Author: Ahmed Naish

Nasheed welcomes scrutiny of MDP government finances, calls for ACC investigations

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has called for investigations by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) into government spending during his administration flagged by the Auditor General’s Office as ostensible violations of the Public Finance Act.

Speaking at a campaign rally in the Henveiru ward of Male’ on Wednesday night (June 19), Nasheed said he accepted the findings of audit reports concerning public finances during the three years of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government.

“We were the government that first started work with independent institutions in place. We were the government that had the good fortune of having been the target of audits by an independent Auditor General for the first time; and the government that had the opportunity to govern with the oversight of an independent Anti-Corruption Commission,” the MDP presidential candidate said.

“Our purpose, our wish, is for all government funds to be accounted for and for all expenditures to be transparent. I assure all citizens of the Maldives, I will not touch a single cent of your money,” he added.

Nasheed said he was pleased that of the MVR 31 billion (US$2 billion) spent by the MDP government from 2009 to 2011, the Auditor General’s Office only estimated that approximately six percent was “not spent in accordance with public finance regulations.”

“No one has said that [these expenses] involved corrupt dealings or facilitated corruption,” he stressed, calling for investigations by the ACC to determine whether corruption or misappropriation of funds had taken place.

Nasheed said he had studied all the audit reports of government ministries from 2009 to 2011 released by the Auditor General’s Office so far.

“What I want to note is that [expenditure] not being in line with public finance regulations does not mean corruption has taken place or that a criminal offence was committed,” he contended.

The Auditor General’s role was identifying expenditures made in breach of regulations, Nasheed explained, while the financial loss to the state as a result of the ostensibly illegal spending would be determined in light of investigations.

Taking examples of cases highlighted in audit reports, Nasheed referred to the purchase of five cars for government use flagged in the 2011 audit report of the finance ministry.

The audit report noted that a local company was contracted in December 2010 to buy five Nissan Sunny N16 Super Saloon cars for MVR 2.9 million (US$193,904).

However, the company delivered Nissan cars of the Ex Saloon model, the audit found.

“So what we have to find out is whether there was a difference in price between the two brands and which [brand] was cheaper,” Nasheed said.

The case reminded him of the Violet House group in Majeedhiyya School ordering a set of football boots when he was in school, Nasheed said.

“What they received was a set of key chain boots,” he said.

On the Auditor General discovering that the MDP government spent MVR 13.9 million (US$901,426) to train 259 participants of the ‘Hunaru’ skills programme, Nasheed said the programme was brought to a halt after the “coup d’etat” on February 7, 2012 and no further participants were trained despite being enrolled.

The initial spending included capital expenditures for the skills training programme, which targeted leading 8,500 youth to the job market, Nasheed noted.

While the Auditor General’s Office calculated that MVR 50,000 (US$3,242) on average was spent to train a single participant, Nasheed contended that if the programme had concluded successfully, “we estimated at the time that the Hunaru programme could be conducted for about MVR 7,000 or MVR 8,000 per participant.”

On MVR 8.1 million (US$525,291) worth of unpaid bills in the aviation sector owed to the government, Nasheed called on the Auditor General’s Office to forward the case to the ACC for further investigation and to recover the outstanding payments.

“The national administration office of the North [Province] made illegal expenditures for travel [according to the audit report],” Nasheed continued “In this case, if these trips were made in violation of the regulations, we want it to be stopped and for those who do it – even if they were under our government – to receive the just punishment.”

Referring to the Auditor General alleging illegal expenditures for the November 2011 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) in Addu City, Nasheed said the party wished to determine the nature of the expenses in question.

“I can certainly see the convention center built there, the roads laid in Hithadhoo and the water and sewerage systems as well as the harbour there,” Nasheed said, contending that the costs would not exceed the “concrete work” that was done.

However, he added, if the Auditor General believes there were instances of illegal spending for the SAARC summit, the cases should be properly investigated.

On MVR 168.4 million (US$10.9 million) worth of unpaid expatriate work permit fees owed to the government, Nasheed said the oversight was “worrying” and called for the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to file court cases to recover the outstanding payments.

The former president also took note of the ACC’s recent investigative report that cleared the previous government of corruption in the awarding of a concession agreement to a consortium of Indian infrastructure giant GMR and the Malaysian Airports Holdings Berhard (MAHB) to develop and manage the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

Nasheed said he had rejected requests for meetings by the companies that had submitted proposals for the airport privatisation project as he believed such interaction ahead of the conclusion of the bidding process would not be appropriate.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No action against five officers facing criminal prosecution, decides police disciplinary board

The disciplinary board of the Maldives Police Service (MPS) has decided not to take any administrative action against five officers facing criminal prosecution over police brutality in February 2012, Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed revealed at a press briefing yesterday (June 18).

Earlier this month, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) concluded investigations into allegations of police brutality against demonstrators of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on February 8, 2012, submitting six cases for prosecution.

The PIC also made a recommendation to the home ministry to take administrative action against the six police officers accused of brutality.

The Home Ministry forwarded the cases to the police disciplinary board, Assistant Commissioner Rasheed explained at yesterday’s press briefing.

“The disciplinary board has reviewed the cases and made decisions concerning the six police officers involved in these cases,” he said. “[The disciplinary board] has decided to dismiss one of those officers. On the remaining five cases, as the cases are currently at the court stage, the disciplinary board has decided not to take any administrative action against them until the court cases reach a definitive conclusion.”

