The controversy over the agreement between the Belgian company Katoen Natie and the National Ports Administration (ANP) continues to generate repercussions. On this occasion, the senators of the broad front submitted a letter to the 3rd shift Criminal Prosecutor for Economic and Complex Crimesin which they express their concern about the new profits of the company and the damage to the ANP.
According to the parliamentarians, the agreement was not carried out within the framework of the free competitionbut it was the result of the elimination of the legal regime that previously existed.
The document presented by the opposition legislators maintains that the substitution of this legal regime for another illegal, that consecrates a supposed administratively decided “preference”, will necessarily lead to a monopoly in the area of port container movement. In turn, the senators remark that the true damages of the agreement have not yet been reflected, which will be seen when the expansion works are completed, which will consolidate the monopoly in the area of the port’s container movement.
Gains for private, losses for the State
The agreement between Katoen Natie and the ANP has already generated Millionaire profits for the Belgian company. According to the parliamentarians, the KNG group has already seen its annual profit increased by an additional US$20 million without having invested absolutely anything yetdue to the sole effect of the administrative decision to “refer” customers who operated in the public terminal to the private terminal.
In addition, the senators of the Broad Front pointed out the damages in terms of national sovereignty that would occur when a single company has control of the entry and exit of almost all the merchandise that leaves and enters the country. In this sense, the parliamentarians requested that the material presented in the judicial system be incorporated and that the fraudulent action of the president of the ANP, Juan Curbelo, be investigated.
They added that Curbelo acted fraudulently by deciding to “evade” the decision to extend the concession of the terminal to Katoen Natie “with his back to the board of directors”. This action is not in line with the legislation and generated the rejection of the other directors of the ANP, who found out about the agreement through the press.
The opposition senators agree that the president of the ANP he knew full well that he was acting illegally when he decided to act with his back to the board. In turn, they recall that Rilcomar requested the extension of his concession, which was rejected. However, in agreement with Katoen Natie was not only acceptedbut new areas were granted and no compensation.
