Audit report flags irregularities in Elections Commission finances

The audit report of the Elections Commission (EC) for 2011 has flagged several expenses in violation of public finance law and regulations.

The report (Dhivehi) made public on Wednesday listed 20 cases of expenditure made by the EC ostensibly in violation of the Public Finance Act and regulations under the law.

Of MVR 19.2 million (US$123,216) sent by the commission to atoll offices for the local council elections in February 2011, the audit found that MVR 1.4 million (US$90,791) was entered into the EC’s financial statement despite not receiving either confirmation or details of the how the funds were spent.

Moreover, while a contract was awarded to a local company for MVR 4.9 million (US$317,769) to print ballot papers following a public announcement by the EC, the audit noted that the commission did not propose it to the tender evaluation board as required for projects exceeding MVR 1.5 million (US$97,276).

The audit also uncovered that the commission paid MVR334,700 (US$21,705) to a company contracted to provide sea transportation during the council elections, for trips not included in the agreement.

While MVR 536,803 (US$34,812) was agreed upon in the contract for 56 trips, the EC ended up paying the company MVR871,503 (US$56,517) due to a number of additional trips.

Agreements made with private parties to hire temporary staff as well as vehicles for use during the council elections could not be found among the EC’s documents, the audit report noted.

A total of MVR 183,238 (US11,883) was however paid for vehicles and short-term staff for the elections in February 2011.

The audit meanwhile could not verify whether deposits from 91 candidates for the council elections, who either received less than 10 percent of the vote or whose candidacies were invalidated, were entered into the state income account.

Based on documentation at the EC, the audit was also unable to verify whether deposits for 1,254 candidates were ever returned.

Phone expenses

Among the other cases highlighted in the report, the audit discovered that commission members spent extra days overseas during official trips to attend seminars and workshops.

The cost of the extended stays during such trips between January 2010 and April 2012 amounted to MVR50,438 (US$3,270) for food, incidentals and pocket money.

The audit also found that commission members transferred phone credit worth MVR5,585 (US$362) from their mobile phones, the bills for which are paid out of the EC budget.

An examination of international calls by commission members showed that a number of such calls were not related to official business.

The audit further revealed that from April 2010 to April 2012, MVR 92,009 (US$5,967) was spent out of the EC budget to pay mobile phone bills of commission members.

A total of MVR 116,954 (US$7,584) was meanwhile paid to EC employees as phone allowances in 2011.

The audit discovered that between December 2007 and August 2011, the commission spent MVR 248,790 (US$16,134) to buy 30 mobile phones for senior staff.

Based on a decision by the former Elections Commissioner in December 2007, 13 phones were to become personal property of the chosen senior staff after one year, the audit revealed.

“We note however that no law or regulation authorises giving away state property,” the report stated.

Moreover, most of the mobile phones were “the most expensive phones on the market at the time [of the purchases],” the audit report noted.

“In addition to the 13 mobile phones that were given to employees according to documentation at the commission, the records showed that five mobile phones worth MVR 49,135 (US$3,186) were lost,” the report stated, adding that no employees were held responsible and “compensation in any form was not sought” for the losses.

Some of the phones were discovered missing when “commission employees who were given the phones informed auditors that they were lost.”

A senior staff given a mobile phone worth MVR 14,195 (US$920) bought in 2008 did not return it when he or she left the commission, the audit noted, adding that corrective measures had not been taken on the issue despite recommendations in the EC’s 2010 audit report.

Other cases

The audit found that the EC did not sign agreements for work valued under MVR25,000 (US$1,621), despite public finance regulations stating that agreements must be signed for all government projects.

A total of MVR 249,494 (US$16,179) was paid out in 2011 without formal agreements.

The EC also hired a local company to service four photocopy machines for MVR40,000 (US$2,594) a year without a public bidding process and made an advance payment in violation of public finance regulations.

The audit noted that documentation did not show that the EC was receiving the company’s services each month as stipulated in the agreement.

Moreover, the commission did not seek quotations or estimates from three parties as required by regulations for procurements amounting to MVR 251,148 (US$16,287) in 2011, the audit discovered.

A number of expenses were meanwhile made out of the wrong budget code or item, the audit noted.