A media official at the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) confirmed to Minivan News today that trials have begun on some cases of police brutality on February 8, while state prosecutors were in the process of interviewing witnesses in the other cases.

On February 8, 2012, thousands of MDP supporters took to the streets of Male’ in a protest march after former President Mohamed Nasheed declared that he resigned the previous day “under duress” in a “coup d’etat” instigated by mutinying police officers of the Special Operations (SO) command.

Following an investigation into the violence on February 8, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) concluded that the heavy-handed police crackdown on the MDP walk across Male’ was “brutal” and “without warning.”

The HRCM recommended investigations by the PIC into the “disproportionate” use of force that left dozens of demonstrators injured and hospitalised.

Moreover, the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) – which controversially concluded that the transfer of presidential power on February 7 was constitutional – also recommended prompt investigations of police brutality.

“There were acts of police brutality on 6, 7 and 8 February 2012 that must be investigated and pursued further by the relevant authorities,” the report stated.

In May 2013 – one year and four months after the incidents – the PGO pressed charges against two police officers accused of assaulting MDP MPs ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik and Mariya Ahmed Didi during the violent crackdown on February 8.

MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa was flown overseas for treatment of severe injuries sustained during the assault. The two MPs were dragged out by SO officers while they were hiding in a shop with former President Nasheed.

Nasheed was briefly taken under police custody before being released back into the crowd.

Videos also emerged on social media appearing to show SO officers brutally beating MDP MP Ibrahim Rasheed ‘Bonda.’

Impunity

According to a status update by the PIC on June 6, the commission investigated 29 cases of police brutality before forwarding six cases for prosecution.

PIC Vice Chair Haala Hameed told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee on June 4 that the commission had urged then-Home Minister Mohamed Jameel to suspend the accused officers immediately.

However, Hameed said that the request was not adhered to and at least one of the accused officers was promoted.

Hameed said the commission had failed to identify the police officers in five of the remaining cases while 11 other cases lacked supporting evidence.

“These are not disciplinary issues, but crimes. Aside from sending cases to the Prosecutor General, we also recommended the Home Minister suspend these officers, because of the delays in prosecution. We believe these officers should not be serving in the police,” Hameed said.

Former PIC Chair Shahinda Ismail – who resigned citing failure to hold police accountable for human rights violations – explained to Minivan News in September 2012 that article 44 of the Police Act allows the home minister to ignore PIC recommendations if the commission is informed in writing.

Shahinda referred to a case involving Staff Sergeant Ali Ahmed, who was caught on tape kicking a demonstrator while he was on the ground.

The case was sent for prosecution while the PIC recommended administrative action against the staff sergeant to the Home Minister.

“I know for a fact he is still a policeman and was promoted after this incident,” Shahinda said at the time.

“It is really upsetting – a huge concern – for me that the police leadership is showing a trend where unlawful officers are acting with impunity. This can only lead to further violence,” she added.

Meanwhile, in May this year, the MDP accused the government of fast-tracking 117 “politically-motivated” cases involving its supporters charged with terrorism and obstruction of police duty.

“Why doesn’t the government take action against those police officers when there is clear evidence of police brutality? None of the police officers have been investigated or prosecuted in line with the CoNI,” said MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy, who was himself arrested on February 8.

February 8 crackdown

While riot police and soldiers baton-charged the front line of protestors on February 8, Minivan News observed SO officers charging the crowd from a narrow alley leading to the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) area.

The SO police officers used obscene language, pointed to and chased after individual MDP activists and severely beat unarmed civilians.

Al Jazeera news filmed parts of the attack from the rear and reported that on February 8 “police and military charged, beating demonstrators as they ran – women, the elderly, [with] dozens left nursing their wounds.”

According to the HRCM report, 32 people filed complaints with the commission concerning varying degrees of injuries sustained in the crackdown, while 20 people submitted medical documents of their treatment of injuries.

Among the injuries caused by the police baton charge, the HRCM report noted that several people were bruised and battered, one person fractured a bone in his leg, one person was left with a broken arm and six people sustained head wounds.

Two fingers on the left hand of one demonstrator were crushed, the report noted, and the victim had to undergo treatment at the operating theatre.

Moreover, the HRCM report into the events of February 6 and 7 revealed that 43 people were treated for injuries at the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH), while 28 people were treated at the ADK private hospital.

On February 8, Minivan News also observed several youth with head injuries queuing up for x-rays in the waiting area outside the reception area of IGMH.

One young woman who went to IGMH with her sister was being treated for a head wound. The gauze wrapped around her head was spotted with blood, and she claimed the wound was still bleeding as she went in for an X-ray.

“The police were just standing there and suddenly we were being beaten with batons and pepper spray was thrown in our face. They threw us to the ground and kept beating us,” she said.

The BBC meanwhile reported “a baton charge by police on crowds gathered outside one of the main hospitals.”

“People scattered as officers sprinted towards them silhouetted against the lights of passing traffic,” the BBC’s Andrew North reported from Male’.

