BiH Finance Minister: We won't pay the 'Viaduct' debt to an account in the Channel Islands

Speaking at a press conference, Amidzic revealed that during the last session of the Council of Ministers, his ministry was presented with a proposal to transfer funds owed in the “Vijadukt” case to a company account registered in the Channel Islands, widely regarded as a tax haven.

“I have not received any verified confirmation that this account is directly linked to the claimant,” Amidzic stated. “Without such proof, the Ministry of Finance will not participate in the payment.”

The Minister said he will formally request that the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina launch an investigation into the case.

Although he acknowledged that debts can be legally sold to third parties, Amidzic emphasised that no such transfer of claim has been documented in this instance.

According to him, the payment details were submitted by a legal team, but the enforcement request should have been returned by the court as incomplete.

“The claimant’s lawyers requested confidential discussions with a law firm in BiH regarding a new proposal to settle the obligation,” he added. “This initiative came from a British law firm involved in the arbitration, which has now approached the legal representatives of the Office of the Attorney General with fresh terms for resolving the debt.”

The “Vijadukt” case centres on a concession agreement for the construction of two hydroelectric power plants on the Vrbas River. The deal was unilaterally terminated by Bosnian authorities, leading to an international arbitration process.

A U.S. court ultimately ruled in favour of the company “Vijadukt,” ordering Bosnia and Herzegovina to pay approximately 110 million KM (approximately €56 million).

Amidzic did not confirm whether any part of the payment had already been processed, but reiterated that the Ministry would not authorise the transfer under current circumstances.

The case has raised concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential misuse of public funds, particularly as questions remain about the ownership of the account provided for payment.