The audit report also noted that the EC made unnecessary purchases, such as a coffee maker for MVR 67,000 (US$4,345) in 2007, a Nikon D200 camera for MVR 233,298 (US$15,129) in 2008, six TV decoders, 16 TVs, 16 shredders, two washing machines, irons, a deep freezer, a mixer, a blender and a gas cooker.

Of 60 fax machines bought by the commission, 50 were kept unused in storage.

Moreover, items worth MVR 231,193 (US$14,993) were not entered into the registry of the EC’s stock inventory, the audit report noted.

The EC meanwhile failed to collect MVR 469,500 (US$30,447) owed as fines and deposits in 2011 and did not file cases at court as required by regulations.

As of December 2011, the audit revealed that the commission was owed MVR 260,000 (US$16,861) from seven political parties for failing to submit annual audit reports during the past five years.

Lastly, as of the report’s publication, the EC had not recovered MVR 12,999 (US$843) paid to staff in excess of their salaries and allowances.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Arrests of MPs with liquor, drugs, “politically motivated”: Human Rights Minister, MDP

Additional reporting by Ahmed Naish

Parliament’s Privileges Committee held an emergency meeting on Friday following the arrest of two MPs and senior figures in the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), for the alleged possession of drugs and alcohol.

In a statement, police said 10 people were arrested on Thursday night during a ‘special’ operation on the island of Hodaidhoo in Haa Dhaal Atoll.

In addition to ruling coalition Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – those arrested included former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz.

The others arrested were Jadhulla Jaleel, Hamdan Zaki, two Sri Lankan nationals named Raj Mohan and Anoor Bandaranayk as well as a Bangladeshi named Suhail Rana.

Police said they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant.

The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

Following the arrests around midnight, the suspects were taken to Kulhudhufushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll, and Zaki was hospitalised.

Despite a police attempt to extend the detention periods all suspects including the two MPs have now been released by the Kulhudhufushi Magistrate Court, with the exception of Hamdan Zaki.

The island of Hodaidhoo was leased to Yacht Tours for resort development in January 2003. According to Haveeru, it was previously inhabited but the population was relocated to Haa Dhaal Hanimadhoo in 1997. Kaashidhoo MP Jabir is Chairman of Yacht Tours.

“Politically motivated”

The MDP has alleged the arrests were a politically-motivated attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, and an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret. A second no-confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel was withdrawn this week pending the outcome of the secret vote amendment.

“It is such a coincidence that whenever the Waheed Government wants to frame those critical of their government, they come up with trumped up charges and very often it is something to do with alcohol,” said former MDP Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi, in a statement.

“Such accusations have led one of our MP’s to submit a bill to parliament totally banning its importation,” she added, calling on the government “to stop harassing senior politicians and MPs and have early elections in the country so as to get the country on track to democratic governance.”

Following the arrests, former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged in a tweet that the arrests were made the same day Waheed had “threatened” parliament during a speech on Kinolhas in Raa Atoll.

“Less than 24 hours after my former deputy threatened the parliament, police have arrested MP Hamid, Jabir and my press secretary. They must be freed immediately,” Nasheed said.

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has stated that the MPs were arrested “at the scene of the crime” and that it was up to a judge to release them.

Emergency meeting

Section 102 of Parliament’s rules of procedure states that MPs cannot be arrested while there is a no-confidence motion before parliament to impeach the president or remove a cabinet minister, judge or member of an independent commission from his or her post.

The Majlis secretariat released a statement on Friday afternoon stating that Speaker Abdulla Shahid had instructed police to abide by parliament’s rules of procedure after he was informed of the arrests.

“Currently, the approval of dismissal of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan and the Civil Service Commission President Mohamed Fahmy Hassan have been sent to the Parliament,” read a statement from the secretariat.

Meanwhile, at an emergency meeting of the Priviliges Committee, Jabir’s wife and Minister for Gender and Human Rights, Dhiyana Saeed, alleged police brutality during the arrest and argued that they were a politically-motivated attempt to disrupt Monday’s vote.

Saeed said she had received a text message from President Waheed stating as much, which she said she would share with parliament.

“Abdulla Jabir didn’t get the opportunity to call his family. But when we sent people over there [to Kulhudhufushi] and spoke to him [on speakerphone], members of our family heard him say that he was severely brutalised,” she told the committee.

“[Jabir said] he was struck on the face, hit on the head from behind after they came from the sea while he was walking on the beach, thrown down on the beach and handcuffed from behind and dragged away. [He said] his feet and body were bruised in several places as a result.”

