Interpol axes red notice for Libyan official in legal storm with Belgian prince

Logo of Interpol (AFP)
Short Url
  • Prince Laurent claims Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohammed owes $72m over failed Qaddafi-era deal
  • ‘Politically motivated campaign’ failed in ‘major victory’ for Libyan side: statement

LONDON: Interpol has axed a red notice for a senior Libyan official who is embroiled in a $72 million debt row with a Belgian prince, The Times reported on Monday.

The move represents a major loss for Prince Laurent of Belgium, the king’s brother, who was accused by Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohammed, chairman and CEO of the Libyan Investment Authority, of using his influence to wage a major legal campaign.

The row dates back to 2008, when the Global Sustainable Development Trust, led by the prince, struck a deal with the Qaddafi government in Libya to launch a reforestation campaign.

But in 2011, with the Libyan uprising breaking out, the UN Security Council froze all state assets, impeding the ability of the Libyan side to keep up its side of the deal.

The initial contract of $18 million has since grown to $67 million in claimed losses as a result of costs and interest.

In 2014, a Belgian court ruled in favor of the prince’s trust, ordering Libya’s Agriculture Ministry to pay compensation.

And in late 2021, following a Belgian request, Interpol issued a red notice for Mohammed, the official who was allegedly at the center of the failed deal on the Libyan side.

However, the international crime-fighting organization removed the red notice after it found that its retaining of data on Mohammed failed to comply with regulations. Representatives of the Libyan official labeled the decision a “major victory.”

A separate European arrest warrant for Mohammed issued by Belgium remains in place, however, but is now being challenged by the Libyan side.

Mohammed, in a statement, said Interpol had seen the case “exactly for what it is — a politically motivated campaign against me.”

His lawyer said the red notice was “one part of this campaign to seize (investment authority) funds inappropriately instead of resolving the dispute through the proper legal channels.”