“Inside the hospital, dozens of Mr Nasheed’s supporters are still being treated for injuries, following earlier scuffles in the main square. Among them is Reeko Moosa Maniku, chairman of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party – who was with the former president when the clashes broke out. With a large head bandage and his shirt bloodied, he regained consciousness as we arrived. The police said they would kill me, he told us, as they beat me. Another MP was still unconscious in another ward.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No corruption in GMR airport deal, concludes ACC

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has ruled out corruption in the awarding of a concession agreement in June 2010 to a consortium of Indian infrastructure giant GMR and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhard (MAHB) to develop and manage the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

In a 61-page investigative report (Dhivehi) made public yesterday (June 17), the ACC concluded that the bidding process was conducted fairly by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) and that the GMR-MAHB consortium won the contract by proposing the highest net present value of the concession fee.

The ACC further concluded that the awarding of the contract did not contravene amendments brought to the Public Finance Act requiring parliamentary approval for such agreements.

The amendments were published in the government gazette after the concession agreement was signed, the ACC noted.

The concession agreement was signed on June 28, 2010, while the amendments were gazetted on December 13, 2010, following a Supreme Court ruling. The amendments were voted through for a second time in August 2010 following a presidential veto.

On the previous administration’s decision to replace the board of directors at the 100 percent government-owned Maldives Airports Company Ltd (MACL) – after they refused to sign the concession agreement claiming insufficient information – the ACC observed that there was “no legal obstacle” for the move.

The ACC report also concluded that the government would benefit more from privatising the airport.

“Considering the situation (2008, 2009 and 2010) when the decision was made to privatise the Male’ International Airport,” the ACC’s calculations showed that MACL would make a profit of about US$254 million in 25 years if the airport was operated by the government-owned company.

Conversely, the government would receive about US$534 million in the same period from the GMR consortium if the airport was privatised, the ACC found.

The privatisation of the airport by the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government in June 2010 was strongly condemned by opposition parties on nationalistic grounds.

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Peoples Alliance (PA), Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Jumhooree Party (JP) signed an agreement to work against the privatisation process and launched a media offensive alleging “massive corruption” in the awarding of the contract.

The ACC report this week meanwhile followed a special audit conducted by the Auditor General’s Office with the assistance of a British consultant concerning the airport privatisation deal.

The AG’s report stated that evidence to back allegations of “improper interference” during the technical bidding process “is not conclusive on this point” and deferred the matter to the ACC.

The AG’s report also noted that the IFC’s terms of reference involved “securing the best deal for the government in terms of the concession fee paid to the government and MACL, and did not consider impacts on the Maldivian economy.”

Government stance

In November 2012, the current government – made up of a coalition of parties opposed to the MDP government’s privatisation policy – declared the concession agreement with the GMR-led consortium “void ab initio” (invalid from the outset) and abruptly terminated the contract.

In April this year, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed that arbitration proceedings resulting from the contract cancellation would begin by mid-2014.

Responding to the ACC’s findings yesterday, the government insisted that the report would have no impact on its legal position to declare the GMR concession agreement void, contending that President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s decision had nothing to do with corruption allegations levelled by “some people”.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News that the contract was declared void from the beginning due to the negative impact on state finances in 2012.

“Back before the government took back control of the airport from GMR, the reason we gave was that the deal was bleeding the country’s economy. We were paying GMR to keep them here,” he explained.

Masood said that despite “speculation from some people” concerning corruption by the former administration in signing the deal, the present government was not responsible for filing a case with the ACC.

He added that the government’s concerns over the deal had been in relation to the imposition of a US$25 Airport Development Charge (ADC) by GMR that was blocked by the Civil Court in 2011 after the then-opposition DQP filed a case on the matter.

The DQP, now part of President Waheed’s coalition government, attempted to block payment of the charge on the grounds that it was effectively a tax not approved by parliament.

In response, the MDP government agreed to deduct the ADC from the concession fees payable, while GMR later offered to exempt Maldives nationals from paying the ADC as it moved to appeal the verdict.

However, former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under controversial circumstances on February 7, 2012 amidst a violent mutiny by elements of the police and military before the Civil Court verdict was appealed at the High Court.

Consequently, in the first quarter of 2012, Dr Waheed’s government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court freezes accounts, holds passport of DRP Leader Thasmeen

The Civil Court has issued a court order today freezing the bank accounts and holding the passport of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali over a case filed by Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim to recover an unpaid debt of MVR 1.92 million (US$124,513).

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Nazim filed the case requesting enforcement of a Civil Court verdict in April 2011 – upheld by the High Court in April 2013 – ordering the recently appointed running mate of President Dr Mohamed Waheed to settle the debt.

A Civil Court media official explained to Minivan News that freezing accounts and holding passports were the normal procedure to follow in cases of decreed debt.

The media official confirmed that the Civil Court has issued the court order to both freeze Thasmeen’s bank accounts and hold his passport following today’s hearing.

Thasmeen’s lawyer reportedly said that his client was preparing to appeal the High Court ruling at the Supreme Court. The judge however replied that the civil case would proceed until such a time when the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal.

MP Nazim sued Thasmeen in March 2011 to recover MVR 1.92 million (US$124,513) unpaid from a loan worth MVR 2.55 million (US$200,000). After the Civil Court ruled in favour of Nazim, Thasmeen appealed the judgment at the High Court in June 2011.

At the time the case was filed at the Civil Court, Thasmeen’s DRP was in a formal coalition with the minority opposition People’s Alliance (PA) led by Nazim and current PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen.