Dhiyana said she was told by the lawyers that they have seen signs of injury on Jabir’s body. A journalist from Haveeru, another “eyewitness”, had corroborated the lawyer’s account, she said.

According to the lawyers, police refused to allow photographs of the injuries to be taken, she added.

While “even MPs” should be investigated if they were suspected of committing a crime, Saeed said she found it “hard to believe today” that this was the case.

“If it was a case of alcohol, it is not today that this should be investigated. This happened before a very important vote by the People’s Majlis on Monday,” she said.

“I have a very strong reason for making this allegation. That is, in a text message to me, the President has alleged that this happened with a different motivation. He directly connects his accusation with Monday’s vote. I believe this is something that the Majlis should be very concerned about and investigate in depth.

“The leader of the country is saying that he himself is questioning the motivation behind this and who it was that did this. Police made the arrests, right? So this is an allegation against police by the President. And he said in the SMS that there is a possibility that some people might have done this to antagonise people against [the President] with regard to the vote on Monday.”

Saeed offered to share the text message with parliament, adding that it “should be very relevant.”

She claimed that Jabir was arrested on the beach without any drugs or alcohol, and questioned as to how the whole island could be considered a scene of crime.

Under Islamic Shariah, she explained, four witnesses are required to prove intoxication. If there were witnesses to the crime, she argued that there would be no need to either keep the suspects detained or extend their detention.

She suggested that the attempt to extend the detention was “very much connected to Monday’s vote.”

Concluding her statement to the committee, Dhiyana said the issue was “larger than arresting Jabir” as police had violated the Majlis rules.

She noted the Majlis rules or regulations derived authority directly from the constitution and that that the Supreme Court had “on many occasions upheld the regulations as valid”.

“Therefore, police have breached a very clear article [in the house rules] and this is really a very serious problem,” she said.

The Privileges Committee passed a motion to ask the Prosecutor General to press charges against Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz for arresting the MPs in violation of the law, and disregarding the Speaker’s instructions to release them.

The committee also passed a motion to ask the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate allegations of police brutality against the MPs.

Indian government expresses concern

India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has issued a statement expressing concern at continuing political instability in the Maldives, observing an “urgent need for dialogue and reconciliation among all political parties in Maldives in a peaceful and democratic manner.”

“We have seen reports related to the arrest of former Secretary General SAARC and other members of the Majlis in the Maldives earlier today,” said the MEA’s spokesperson.

“India urges the government of Maldives and all political parties to adhere strictly to democratic principles and the rule of law thus paving the way for the holding of free, fair and credible elections. Violence and coercive measures are not conducive to this end,” the MEA said.

“India has also been concerned at the occurrence of anti-India demonstrations and statements by a section in Maldives. A senior official of the government of India visited Maldives recently and conveyed our concerns in regard to recent developments in the country.

“The situation is being monitored closely keeping in view the need to ensure safety and security of Indians in Maldives and Indian interests in that country,” the statement concluded.

Coalition impact

The arrest of one of its MPs, Jabir, is likely to further strain the ruling coalition, particularly the executive’s relationship with the JP.

President Waheed last week sacked one of the JP’s cabinet ministers, Transport Minister Ahmed Shamheed.

The sacked minister, who on local media claimed he had “several differences” with the President, was removed from cabinet following the announcement of the extension of his party leader’s Maamigili Airport lease for 99 years.

Dhiyana Saeed – the Human Rights Minister, Jabir’s wife and another former SAARC Secretary General – is the JP’s other cabinet minister.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed rejects JP’s proposition to reinstate sacked Transport Minister

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has refused to reinstate the sacked Minister of Transport Dr Ahmed Shamheed and has requested the Jumhoree Party (JP) to propose a candidate for the job.

President of the JP Dr Ibrahim Didi confirmed the decision to local media, stating that the party had received an official letter from the President’s Office informing of the decision to not to accept Shamheed for the post.

Didi added that it was now up to party leader MP Gasim Ibrahim to decide whether to propose a new name, since it was he who had proposed Shamheed to the position in the first place.

The sacked minister, who on local media claimed he had “several differences” with the President, was removed from cabinet last week following the announcement of the extension of his party leader’s Maamigili Airport lease for 99 years.

