Now that Dawood Rawat has finally spoken out, his actions in retaliation to the government have been revealed: he intends to contest what he has described as “illegal appropriation” of the BAI by the State. If the latter does not wish to provide him compensation, he will seek international arbitration.
Dawood Rawat states that the government’s stance vis-a-vis the BAI group has been motivated by political reasons solely. He considers the way the government dealt with the BAI crisis to be illegal, and thus, he wishes to take proper actions against what he believes to be injustice. In regard to the BAI group slipping away from their control, he mentioned “illegal appropriation” by the government. He, therefore, intends to contest this action of the State.
According to ionnews.mu, a Notice of Dispute has been officially communicated to the government. Dawood Rawat demands the restitution of the assets of the BAI. The document addresses the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Financial Services to proceed to the “immediate restitution by the Republic of Mauritius of the misappropriated assets, as the misappropriation is not justified by public utility or a factual basis and was decided and carried out in a discriminatory, illegal and unfair manner”.
Furthermore, the request comes with a demand for compensation “of the loss suffered by the investor [Dawood Rawat] and by its investments in the country”. The compensation amounts to one billion American dollars.
If this request is not accepted, Dawood Rawat will seek the assistance of an international arbitration to resolve the issue.
Ionnews.mu reports that one of the French jurists who will defend Dawood Rawat if the State does not abide by the latter’s request considers the case to be in the favour of his client; he believes that the debate is “quasiment gagné d’avance” for Dawood Rawat. He argued that the selling of some of the assets of the BAI group to the State was not in line with the guidelines as formulated in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, whereby the expropriation was unjustified and not accompanied by equitable compensation. Furthermore, he added that international arbitration systems, in the past, have sanctioned governments who have expropriated property without giving due compensation.