The DRP-PA coalition agreement was severed in July 2011 amidst internal strife within the then-main opposition party, which saw a breakaway faction loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom leaving the party to form PPM in October 2011.

Following an acrimonious war of words between then-DRP ‘Honorary Leader’ Gayoom and his successor Thasmeen, the former president withdrew his endorsement of the DRP presidential candidate in March 2011.

Meanwhile, at the final hearing of the Civil Court case in April 2011, Thasmeen’s lawyer reportedly claimed that Nazim agreed to sell Shaviyani Kabalifaru, which was leased for development as a resort in 2005, to raise funds to cover the MVR 2.55 million loan.

Thasmeen’s lawyer denied that an agreement was made between the pair to pay back the loan in a month, claiming that Nazim failed to find a buyer for Kabalifaru as agreed upon in November 2008.

The lawyer also denied Nazim’s claim that the loan was taken to pay back Thasmeen’s debts at the Bank of Maldives.

However, Nazim’s lawyer, Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem – currently President Waheed’s member on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – disputed both claims, demanding documentation to prove that Thasmeen gave power of attorney to Nazim to sell the resort.

At a previous hearing, Nazim’s lawyer had produced a document with Thasmeen’s signature, prompting Judge Hathif Hilmy to observe that the purported loan agreement had a reference number and that it was therefore reasonable to expect Thasmeen to be aware of the details of the amount in question.

Article 73(c) of the constitution states, “A person shall be disqualified from election as, a member of the People’s Majlis, or a member of the People’s Majlis immediately becomes disqualified, if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as provided in the judgment.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP launches higher education policy, pledges raising enrolment rate to 40 percent

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) unveiled its higher education policy in simultaneous events across 19 islands and two cities on Friday (June 14), pledging to raise the enrolment rate from six percent of school leavers to 40 percent in the next five years.

Launching the policy in the island of Naifaru in Lhaviyani atoll, former President Mohamed Nasheed said that the MDP’s objective was to usher in “a golden age” for higher education in the Maldives.

“We cannot let students finish their education after they complete O’ Levels. A student who wants to pursue higher education, even if he barely passed, will have that opportunity,” the MDP presidential candidate said.

The government would allocate MVR 500 million (US$ 32.5 million) in five years to issue student loans, provide scholarships and conduct training programmes, Nasheed said.

He added that island councils would be tasked with assessing the types of scholarships and higher education opportunities most needed for development of the island.

The Maldives shares its six percent enrolment with Somalia and Bangladesh, while developed countries such as South Korea have a rate higher than 90 percent. Neighbouring Sri Lanka meanwhile has a 15 percent enrolment in post-secondary education.

The MDP proposes in its sixth “mini-manifesto” to introduce an education fund, provide student loans with long-term repayment schemes, open new universities, colleges and institutes with campuses across the country, and conduct skills training programmes.

The party’s policy targets include the construction of two hostels or dormitories in the Male’ region, improving the Islamic studies faculty, establishing an Information Technology College, and setting up institutes for boat building, maritime training, medicine, fisheries and sports under public-private partnership (PPP) projects.

Other targets include inaugurating an education savings scheme with the government to match deposits by parents, providing plots of land to private education institutes, giving grants for financially-disadvantaged students, securing opportunities for 2,000 students to study medicine, covering course fees for students with special needs and issuing MVR 118 million (US$ 7 million) worth of student loans from a development bank during the next five years.

According to the policy, the monthly repayment for the student loans would not exceed eight percent of a borrower’s monthly income.

Moreover, the policy proposes upgrading the polytechnic institute to ISO 900 standard and establishing new faculties at the National University.

In addition to the proposed higher education opportunities, the policy also includes special projects to train 300 science teachers, 300 Quran teachers, 500 nurses and 200 pharmacists as well as an MVR 80 million programme for the improvement of lecturers.

The ‘Hunaru‘ skills training programme meanwhile targets the creation of 17,350 jobs.

On the MDP’s achievements during its three years in government, the mini-manifesto noted that the country’s first national university was inaugurated in February 2011, the first national polytechnic institute was opened in April 2010, a research center was established in Faafu Magoodhoo in collaboration with Italy’s Milano-Bicaco University, a TIVET (technical and vocational education training) authority was set up, a ‘Hunaru’ programme was commenced to train 8,500 workers in late 2011 and four private colleges were registered.

In addition, the government resumed work on a new building for the National University’s hospitality faculty, opened a hostel at the Kulhudhufushi campus, issued student loans worth MVR 300 million, facilitated significant increases in the number of scholarships offered by friendly nations, secured more than 60 tuition-free scholarships from the Bangalore Garden City College and compiled a report with World Bank aid on proposals for providing opportunities for post-secondary education.

Last week, President Dr Mohamed Waheed pledged to establish a housing policy for the people of Male’ as part of his campaign for the upcoming presidential election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government paid Baroness Scotland £50,000 in excess of agreed consultancy fee

The government paid former UK Attorney General and member of the House of Lords, Baroness Patricia Scotland, £50,000 (MVR1.25 million) in excess of an agreed fee for legal advice concerning the Maldives’ suspension from the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), the 2012 audit report of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has revealed.