Maamigili Airport is the country’s first private airport, opened on October last year, and owned by the Villa Group whose chairman is also the leader of government-aligned JP, MP Gasim Ibrahim. The airport had initially been leased to the business tycoon for a period of 30 years.

The re-extension of the lease period of the private airport was met with severe criticism from both the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and some government-aligned political figures.

However, Shamheed – whose decision to extend the lease period cost him his cabinet position – maintained that the decision on the extension of the lease was approved by the government’s Economic Committee a week before.

“Documents to extend the lease of Maamigili Airport for 99 years were sent to the transport ministry by [former President Mohamed] Nasheed’s government. But the current government delayed the matter. The present government only endorsed the decision. It was decided by the NPC (National Planning Council) during the former government,” he said at the time.

The concerned Economic Committee included Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad and Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu, Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muizzu, Environment Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb. However surprisingly, the committee did not include the Minister for Economic Development Ahmed Mohamed from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Spokesperson for the Presidents Office, Abbas Adil Riza, confirmed the dismissal of Minister Shamheed on social media, where he tweeted: “Transport Minster Dr Shamheed has been relieved from his duties today. Defense Minister Nazim will be the care taker until replaced by JP.”

Riza who is also a member of JP, confirmed that the cabinet seat would be reserved for the JP, currently the third largest party in terms of membership in the ruling coalition. As per the coalition agreement, the party is allotted with two cabinet slots including that of the Ministry of Transport and also the Ministry of Gender and Human Rights.

The dismissal of ex-minister Shamheed was met by criticism from the JP, which described it as a “cowardly act”.

In a statement released following the dismissal, the JP said it would take “necessary action” following an inquiry, and expressed “serious concern” with statements in the media by officials from the President’s Office regarding the reasons for Shamheed’s dismissal.

Some local media outlets quoted Presidents Office Media Secretary, Masood Imad, as stating that Shamheed was dismissed following several inconsistencies, which included the extension of lease of the private airport.

However, the Presidents Office Spokesperson Riza at the time declined to reveal the reason behind the dismissal of the minister.

An unnamed JP official alleged to Villa TV (VTV) – a media station owned by the Villa Group  – that Dr Shamheed was sacked because of his opposition to the recently concluded sale of a 30 percent stake in the Addu International Airport Company Ltd (AIA) to another tourism tycoon, ‘Champa’ Hussain Afeef.

The JP leader had alleged corruption in the deal and claimed the valuation of the 30 percent stake was too low.

The JP senior official meanwhile told VTV that Shamheed was removed to allow Champa Afeef to control the airport project, claiming that the “cowardly” act of sacking the minister was intended to divert media and public attention from the Addu airport controversy.

JP’s future in the coalition in question

The recent dismissal of the JP endorsed minister has sparked speculation as to the future of the JP in the current government coalition. JP MP Alhan Fahmy told Minivan News on Wednesday that he believed Shamheed should be reinstated if “Dr Waheed wants to sustain the national unity government.”

“I don’t believe [Waheed] was unaware of the decision [to dismiss Dr Shamheed], and it is of his own irresponsibility if he says so,” Fahmy said “A minister shall not be dismissed under the existing political situation unless it is associated with proper reasoning.”

Speaking at the press conference on Tuesday, Fahmy said Waheed met Gasim on Monday night and what he had to say implied that the President was “not fully aware of how [the dismissal] happened.”

After looking into the dismissal, Fahmy said the JP believed it was done “without a legal basis” as the JP Minister had not breached any laws or official procedures but was sacked “as a result of what the minister did to implement a decision made by the government.”

“Therefore, as we believe that this happened because the President was somewhat confused or misinformed, and after making certain of all the processes that were followed with regard to [the dismissal], the Jumhoree Party has asked the President to reinstate Dr Shamheed to the cabinet before next Sunday,” Fahmy said.

The government’s actions in sacking the minister provided opportunity to level corruption allegations against the JP’s leader who has also been announced to be the party’s presidential candidate, and were “highly damaging” to the party, the MP for Feydhoo added.

“Trust and confidence affected” – JP MP Alhan Fahmy

Speaking to Minivan News following the dismissal, Fahmy said that the letter sent by the Presidents Office did not mention “any reasonable grounds” for the dismissal of the minister.

“The party has yet not decided on how it will proceed following the response given by the President’s Office. The party council will meet very soon to decide on the matter,” he said.

