ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is thinking of suing the consultants for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project (NJHP) for numerous errors in the project, which is valued at Rs 500 billion and has prevented the country from having a more affordable and environmentally friendly power source.
As a special committee on the matter considers extending the investigation to contractors regarding cracks in the head race tunnel of the 969MW power project located near Azad Kashmir’s capital Muzaffarabad, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will make a final decision to this effect after consulting with important stakeholders.
According to the Ministry of Water Resources, Neelum-Jhelum Consultants is a joint venture consisting of MWH USA (the lead firm), NORPLAN (Norway), and NESPAK, ACE & NDC of Pakistan. Its contractor is a group of two Chinese companies, CGGC and CMEC.
A meeting of the committee appointed by the prime minister “to finalize and present recommendations for immediate remedial measures aimed at rehabilitating and operationalizing the project at the earliest” was chaired by Minister of Planning and Development Ahsan Iqbal on Monday.
Since May 2, the Rs 500 billion project has not been operational.
An official statement stressed the internal accountability process in relation to subpar project management by the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda), adding, “The minister also discussed legal issues with the Secretary for Law and Justice and the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) to provide a strong legal basis for those who are responsible for the collapse of the tunnel.”
In addition to the members of the Planning Commission for infrastructure and energy, the AGP, the secretaries of law and justice and water resources, and former federal secretary Shahid Khan, who leads the investigative committee, were present at the meeting.
According to an informed source, Shahid Khan’s research helped the investigative team pinpoint the role that consultants played in the project’s failure. It was noted that there were adequate grounds for suing the consultants in the investigative report.
However, because the lead firm is a US firm, the legal brains suggested a cautious approach by verifying these conclusions with reputable foreign specialists in order to prevent any international issues. As the project experienced numerous issues, the meeting attendees also recommended broadening the scope of the inquiry into the participation of contractors. The planning minister consented to an impartial assessment by global specialists. Additionally, he ordered that contractors and consultants be given a chance to explain their positions. The prime minister would be presented with the full position in order to determine the best course of action.
While several issues had been noted, the meeting was informed that accountability was being looked into. The minister voiced alarm about the final report’s late submission, claiming that it had impeded prompt investigations and accountability.
He was cited in a statement as stating, “Especially for a project of this scale, an accountability mechanism should have been in place from the outset to monitor progress and assign responsibilities.” He ordered that an international consultant be hired to review both investigational methodologies and that current work be completed as quickly as possible.