The audit report (Dhivehi) made public yesterday (June 11) revealed that a terms of reference (ToR) to hire an unnamed foreign legal expert was signed by the AGO on May 28, 2012, after the Maldives was suspended from CMAG – the Commonwealth’s human rights and democracy arm – and placed on its formal agenda following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s allegation that he resigned “under duress” on February 7, 2012 amid a violent mutiny by sections of the police and military.

Auditors discovered that the legal expert – revealed in the media at the time to be Baroness Scotland – was paid £50,000 without signing a formal agreement in addition to a consultancy fee of £75,000 (MVR 1.81 million) agreed upon in the ToR.

“The Attorney General’s Office informed [auditors] that the fee paid in excess of the agreed upon fee was for further advisory and drafting work that was required,” the audit report stated. “However, we note that this additional legal advice could not be discerned [from any documentation].”

As the additional fee was 66 percent of the consultancy fee included in the ToR, “this office believes that the work could not be done without both parties signing an agreement in accordance with section 8.22 of the public finance regulations.”

Section 8.22 stipulates that consultancy work needs to assigned on the basis of a contract with specific terms mutually agreed upon.

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim therefore recommended legal action against the responsible officials as the excess amount was paid in violation of article 47(b) of the Public Finance Act.

The audit report also noted that the AGO spent MVR108,902 (US$7,062) on plane tickets and accommodation for Baroness Scotland and her assistant for a visit to the Maldives, despite the lack of provisions for the expenses in the ToR.

The Auditor General’s Office recommended that such expenses for amenities along with fees for any additional work should be stated in the contract.

The report also revealed that the AGO spent MVR 16.9 million (US$1 million) in excess of the annual budget for the office approved by parliament.

A total of MVR 16.3 million was spent with approval from the finance ministry for consultancy work by foreign legal experts, the report noted.

The Auditor General’s Office contended that the expenditure in excess of the approved budget was in violation of article 96(c) of the constitution, the Public Finance Act, and public finance regulations.

Article 96(c) of the constitution states, “No supplementary expenditures shall be added to an approved budget without further approval by the People’s Majlis. Expenditures included in the budget shall be applied solely for the specified purpose.”

Among the cases for which the AGO sought foreign legal assistance were the termination of a concession agreement with Indian infrastructure giant GMR to develop the international airport, disputes concerning a border control agreement with Malaysian firm Nexbis and payments owed for the “Maldives Asset Tracing, Recovery and Repatriation Engagement” investigation launched in 2010 by the now-dissolved Presidential Commission.

The audit report revealed that a ToR was signed with a Singaporean law firm on March 1, 2012 for legal assistance concerning the contract disputes involving GMR and Nexbis.

Following the cancellation of the concession agreement with GMR, the law firm was retained under a second ToR for the arbitration process currently ongoing in Singapore.

The audit found that neither the fee nor expenses for the lawyers were stipulated in the ToR as required under section 8.22 of the public finance regulations.

Instead, the Singaporean law firm was to bill the AGO for its services at a price of its choosing, the report stated.

The AGO paid the firm a total of MVR 7.1 million (US$460,440) in 2012 for legal assistance and other expenses.

A British lawyer was also hired in November 2012 until the conclusion of the arbitration process involving the GMR contract without signing an agreement stipulating the price as required by the public finance regulations.

The AGO paid the lawyer MVR 1.2 million (US$77,821) in 2012.

The Auditor General recommended legal action against the responsible officials at the AGO in accordance with article 48 of the Public Finance Act.

Among other cases flagged in the audit report as ostensible violations of public finance law, auditors discovered that the AGO spent MVR 76,810 (US$4,981) for purchases and services without approval from senior officials as required by section 8.05 of the public finance regulations.

Moreover, the AGO bought airplane tickets worth MVR 45,994 (US$2,982) without seeking prices from at least three parties as required by section 5.03 of the public finance regulations.

Baroness Scotland

In August 2012, Minivan News obtained the terms of reference document for the contract, which was signed by then-Deputy Attorney General, Aishath Bisham, who succeeded Aishath Azima Shukoor in April 2013.

The leaked document also included a letter in Dhivehi sent from the Attorney General’s office to Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad requesting authorisation for Baroness Scotland’s “unprecedented work/expense” following her visit to the Maldives.

“There was no contract made. With this letter we ask if attached terms of reference are sufficient as a contract,” the AGO wrote.

Following media reports in the UK, then-Attorney General Azima insisted that the expenses for Baroness Scotland were made out of the proper budget code with approval from the finance ministry.

Baroness Scotland came under fire in the UK press after the story emerged in the Daily Mail. The Mail established that the peer and former Attorney General had not listed the payment from the Maldives on the House of Lords’ register of members’ interests.

“Her entry says she has set up a firm to provide ‘private consultancy services’ but says it is ‘not trading at present’,” the Daily Mail reported.

In a statement, Baroness Scotland confirmed she had been “instructed by the Attorney General of the Maldives to give legal advice”, and slammed the leak of the terms of reference and “all communications passing between myself and the Attorney General, whether written or oral, pertaining to the nature and extent of that advice, as confidential and legally privileged.”

She additionally claimed to have been approached by both the government and the opposition, and said she had accepted an invitation to chair a roundtable “at which all parties are to be invited.”

“I am a senior barrister with specific expertise in the area of constitutional law, criminal and civil law reform, and am skilled in mediation,” she explained.