Asked if the President’s decision could mean the party leaving the government coalition, Fahmy stated that the dismissal was “unacceptable” and it had affected the “trust and confidence” between the government and the party.

“I would not definitely say that the party will leave the coalition and join the opposition. But there is a possibility as you would know that political affiliations between parties do not always remain permanent,” Fahmy said.

“The party has not officially penned a coalition agreement. However, after what happened on February 7, the incoming president announced that the new government would be a national unity government. So the coalition was formed on certain moral values and grounds, which this party would never allow to be compromised,” he added.

He also raised doubts over President Waheed’s commitment towards the “moral value and grounds” of a national unity government and instead alleged that the President had now begun working in the interests of “his own party and political future”.

“He won’t acknowledge his own mistakes” – GIP Deputy Leader Zaki hits back at Fahmy’s remarks

Speaking to Minivan News, Deputy Leader of President Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP), Ahmed ‘Nazaki’ Zaki, brushed off Fahmy’s comments describing him as being involved in “party-factionalism”.

“I refuse to believe Fahmy’s remarks that there is a loss of trust and confidence. The JP is a valuable partner in our coalition. I just don’t get it when Fahmy speaks about loss of confidence because JP leader Gasim Ibrahim has explicitly told us that he wants to remain in the government coalition,” he said.

Zaki went onto describe Gasim as “one of the most prominent figures” in bringing democracy to Maldives, and said the government always considered him a “valuable asset” in the national unity government.

However, Zaki admitted that he did not understand why Gasim was trying so hard to reinstate Shamheed when there were “many other capable people” in his party.

Asked for the reason behind Shamheed’s dismissal, Zaki said there were “many reasons” but declined to go into details. He also responded to Fahmy’s claims that the dismissal was not based on “reasonable grounds” by saying it was human nature that “he would not acknowledge his own faults”.

The former High Commissioner to Malaysia went onto state that unlike former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government, President Waheed would not sack a person unless there were severe discrepancies, and Shamheed’s sacking was no different.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC refuses to answer to parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee

The Independent Institutions Committee of Parliament met with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on Tuesday, where the JSC declined to answer any questions put forward by the committee on the grounds that the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was a case currently pending at the Supreme Court.

The JSC was summoned in relation to a motion submitted by three members of the committee, which stated that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was being operated and judges to the court had been appointed in contradiction to the law.

President of the JSC, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed stated that the commission could not answer the questions put forward by the committee at the time.

“I would like to highlight Supreme Court’s temporary order No. 2010/SC-VA-J/2, released on 18th October 2010. Looking at the capacity and legal justifications of this order, on the fourth page of this order it says: ‘the judicial system established in the Maldives under the constitution is an independent judiciary system, and that Article 141 (d) of the constitution states it is an obligation of government institutions and all persons leading the government to protect the independence of the courts, and that Article 141(c) of the constitution states in clear language that neither an individual nor a government official should interfere with the work of judges from the independent judiciary or attempt to influence them. Therefore, since the parliament debating on an issue which is in the courts, one on which the courts have not yet made a ruling, can be considered to be an act under (c) of the previously mentioned article, I have told you the exact phrasing of the prior-mentioned order of the honourable court,’” Adam Mohamed said.

“If you take a look at Article 20 of the Judicature Act you will see (a) says, no, (b) says when it comes to a supreme court ruling, then the executive, members of the parliament, judicial power, persons in independent positions, state institutions, persons in positions of the state, and then it goes on to name many categories…So I am thinking that while our constitutional system is detailed in this manner, and specifically in a similar matter, since an institution with the constitutional power to make a legal decision on the kind of matter put before us has previously issued this order that we can see in black and white, what more is there for us to say on this issue?”

However, Chair of the Independent Institutions Committee, independent MP Mohamed Nasheed denounced the justifications presented by the JSC.

“What you referred to was precisely an order released asking parliament to cease discussions on a specific case submitted following a disagreement between the government and the parliament on a certain issue which comes under the parliament regulations, believing that debate on the issue is something that must not be done,” Nasheed said, adding that opinions expressed in the order were not something that had to be followed.

Nasheed stated that the matter could be looked into by the committee until and unless the Supreme Court issued a halting order for the specific matter in question.

Regarding the JSC’s stand that a matter pending in court could not be discussed in the committee, Nasheed responded saying that the parliament regulations said otherwise.

