3 minute read
resettlement plan
Jindal - A Classic Example of Corporate Impunity
Advertisement
With regard to the Resettlement Plan and its noncompliance, it is important to note that the resettlement process began in 2010 and has not been materialized to date. For this reason, JA approached MITADER and was made aware that the Government of Mozambique never held JINDAL responsible for its failure to comply with the submitted Plan.
Item c) of number 2, Article 25 of the Regulation on Resettlement Processes Resulting from Economic Activities establishes that failure to comply with the approved Resettlement Plan constitutes an administrative offense, a violation of the law, punishable by a fine equivalent to 10% of the project’s value.
On the 7 th of February 2017, JA sent MITADER a request for information regarding this issue. MITADER responded on the 8 th of March 2017 in the following terms: a) MITADER did not start any process seeking
JINDAL’s accountability because resettlement processes are new to the country and, therefore, going through a learning process themselves, and because the resettlement process b) of this company predates the approval of Decree 31/2012 of August 8 th , which approves the Regulation on Resettlement Processes Resulting from Economic Activities. Strangely, MITADER also notes that they have been monitoring companies to have them comply with their Resettlement Action Plans in accordance with the aforementioned Regulation, regardless of whether they precede or follow it’s approval.
Mozambican justice and the rights of the communities affected by the activities of Jindal Mozambique Minerais, Ltd
JA’s response to MITADER
JA responded to MITADER via letter, dated April 25 th 2017, arguing that although the resettlement plan in question was approved prior to the approval and entry into force of Decree 31/2012 of August 8 th , it is undisputed that the process of this resettlement is contemporaneous with this Regulation, and, since such resettlement did not take place, it is fallacious to consider that it is not covered by the aforementioned Regulation. Which means we are, obviously, dealing with a flagrant case of noncompliance with the Resettlement Plan, which violates Articles 19 to 23 of the Resettlement Regulation, and should result in the penalty established by item c) of number 2, Article 25 of the same legal document.
JA understands that the Government of Mozambique’s decision not to penalize JINDAL for failure to comply with its resettlement plan for the affected population, because that resettlement process is prior to the approval of Decree 31/2012 of August
8th , should not proceed because it is unfounded.
In addition, in light of number 2, Article 12 of the Civil Code, it is clear that, given the rules governing the application of the laws in time, this resettlement process is covered by the entry into force of Decree 31/2012, of August 8 th , because these processes are still ongoing.
It is in these terms that JA requires that MITADER comply with the provisions of item c), number 2 of Article 25 of Decree 31/2012, of August 8 th , penalizing JINDAL with a fine in the amount equal to 10% of the value of its project for non-compliance with the resettlement plan, as explained above.
Furthermore, JA was informed by a press release issued by the Mozambican Bar Association that – given the importance and seriousness of the violation committed by JINDAL – this organization requested the Administrative Court, on September 5 th 2018, to order MITADER to comply with the law, penalizing JINDAL by charging them with a fine in the amount corresponding to 10% of the value of its enterprise for the violation explained above.
Jindal - A Classic Example of Corporate Impunity
Mozambican justice and the rights of the communities affected by the activities of Jindal Mozambique Minerais, Ltd
Jindal - A Classic Example of Corporate Impunity
Complaints to the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Commission 4