Baroness Scotland was previously scrutinised by the UK press in 2009 after she was found to have been employing an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper in her London home.

As the story emerged, MPs from the UK’s Conservative Party – which has long backed Nasheed and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – seized the opportunity to attack the former UK Labour Party Cabinet Minister.

Conservative MP Karen Lumley told the Daily Mail that is was “disgusting that a former British attorney-general should take a well-paid job advising the new regime, which has no democratic mandate. President Nasheed was overthrown in a coup and the Maldives is now very unstable. Many of my friends there have been arrested by the new regime.”

Conservative MP John Glen told the paper that Baroness Scotland should “hang her head in shame”.

“What happened in the Maldives was a military coup,” he said, adding that it was “outrageous” that the former AG should be “advising a regime responsible for ousting a democratically-elected president.”

Former Maldives High Commissioner to the UK, Dr Farahanaz Faizal, described the government’s employment of Baroness Scotland as “absolutely shocking. If the government wanted legal advice to support the AG’s Office, the proper way is to request the UK government bilaterally.”

“To think that someone of her calibre would undertake an assignment to check if Foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada, Bangladesh, Jamaica, and others of CMAG had acted against their mandate is disgraceful,” Dr Faizal said.
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Cancelled agreement to develop IGMH cost US$150,000, reveals audit

The termination of an agreement between the Ministry of Health and Family with Indian company Apollo Hospitals Enterprises to manage and develop the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) cost the government US$150,000, the Ministry of Finance and Treasury’s audit report for 2010 has revealed.

The audit report (Dhivehi) made public on Thursday (June 6) flagged an advance payment of US$ 150,000 from the finance ministry’s special budget to Apollo Hospitals as 20 percent of a transition management fee under the “management and development agreement” (MDA) signed on January 23, 2010.

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim contended that the payment was made by the finance ministry in violation of budgetary rules and accounting principles, adding that expenses of another office or institution should not be included in the finance ministry’s financial statement.

Moreover, the privatisation of the government hospital was not overseen by the privatisation committee as stipulated in public finance regulations amended in late 2009, the audit report noted.

The secretariat of the privatisation committee, which functioned under the Ministry of Economic Development, informed auditors that interested parties were invited to submit detailed proposals for developing IGMH in a public-private partnership deal in January 2009.

However, none of the detailed bids met the criteria set by the health ministry and the privatisation project was scrapped.

Following a visit by then-President Mohamed Nasheed to India, Health Minister Dr Aminath Jameel told the press on January 25, 2010 that Apollo was awarded the project because none of the bidders fit the criteria.

Apollo was chosen following consultation with the Indian government and based on legal advice, she added.

However, in August 2010, the Male’ Health Services Corporation – which operated IGMH – advised the health ministry against proceeding with the privatisation deal as Apollo’s proposal was not financially feasible for the government-owned health corporation.

On September 30, 2010, the health ministry informed Apollo that the government has decided to scrap the project since the necessary financial capital had not been arranged.

The audit report also noted that a transition management agreement and an operation management agreement that was required under the MDA was not signed in the stipulated 180-day period.

“Therefore, the US$ 150,000 paid to Apollo Hospitals under the MoU [Memorandum of Understanding] signed with IGMH in 2010 was a waste of funds with no benefit to the state,” the audit report stated.

It added that the loss was incurred as a result of “inadequate planning” before hastily signing the MoU without obtaining legal advice, considering the financial burden on the state and determining a source of capital.

The Auditor General recommended asking the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to determine whether any state official abused their authority in awarding the project to Apollo Hospitals without a bidding process.

Other cases

Among eight other cases highlighted in the report where expenses were made ostensibly in violation of public finance law, the audit revealed that in 2007 the government incurred a loss of MVR 30.8 million (US$1.9 million) after paying for 150,000 copies of the Quran Dhivehi translation with numerous errors.

The audit report noted that the project was awarded to Novelty Printers without a bidding process through the tender evaluation board.

Moreover, an advance payment of 85 percent of the contracted amount was made to Novelty Printers in violation of existing regulations, the audit discovered.

In June 2010, the Fiqh Academy decided to destroy the copies printed in 2007 as the errors could not be easily corrected. The decision was made following a year-long review by scholars of the academy.

The audit discovered that the errors in the final version were not present in the proofed copy approved by the President’s Office in 2007 – during the final years of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s reign – suggesting that Novelty was responsible for the errors.

Novelty Printers wrote to the President’s Office in November 2008 apologising for the printing errors, which they explained occurred due to a problem in the computer file used to make the printing plates.

The audit also discovered that Novelty was paid the remaining 15 percent of the contracted amount in May 2010 after a state minister at the finance ministry approved the payment.

The state minister sent a memo to the budget section falsely claiming that the government had received all 150,000 copies, the audit report noted.

The Auditor General recommended that the ACC should investigate the culpable official for alleged corruption and that the state should either recover the MVR 30 million paid to Novelty or demand 150,000 copies without errors.

The audit report also noted that the government was ordered by the Civil Court in January 2010 to pay US$119,616 as compensation for a former deputy general manager of the Maldives National Shipping Line (MNSL) for unlawful termination in 2002.

The Auditor General recommended legal action against the government officials responsible for incurring the financial loss by unlawfully sacking the MNSL deputy manager in 2002.