“There is a ruling regarding this released by the Speaker of the Parliament following a point of order raised by a member during a parliament session. This ruling says that although the previous regulations of the parliament did not permit us to discuss ongoing cases, the current regulations do not have any such clause. I believe that ruling is in effect over the parliament, and over this committee.”

The chair of the committee and the president of JSC debated the matter for the duration of the meeting which lasted for almost an hour, and concluded with the JSC firmly refusing to respond to any questions about the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court as the matter was “currently under the jurisdiction of the highest court in the Maldives.”

Although the chair of the committee stated that the debate would be carried forward between himself and the commission’s president and that other commission members would be given the opportunity to speak should any of the questions be directed specifically to them, the parliament appointee to JSC Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim interrupted with procedural points.

“You are acting against both the parliament regulations and the committee regulations,” Gasim alleged, stating that the JSC could not be summoned without giving notice of 14 days as it included cabinet members.

The continued interruption led to chaos in the meeting, where attendees from both sides hurled verbal attacks at each other, and the chair decided to go into a 10 minute recess.

Following the recess, Nasheed responded that the 14 day notice and provision of the exact questions to be asked were applicable only in cases where a cabinet minister was summoned to a committee on the request of an individual MP to be held answerable to a specific question. He stated that it did not apply in the case of the meeting in process as the committee held the oversight mandate over the JSC and could summon them when they saw it necessary. He also added that the JSC had attended the committee meetings previous under the very same circumstances.

“In yesterday’s committee meeting, we had a unanimous vote to summon your commission here. It wasn’t part of the initial issue. As you know, we have also written to your committee requesting necessary documents,” Nasheed continued, asking “What was your intention in coming here in relation to this issue if you are now going to refuse to answer our questions?”

Adam Mohamed replied that the JSC had received a letter requesting attendance a day ahead, but that the letter had held nothing by way of explaining the purposes of the summons.

Nasheed, however, claimed that the secretary general of the commission had later on clarified the matter from the parliament’s administration and that therefore the committee refused to accept the excuse.

Gasim, who continued to speak loudly throughout the latter half of the meeting claimed that the parliament committee was attempting to project its own failings onto the commission, adding that “you can’t do as you please in here, this is not your home” and “don’t try to act smart”.

When Nasheed requested the JSC president to “control” the commission’s members, Gasim again responded “How is it even possible for him to do that?”, prompting laughter and applause.

No questions concerning the issue on agenda were posed during the approximately hour long meeting.

The meeting was finally ruled closed after the JSC repeatedly insisted that they found it “rather difficult” to answer questions regarding the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court while the case was currently filed in the Supreme Court.

Members of the JSC are Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed, Lower Court Judge Abdulla Didi, Parliament member Gasim Ibrahim, Public member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, President’s Appointee Mohamed Saleem, Civil Service Commission’s President Mohamed Fahmy, Attorney General Azima Shakoor and lawyer Ahmed Rasheed.

A meeting of the Independent Commissions Committee had been disrupted last week, following disagreements regarding the summoning of JSC.

Meanwhile, earlier in the week Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has criticised the JSC, calling it inept and stating that many of the challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved if the JSC had undertaken its responsibilities “properly”.

Former President’s Appointee to the JSC, Aishath Velezinee has consistently raised questions about the work of the JSC, alleging that much of its actions were against the constitution, as well as criticised the oversight committee for failing to holding the JSC accountable.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP asks parliament to review progress of MP Afrasheem murder investigation

The Maldivian Democratic Party(MDP) has requested that Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid review the investigation into the October murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Afrasheem Ali to ensure that it was progressing in a “just” manner.

The party suggested that this be done through the concerning parliamentary committees by contacting relevant government authorities.

The MDP expressed concern that it is still not known whether the police had managed to identify a suspected murderer even one and a half months after the brutal murder of the MP.

The party also stated that it believed it was of utmost importance that the public, and especially those from the constituency of Ungoofaaru which was represented by Afrasheem, gained confidence that the investigation would be carried justly.

The statement further pointed out that citizens were speculating about the murder of Afrasheem on social media and in general gatherings, highlighting that it was often mentioned in social forums that Dr Afrasheem’s views on religious matters had not aligned with those of certain other religious scholars.

In his last TV appearance hours before his murder, Afrasheem had said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Less than a week latar, Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed told media that the ministry had not forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for his views.

