Customs Terminal Stirs Debates on MPs’ Business Interests

Parliamentarians from the ruling National Movement party have turned down the opposition’s proposal to set up a special commission to probe into the controversial case of MP Koba Bekauri, which is linked with TV executive Shalva Ramishvili’s detention scandal.  The parliamentarians, however, did agree to discuss allegations against Vice-Speaker Mikheil Machavariani, who was accused by opposition MP Davit Gamkrelidze of having business interests in the Opiza customs terminal, which is linked to the Bekauri vs. Ramishvili case.

Leader of the opposition New Rights party MP Davit Gamkrelidze proposed on September 5 setting up a special parliamentary commission which will probe into MP Koba Bekauri’s and Vice-Speaker Mikheil Machavariani’s alleged commercial wrongdoings related with the customs terminal Opiza, near Tbilisi. Both Bekauri and Machavariani are members of the ruling National Movement party.

Allegations about MP Bekauri and MP Machavariani are linked with the arrest of Shalva Ramishvili, co-founder of the 202 television station. Ramishvili is accused of extorting USD 100,000 from Bekauri in exchange for not airing a compromising story related with Bekauri’s activities at the Opiza customs terminal. According to the investigative report, which 202 TV plans to broadcast, MP Bekauri owns shares in Opiza.

At a news conference on September 5 MP Davit Gamkrelidze said that he met with Shalva Ramishvili on August 12 (Ramishvili was arrested on August 29) and the latter told him that 202 TV planned to broadcast an investigative report in September about Bekauri’s activities.

“He also told me that Mikheil Machavariani was also involved in the wrongdoings and the Vice-Speaker was behind MP Bekauri and the customs terminal,” MP Gamkrelidze said, adding that a parliamentary commission should be set up which included the participation of opposition MPs to probe into the case.

But Vice Speaker Machavariani strongly denied allegations at the Parliamentary Bureau session on September 5 and described MP Gamkrelidze’s statements as “a provocation of a dirty man.”

“This is a provocation which was planned in advance and I was expecting this. If someone proves that I have violated the law, I will never come here [the Parliament] again. I will not tolerate these dirty things from this dirty man,” Mikheil Machavariani said.

MP Machavariani requested the Parliamentary Committee on Procedural Issues and Rules discuss these “groundless allegations” against him and also asked the General Prosecutor’s Office to interrogate Shalva Ramishvili about a conversation that, according to MP Gamkrelidze, took place between the two men on August 12. The Parliamentary Committee is expected to discuss the issue at a hearing on September 7.

“Opiza” Customs Terminal

The newly built “Opiza” customs terminal, on the outskirts of capital Tbilisi, is one of the key elements in the Bekauri vs. Ramishvili case.
 
According to the investigative report prepared by the independent media studio “Reporter”, MP Bekauri received a USD 150,000, interest-free loan from an Israel-based Georgian businessman and bought shares in the Opiza terminal. Law prohibits a public servant from receiving interest-free loans if the sum exceeds 20 times the minimum cost of living in the country. MP Bekauri has confirmed that he borrowed the sum and invested part of it in the Opiza customs terminal. Reportedly 20% of Opiza’s shares are registered under MP Bekauri’s wife’s name. 
 
This new, privately-owned customs terminal was built just a few kilometers from another terminal, Lilo 1. The latter was state-owned and operated at full capacity before Opiza was built. The Georgian Economy Ministry announced on September 1 that it planned to sell the Lilo 1 customs terminal; hours later the Ministry reported that a firm, with the name “Amaghleba” (Rising), purchased the terminal after paying USD 2,120,000.

The Georgian media speculated that the founders of Opiza were behind this deal, but the owners of Opiza denied having any interest in Lilo 1 or its fate.  
 
Vakhtang Komakhidze, director of the “Reporter” studio, says there are doubts that the state-owned Lilo 1 terminal “was deliberately bankrupted” through the involvement of officials in an attempt to boost Opiza’s revenues.
 
“A version [of the story] exists, according to which ‘Lilo 1’ was artificially bankrupted in order to create the new, privately owned terminal. This version is reflected in the film [investigative report] as well,” Komakhidze told Civil Georgia, adding that this is only one speculation.
 
“The opening of a new terminal is not easy business here and it can only happen with the participation of high-level officials,” he said.
 
Komakhidze also alleged that now the state has to pay in order to rent the Opiza customs terminal. However, the Georgian Customs Department strongly denies these allegations.

“The [‘Opiza’] terminal is well-equipped, which makes it possible to serve customers better. It is not true that the Customs Department has rented the terminal and now pays rent. It was just an expression of good will of the founders [of customs terminal ‘Opiza’] to lease it, the Customs Department pays nothing for this. The major source of income for ‘Opiza’ is the storage of cargo,” Kakha Chabashvili, a spokesman of the Georgian Customs Department, told Civil Georgia.
 
He also ruled out any foul play in the bankruptcy case of the Lilo 1 terminal. “The Lilo 1 terminal has outdated infrastructure. This terminal still operates, but because the infrastructure is not relevant, service processes are delayed,” Chabashvili added. 

This is the second time that Opiza has become the focus of the media’s attention – on August 15 Georgian Public Defender Sozar Subari and Executive Secretary of the Federation of Georgian Businessmen Giorgi Isakadze condemned the practice of taxing importers which was being carried out at the Opiza customs terminal as “illegal.” Subari said that customs officers were not taxing imported goods in accordance to their value, as envisaged by the law, but rather by their volume. But these accusations were also strongly denied by the customs service.