under former Minister Hidipo Hamutenya.State House also played a major role.The company started on a high note by launching the industrialisation campaign with a shell structure in the desert at Walvis Bay as a site for the EPZ.Soon afterwards, one project after the other collapsed, including attempts to get land for agriculture in Caprivi.The collapse appeared to have been precipitated by media reports that portrayed Hassan as a questionable businessman who was hedging his company’s growth on bad debts in former communist states.Dowles Manor filed the lawsuit more than two years ago after reportedly failing in UK courts.They claimed that the Bank of Namibia owed the company US$2,9 million as a guarantee for Fidico, which borrowed the money to buy goods and equipment for the EPZ projects.The company argued that then Deputy Governor of the Bank, Tom Alweendo, who is now the Governor, signed the surety in December 1993 at the request of Hamutenya’s ministry and President Sam Nujoma.Lawyers for the central bank, Dave Smuts and Theo Frank, argued that Dowles had no case because the Deputy Governor had no authority to sign the guarantee or commit the bank to issuing loans.The bank’s lawyers have also “put in issue the plaintiff’s [Dowles] compliance with the agreement including the delivery of item”.But this week’s arguments were about a technicality whereby Dowles’s lawyers amended their application for the lawsuit, adding fresh allegations to strengthen their case.The Bank opposed the changes, arguing that they should not be permitted.Justice Gerhard Maritz, who heard the matter, reserved judgement.Arguments about the lawsuit are yet to be made, and these could bring back the controversial entry of Pidico into Namibia and how the company managed to get the support of Government leaders.