The management of INTELS Nigeria Limited has kicked against the termination of its Pilotage Agency Agreement by the Nigerian Ports Authority.
INTELS said the termination of the agreement was “clearly preposterous and the consequences highly injurious” to the interests of the country.
It said in a letter signed by its Director, Silvano Bellinato,and addressed to the Managing Director, NPA, “With reference to your letter received on October 10, 2017, allegedly terminating the agency agreement between Nigerian Ports Authority and INTELS Nigeria Limited, we formally contest the contents of the same for the reasons stated below:
“On March 15, 2017, we received your letter ref HQ/F&A/ED/AD/INTELS/034 in which, in addition to other contents, the following points were stated: that the Nigerian Ports Authority acknowledged a debt towards INTELS Nigeria Limited in the sum of $674,767,415.00 (in addition to the interests accrued in the meantime); the NPA communicated the need to reconcile the sum of $109,000,000.00 for the additional works carried out; and the NPA informed INL about the implementation to be discussed in respect of a ‘transit account’ called the NPA Service Boat Revenue Collection Account domiciled at one of the banks indicated by you and the related standard operating procedures.”
It added, “The NPA confirmed 28 per cent agency commission to INL and the 72 per cent balance to be shared between the NPA and INL in the ratio 30:70. On March 27, 2017, we replied to every point in your letter of 15th of March as stated below: The INL took note of NPA’s acknowledgement of debt; the INL declared availability to meet the NPA in order to discuss the details for the certification of the $109,000,000.00 for the additional works carried out; and the INL requested for postponement of the SOP application.
According to the firm, on April 19, 2017, the NPA acknowledged INTELS’ acceptance of the NPA’s proposal in respect of 28 per cent agency commission (already included in the existing running agency agreement) and in particular to the 30:70 split, respectively to the NPA and INL related to the 72 per cent balance.
EFCC traces N2.1bn to Patience’s dead mother’s account
Free medical outreach: Residents accuse army of plotting to depopulate South-East
IPOB’s ban: FG writes to US, UK, others, lawyer faults move
Charges against Misau won’t stop IG probe – Senate panel chair
2018 World Cup: Five biggest teams that won’t be in Russia
This, it noted, would imply that the 30 per cent was to be remitted on monthly basis to the NPA, while the 70 per cent was to be applied towards reducing indebtedness to INTELS.
“Regarding the TSA application, the NPA reiterated the strategic importance of such a request. However, it is noted that the TSA was not part of the existing agency agreement between the parties,” INTELS said.
The company stated that on May 5, 2017, it replied NPA’s letter of April 19, 2017 proposing the opening of a jointly signed account on which the boat service revenues would have been directed.
Bellinato added, “Afterwards the account holders, with relative proxies, would remit the respective portions due to the parties, being 30 per cent in favour of the NPA and 70 per cent in favour of the INL.
“In the same letter, we indicated our availability to identify the bank, from among the ones indicated by the NPA, regarding the reasons of our proposal we firmly reiterated the precariousness of our financial status, mainly attributable to the credits towards the NPA and heavily financed by various credit institutions.
“Such circumstances rendered alternative solutions to the ones suggested by us unviable, and also taking into consideration the inapplicability of the TSA to running contracts in the manner proposed by the NPA.
“Clearly, deduction of entitlements due to the INL from collections under the agreement, and payment of the balance into the designated NPA account for TSA purposes, would be in compliance with the TSA policy.”
INTELS said the decision of the NPA to terminate the agreement, which was totally unexpected in consideration of the meetings held by the parties and exchange of letters, was clearly preposterous and the consequences highly injurious to the interests of the company.