The audit further revealed that in 2009 and 2010 the finance ministry paid US$ 4 million to two American companies under a “settlement agreement” while arbitration proceedings were ongoing in Singapore.

In 2006, a consortium formed by the International Medical Group and Sirius International Insurance Corporation was awarded a contract to provide health insurance for government employees.

The companies sought arbitration in Singapore following a contract dispute with the now-defunct Ministry of Higher Education, Employment and Social Security. However, the US$4 million settlement was reached out of arbitration in May 2009 by the new government that took office in November 2008.

The settlement was paid out of the finance ministry’s special budget in 2009 and 2010.

The Auditor General recommended “a thorough investigation” to recover the financial loss incurred by the government as a result of the contract.

The audit report also contended that the finance ministry had not undertaken “adequate efforts” to recover MVR 51.4 million (US$3.3 million) owed to the government as loan repayments as of December 2010.

The loans worth a total of MVR 69.4 million (US$4.5 million) were provided to select individuals by the President’s Office from 1992 to 2006 under special privileges afforded to then-President Gayoom.

The loans were given with a six percent interest rate to be paid back within two to five years, the report found, noting that the repayment period would have lapsed in 2011 for the most recent loans.

However, in a letter sent to the finance ministry on November 6, 2008 – five days before Gayoom left office – the repayment period was extended to five years.

As the loans were given to senior officials of the outgoing government, the audit report contended that the decision to extend the repayment period amounted to corruption.

The Auditor General therefore asked for an investigation by the ACC into the extension and recommended that the finance ministry file court cases to recover the unpaid amounts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC suspends Chief Judge of the High Court

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has indefinitely suspended Chief Judge of the High Court, Ahmed Shareef, over a complaint filed against the judge last year.

JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla insisted at a press conference today that the disciplinary action had no relation to the ongoing High Court case filed by former President Mohamed Nasheed contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench appointed by the commission.

The suspension was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding, he claimed.

“There are no legal grounds to stop looking into a complaint submitted [to the commission] or halt proceedings,” he said, adding that ongoing court cases and disciplinary proceedings at the JSC were “two completely different systems.”

High Court Chief Judge Shareef was summoned to the JSC earlier this month almost a year after the complaint was lodged.

Meanwhile, a hearing of Nasheed’s case scheduled at the High Court today was cancelled after one of the judges took a leave of absence.

The chief judge – who is among the three judges presiding over the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate’s case – was suspended over a complaint filed by seven other High Court judges, Justice Adam Mohamed revealed.

The decision was approved at a JSC meeting today with three votes in favour and one against.

According to local media, Attorney General Aishath Bisham, President’s Member Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem and Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi voted in favour while Public Member Shuaib Abdul Rahman voted against the motion.

Lawyers’ Representative Ahmed Rasheed and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan reportedly abstained while High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed did not participate in the vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Majlis Member MP Gasim Ibrahim did not attend the meeting.

Shuaib told private broadcaster Raajje TV following the meeting that the decision was made in violation of due process and JSC procedures as a report regarding the allegations against the chief judge was not presented to the commission members.

The motion or petition to suspend Shareef was proposed by Attorney General Bisham, who is yet to receive parliamentary consent for her appointment.

Meanwhile, at the press conference this evening, Justice Adam Mohamed refused to reveal either the details of the vote or the members in attendance despite repeated queries from reporters.

He also refused to state which High Court judge would take over the chief judge’s administrative functions.

In June 2012, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was asked to investigate allegations that Chief Judge Shareef met officials of Nexbis in Bangkok, Thailand while a case concerning the controversial border control project awarded to the Malaysian mobile security firm was scheduled at the High Court.

According to newspaper Haveeru, Shareef had applied for a leave of absence from May 30 to July 1 before the JSC made its decision today.

The local daily also reported that today’s hearing of the former president’s case was cancelled after Judge Abbas Shareef took a last minute leave.

Former President Nasheed’s office said in a statement today that the hearing was “unexpectedly cancelled three hours prior” to the scheduled time.

“We condemn the actions of the Maldivian courts, which violate the electoral rights of nearly 50,000 Maldivian Democratic Party members. Today’s disruption to President Nasheed’s campaign trip to Raa atoll is an unnecessary, politically motivated challenge. The JSC continues to try and cover up the unconstitutional manner in which they appointed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench through attempts at influencing the judiciary, while the Courts create logistical challenges such as today’s.  However, it does not stop affect the spirit of President Nasheed’s campaign,” MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, Nasheed’s spokeswoman, said after the cancellation.

Nasheed meanwhile returned to Raa Atoll today to resume his presidential campaign.

“Undue influence”

The MDP organised a march against the JSC on Saturday (May 25) to protest JSC Chair Adam Mohamed’s alleged attempts to unduly influence the trial of former President Nasheed.

The party contended that Justice Adam Mohamed was abusing his power and authority as head of the judicial watchdog body to intimidate judges on the High Court bench.

On April 1, the High Court ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend Nasheed’s trial pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed by the JSC to preside over the case.

In the first hearing of the High Court case, the JSC contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench constituted by the commission.

The JSC has sent letters to the High Court requesting expedition of Nasheed’s case, the party noted in a press release.

The MDP objected to the judicial oversight body summoning the Chief Judge of the High Court for questioning over a complaint filed a year ago.