Speaking at a gathering on Republic Day, MDP presidential candidate, former President Nasheed appealed to the Commissioner of Police to “stop hiding Afrasheem’s murderer,” adding “You know who Afrasheem’s murderer is. Please send the related details to the judicial institutions and courts of the Maldives. Ensure Afrasheem’s murderer is brought to justice immediately.”

The police then announced a press conference regarding the case on the following day, which was later “postponed indefinitely.”

Among those arrested in regard to the murder were MDP activists Mariyam Naifa and Ali Hashim ‘Smith’. Although Naifa was released, albeit under a gagging order 15 days after her initial detention, ‘Smith’ and another arrestee Hassan Humam are still under detention for a period of 45 days, as approved by the criminal court.

Police revealed in October that they are seeking assistance from the FBI and the Singaporean police force to analyse the evidence they have gathered.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The strange case of Dr Hassan and Mr Saeed

Dr Hassan Saeed is an educated, articulate man. The Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) leader, former Attorney General and one time Presidential hopeful has penned a series of articles in a local daily, in which he outlines his vision for a democratic future for the Maldives – although one could argue that much of it is various justifications for getting rid of President Nasheed ahead of 2013.

He was launched into the national limelight by former President Gayoom – along with Dr Ahmed Shaheed and Dr Mohamed Jameel – as the reformist, camera-friendly face of his dictatorial regime.

Perhaps to Gayoom’s detriment, the media savvy Dr Hassan Saeed was perceived as collaborating with various agencies to actually implement those reforms – efficiently working within the system to lay some of the groundwork for the historic 2008 elections that he would contest himself.

As Attorney General in 2005, he was the first to file complaints against Abdulla Mohamed – the Criminal Court ‘Judge’ who was detained by Nasheed’s government earlier this year leading to the national crisis that ultimately led to its downfall.

Hassan Saeed, who would later campaign vigorously for the Judge’s release, had highlighted serious cases of Abdullah Mohamed’s misconduct, including misogyny, obstruction of justice, and perhaps committing child abuse in court by making children enact their own molestation in front of the actual perpetrators and the rest of the court.

While one cannot legally defend the unlawful detention of any citizen, Dr Hassan Saeed’s efforts certainly gives one some moral ammunition to combat the country’s broken judiciary and the vile characters at its helm.

There is much to admire about Dr Hassan Saeed.

On 14 November 2012, Minivan News published a leaked letter written by this gentleman to the Indian Prime Minister.

In the letter, Dr Hassan urged the Prime Minister to make Indian infrastructure giant GMR terminate its contract to develop Male’s international airport, on the basis of a range of serious allegations – from the Indian High Commissioner not knowing his job, to massive bribery allegedly being carried out by GMR.

Failing this, Saeed warned, the Maldives would become a ‘fertile ground for extremist and nationalist politicians’.

Dr Hassan Saeed’s warnings are absolutely correct, as any observer of Maldivian politics over the last few months would agree. The extremist, nationalist rhetoric has reached a feverish pitch, and never before in modern times has any Maldivian political party taken to abuse regional neighbours as a political platform.

Having said that, the same observers would also notice that it is Dr Hassan Saeed and his allies who best embody this nationalist, extremist threat.

Will the real Hassan Saeed please stand up?

It is a bewildering metamorphosis that Dr Hassan Saeed undergoes between his clashing personalities, playing Jekyll and Hyde with staggering ease.

“Nationalism and extremism in India’s backyard is not good for India or our small country,” said the reasonable Dr Hassan in his letter.

But the same Dr Hassan Saeed was present on the podium on 23 December 2011, where he joined other parties in rallying thousands behind extremist, nationalist demands – including the closing down of ‘massage parlours’ and preventing the landing of Israeli airlines, thus saving us all from the impending Zionist invasion that exists primarily in Sheikh Imran’s imagination.

On one hand, he has co-authored a book titled ‘Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam’, where he academically and emphatically argues for freedom of religion within the framework of Islam, while making the case against capital punishment for apostasy.

On the other hand, he has published a series of pamphlets, including one titled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’, pouring vitriol on President Nasheed for ‘fostering ties with Jews’ and failing to support medieval practices like flogging in the Maldives.

Dr Hassan Saeed extends copious platitudes to Dr Manmohan Singh in his letter, even thanking India for defending the country in 1988 against armed terrorists.

