Nam Van developer accuses courts of picking gov’t side, gov’t claims impartiality
Sociedade de Empreendimentos Nam Van, S.A. accused the local courts of lacking impartiality in their decision to accept the retrieval of several land plots in the Nam Van Lake area, the developer said in a press conference earlier this week.
At stake is still the court’s decision to accept and validate the retrieval of several land plots in the Nam Van Lake area, previously awarded to Nam Van, due to the expiration of the development time set in 25 years.
Now, as the government has commenced development on those plots, the company has again protested a decision they consider unfair.
Adding to this is the fact that several businessmen linked to the company have also been implicated in the so-called “Public Works case.” The case was in relation to the actions of several local businessmen, contractors and real estate developers as well as two former Public Works bureau heads (Jaime Carion and Li Canfeng).
These businessmen were found guilty of several criminal offenses including corruption of government officials and have been convicted to jail terms. Their convictions have been appealed, however a ruling has yet to be delivered.
The government has issued a statement in response via the Government Information Bureau, which recaps the case of the expired land plots from the government’s perspective and according to the decision of the several Macau courts cases. The government added that the whole process was very transparent and conducted according to the law, and that the company had the opportunity to appeal from the previous rulings of the various courts before the Court of Final Appeal reached a final decision on the case.
Regarding the criminal case, the government reiterated that the “courts exercise judicial power independently and under the law, and no one can, in any way, exercise any pressure to interfere in the process [and consequently in the final decision].”
In the press conference, representatives of the development company had hinted that there the two cases were linked, suggesting that the pending criminal case in relation to several businessmen connected with the company were brought as a “form of retaliation” against the company’s reluctance to return the land plots.