The move amounted to intimidation of judges and undue influence on judicial processes, the party contended, calling on the JSC to cease its “dirty and cowardly” efforts as the commission was the adverse party or respondent in the High Court case.

“Actions such as these are seen as thinly veiled attempts at influencing the Judiciary,” the former president’s office said today.

The JSC responded to the protest march with a statement of its own the following day, appealing against “obstruction” of the commission’s constitutional and legal responsibilities.

The JSC noted that the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act of 2008 mandated the commission to investigate complaints against judges and enforce disciplinary measures.

The commission was entrusted with powers to summon and question persons and take witness testimonies, the JSC stated.

There were “no legal or constitutional grounds” to interpret carrying out the commission’s legal responsibilities as intimidation or exerting undue influence on judges, the statement added.

The JSC statement concluded by calling on all parties to “not commit any act or participate in any activity that could obstruct the constitutional and legal responsibilities and duties of the commission.”

Meanwhile, in her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives in February 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul wrote that “the trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings.”

Knaul questioned the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

She also expressed concern with “the significant backlog of complaints with the Judicial Service Commission that are not dealt with or at least are perceived as not being dealt with. Some judges that have several complaints and cases for misconduct against them are still sitting.”

Moreover, Knaul wrote that according to several judges, “disciplinary procedures before the Commission lead to public humiliation and damages to their reputation.”

“Some even said that, when summoned by the Commission, the principle of presumption of innocence is not respected and they do not have appropriate time and access to information to prepare for their cases. Judges are also often not told for what allegations they are being investigated. It is common that, after an appearance before the Commission, judges are not informed if their case was dropped, if a decision was taken, or if it is still pending,” Knaul wrote.

“The Special Rapporteur is worried that disciplinary proceedings before the Judicial Services Commission are not in line with international law and principles, and may sometimes be used to expose and question the integrity of judges and magistrates before the media and the general public before the conclusion of a proper investigation into the allegations. She wishes to underline that, according to the Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing under an appropriate procedure, which should be subject to an independent review.”

Among a number of recommendations to reform the Maldivian justice system, Knaul suggested taking “appropriate measures to enforce the code of conduct of judges in a transparent and consistent manner, with full respect for the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing and bearing in mind the importance of the reputation of judges and magistrates.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appeals against “obstruction” following MDP protest march

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has appealed against “obstruction” of the commission’s legal and constitutional responsibilities in a press statement yesterday (May 26), following a protest march by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on Saturday (May 25).

The party marched on the streets of Male’ to protest against JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla’s alleged attempts to unduly influence the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The MDP contends that Adam Mohamed was abusing his power and authority as head of the judicial watchdog body to intimidate judges on the High Court bench.

On April 1, the High Court ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend Nasheed’s trial pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed by the JSC to preside over the case.

The JSC has sent letters to the High Court requesting expedition of Nasheed’s case, the party noted in a press release last week.

The MDP objected to the judicial oversight body summoning the Chief Judge of the High Court for questioning over a complaint filed more than a year ago.

The move amounted to intimidation of judges and undue influence on judicial processes, the party contended, calling on the JSC to cease its “dirty and cowardly” efforts as the commission was the adverse party or respondent in the High Court case.

In the first hearing of the case, the JSC contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench constituted by the commission.

“It is strange that the JSC’s legal counsel contested jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the case on the grounds that they had sought the advice of the Supreme Court in determining the bench,” MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, spokeswoman of the former president said after the hearing.

Meanwhile, in its statement issued a day after the MDP protest march, the JSC noted that the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act of 2008 mandated the commission to investigate complaints against judges and enforce disciplinary measures.

The commission was entrusted with powers to summon and question persons and take witness testimonies, the JSC stated.

There were “no legal or constitutional grounds” to interpret carrying out the commission’s legal responsibilities as intimidation or exerting undue influence on judges, the statement added.

The JSC statement concluded by calling on all parties to “not commit any act or participate in any activity that could obstruct the constitutional and legal responsibilities and duties of the commission.”

Responding to the statement yesterday, MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor tweeted,

UN Special Rapporteur report

In her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives in February 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul expressed concern with “the significant backlog of complaints with the Judicial Service Commission that are not dealt with or at least are perceived as not being dealt with. Some judges that have several complaints and cases for misconduct against them are still sitting.”

Moreover, Knaul wrote that according to several judges, “disciplinary procedures before the Commission lead to public humiliation and damages to their reputation.”

“Some even said that, when summoned by the Commission, the principle of presumption of innocence is not respected and they do not have appropriate time and access to information to prepare for their cases. Judges are also often not told for what allegations they are being investigated. It is common that, after an appearance before the Commission, judges are not informed if their case was dropped, if a decision was taken, or if it is still pending,” Knaul wrote.

“The Special Rapporteur is worried that disciplinary proceedings before the Judicial Services Commission are not in line with international law and principles, and may sometimes be used to expose and question the integrity of judges and magistrates before the media and the general public before the conclusion of a proper investigation into the allegations. She wishes to underline that, according to the Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing under an appropriate procedure, which should be subject to an independent review.”

Among a number of recommendations to reform the Maldivian justice system, Knaul suggested taking “appropriate measures to enforce the code of conduct of judges in a transparent and consistent manner, with full respect for the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing and bearing in mind the importance of the reputation of judges and magistrates.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)