PanamaTopCourtCancelsLiKa-ShingFamily’sCanalPortContracts

Panama’s Supreme Court ruled Jan. 29 that concession contracts for two ports at either end of the Panama Canal operated by a unit of CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd., the Hong Kong conglomerate controlled by the family of billionaire Li Ka-shing, are unconstitutional and must be canceled.

The ports — Cristobal on the Atlantic entrance and Balboa on the Pacific side — have been operated by Hutchison Ports PPC, known as PPC, under a concession first signed in 1997 and renewed in 2021 for 25 years.

File photo: A CK Hutchison port.

Panama’s Supreme Court ruled Jan. 29 that concession contracts for two ports at either end of the Panama Canal operated by a unit of CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd., the Hong Kong conglomerate controlled by the family of billionaire Li Ka-shing, are unconstitutional and must be canceled.

The ports — Cristobal on the Atlantic entrance and Balboa on the Pacific side — have been operated by Hutchison Ports PPC, known as PPC, under a concession first signed in 1997 and renewed in 2021 for 25 years.

PPC said in a statement it hadn’t received formal notice of the decision and contended the ruling violates the legal framework and statutes under which the concessions were approved, undermining good faith and the sanctity of contract. The company said it and its investors permanently reserve the right to pursue legal action, including domestic and international proceedings.

China’s Foreign Ministry weighed in Friday, echoing the company’s position that the ruling runs counter to Panamanian law approving the concession rights. Spokesman Guo Jiakun said China would take “all necessary measures” to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies.

The decision lands amid heightened geopolitical scrutiny of assets linked to the canal after Donald Trump began a second term as U.S. president. In his Jan. 20, 2025, inauguration address, Trump claimed China was “operating” the Panama Canal. Panama’s comptroller general’s office soon said it had launched an audit of PPC’s canal-related port business, and PPC said it was fully cooperating.

On July 30, 2025, Panama’s comptroller general, Anel Flores, said he had filed lawsuits at the Supreme Court seeking to have the operating contracts for Cristobal and Balboa declared unconstitutional and voided. The next day, President Jose Raul Mulino said that if courts invalidated the renewal agreement, the government would reclaim the operating rights and consider shifting the ports to a public-private partnership model.

In a Spanish-language notice posted on social media late Jan. 29, the court said it had found unconstitutional the concession contract approved under Law No. 5 of Jan. 16, 1997, and related addenda. The notice identified PPC and the Cristobal and Balboa ports.

PPC said the 1997 law and addenda had provided the legal basis for its operation of the two container terminals for nearly three decades. Over 28 years, PPC and its investors have put more than $1.8 billion into Panama’s infrastructure, technology and workforce development, the company said, adding that the spending was several times greater than that of any other port operator in the country. PPC said the investment created thousands of direct and indirect jobs and helped position Panama as a globally recognized port and logistics hub.

The company said the concession was awarded through an international tender that was open and transparent, and that PPC has complied with its contractual and legal obligations, including cooperating with government audits.

Based on information available, PPC said, the new ruling lacks legal foundation and would hurt not only the company and its contract but also thousands of Panamanian families that depend directly or indirectly on port-related employment. It also warned the decision would undermine legal certainty and the rule of law, and said it diverged sharply from earlier Supreme Court rulings in cases involving similar contracts.

PPC accused the Panamanian government of acting inconsistently with its legal and contractual framework, arguing the dispute could deter future investors and damage Panama’s standing as a reliable jurisdiction — potentially weakening its position as a competitive global logistics hub.