A battle over whether the World Bank can be forced to produce its files on the bribery probe in Bangladesh that later resulted in Canadian criminal charges against three former SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. employees is going to the Supreme Court of Canada, reports the Globe and Mail.
It says the Washington-based lending agency is challenging an Ontario Superior Court decision that ordered it to produce documents related to its investigation of bribery allegations around a multibillion-dollar project to build a bridge over the Padma river in Bangladesh.
The Supreme Court of Canada announced on Thursday that it would hear the case. A date has not been set, according to the report.
The newspaper quoting media reports said last fall, Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission dropped its allegations related the bridge project, saying it had not received enough information from the WB and Canadian authorities to proceed.
The Globe and Mail mentioned that starting in 2010, the WB conducted its own investigation into allegations around a bid by SNC-Lavalin for a $10-million contract to manage the construction of Bangladesh’s multibillion-dollar Padma Bridge project, which then was being financed by the World Bank.
In 2011, the WB brought those allegations, including information from four unnamed “tipsters,” to the RCMP. Reportedly based solely on this information, the Mounties obtained permission to wiretap conversations. The RCMP then raided SNC-Lavalin’s Oakville, Ont., offices in September, 2011.
According to the report, in 2012, the RCMP laid bribery charges against two now former SNC-Lavalin employees: Mohammad Ismail, the company’s former director of international projects, and his boss Ramesh Shah, a former vice-president of SNC’s international division.
In 2013, it added charges against Kevin Wallace, who was SNC’s vice-president of energy and infrastructure, and Zulfiquar Bhuiyan, a businessman with dual Canadian-Bangladeshi citizenship who was not an SNC employee but who is alleged to have been a representative of a senior Bangladeshi official.
In court last year, lawyers for the men demanded that the WB hand over all of its files related to the case, including those the RCMP relied upon to secure its wiretaps.
Production of these kinds of documents would be not be unusual in a routine domestic criminal case, to allow the defence to scrutinise a police investigation for using unreliable witnesses, such as those with an axe to grind, or for relying on flimsy information.
“But the WB refused to participate in the court hearing on the issue, insisting that its status as an international organisation grants it immunity and that it could not be compelled to turn over any documents,” the newspaper wrote.
In a decision issued last December, Ontario Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer sided with the accused, ruling that the WB had waived the immunity it would have been afforded under Canadian law by actively participating in the RCMP’s criminal investigation, the report pointed out.
Alan Lenczner, a Toronto lawyer acting for the WB in its Supreme Court challenge, said in an email that the bank is concerned about preserving the anonymity of informants in anti-corruption probes, particularly in countries where whistle-blowers are more likely to face reprisals: “For the World Bank, one of its main tools in combatting bribery of foreign officials is the information it receives from lower-ranking officials that their bosses are being paid to award contracts to companies.”
The newspaper referred to Justice Nordheimer who addresses this issue in his December ruling, saying that Canadian law already protects sensitive police sources and noting that two of the WB’s four tipsters had already been deemed confidential informants in court.
Lawyers for the accused contacted by The Globe and Mail declined to comment publicly in detail on the case, as it is before the courts.
The report said in a written submission to the Supreme Court, Toronto criminal defence lawyer Frank Addario, who is acting for Mr. Bhuiyan, accused the WB of showing disrespect to Canada’s court system: “This case is about an unhappy litigant seeking another kick at the can, after opting out of the hearing below. Regardless of whether leave is granted, [the World Bank] is likely to do whatever it wants. It will only comply with a court order that suits it.”
Source: prothom-alo