But how does he reconcile this with the fact that he – through his minority Dhivehi Qaumee Party pamphlets – is the primary source that has poisoned the airport debate with harsh anti-Indian rhetoric?

On one hand, he warns against India bashing and how unhelpful it can get. On the other hand his only representative in Parliament vocally defends the willful public slander against the Indian High Commissioner by Abbas Adil Riza, the spokesperson for the Waheed Regime.

So then, one wonders, who is the real Dr Hassan Saeed?

Is he the democrat who pens numerous articles extolling the virtues of democracy? Or is it the man who candidly acknowledged that the controversial February 7 transfer of power that he was involved in was a ‘unique coup’?

One Hassan Saeed brought up ‘legitimacy issues’ of the Waheed regime in private, calling the former Vice President “politically weakest person in the country“. Another Hassan Saeed publicly lauded the Waheed regime, giving it a generally favourable report card.

Is Dr Hassan Saeed the enlightened academic that makes convincing arguments of a pluralist, modern, tolerant Islam? Or was that just a mask for the Jew-bashing, anti-semitic Hassan Saeed behind the feverish Islamist rhetoric that constantly destabilised the country over much of the last year?

Is he the reasonable statesman who understands the wisdom of maintaining close ties with a friendly neighbour like India? Or is the real Hassan Saeed the guy who publishes India-bashing literature? Is he the mild-mannered man who is married to a foreign lady, or the rabid xenophobe spewing nationalist rhetoric?

Could the Hassan Saeed that calls President Nasheed’s record in office “indefensible” also be the same guy whose party defends the bombastic imbecile in the President’s office who might very well lead us to war with India before lunch?

These are important questions to ask, because one of these Hassan Saeeds is an asset to the nation – an educated, intellectually sound, democratic, modern Muslim who can contribute immensely to salvaging what precious little is left of our democracy.

A democracy, one sadly notes, that was shredded with the connivance and active support of the other, irresponsible and much more unwelcome Hassan Saeed.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dismissed minister must be reinstated if President wants to sustain coalition: JP’s Alhan Fahmy

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Alhan Fahmy has warned that dismissed Transport Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed must be reinstated in order to retain the ruling coalition.

Dr Shamheed was removed from his cabinet post after he extended the Maamigili Airport lease to JP leader Gasim Ibrahim for 99 years.

In a press conference held on Tuesday (November 13) the JP stated it requested President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik reinstate Shamheed before Sunday.

Fahmy told Minivan News that he believes Shamheed should be reinstated if “Dr Waheed wants  to sustain the national unity government.”

“I don’t believe [Waheed] was unaware of the decision [to dismiss Dr Shamheed], and it is of his own irresponsibility if he says so,” Fahmy said.

“A minister shall not be dismissed under the existing political situation unless it is associated with proper reasoning.”

Speaking at the press conference on Tuesday, Fahmy said Waheed met Gasim on Monday night and what he had to say implied that the President was “not fully aware of how [the dismissal] happened.”

After looking into the dismissal, Alhan said the JP believed it was done “without a legal basis” as the JP minister had not breached any laws or official procedures but was sacked “as a result of what the minister did to implement a decision made by the government.”

“Therefore, as we believe that this happened because the President was somewhat confused or misinformed, and after making certain of all the processes that were followed with regard to [the dismissal], the Jumhoree Party has asked the President to reinstate Dr Shamheed to the cabinet before next Sunday,” Fahmy said.

The government’s actions in sacking the minister provided opportunity to level corruption allegations against the JP’s presidential candidate and were “highly damaging” to the party, the MP for Feydhoo added.

A statement from JP last week said the party would take “necessary action” following an inquiry, expressing “serious concern” with statements in the media by officials from the President’s Office regarding Shamheed’s dismissal.

Minivan tried to contact President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad, but he was not responding at time of press.

Controversy has surrounded the sacked minister following allegations that Shamheed was dismissed because of his opposition to the recent sale of a stake in the Addu International Airport Company Ltd (AIA).

The unnamed JP official, who made the allegations speaking to Villa TV, said that Shameed was removed to allow Champa Afeef – a tourism tycoon who recently bought a 30 percent stake in Addu airport – to control the airport project.

The JP official said the sacking of Shameed was intended to divert attention away from the Addu airport sale.

Following his sudden dismissal, Shamheed claimed he had been sacked following his criticism of some decisions made by the government.

“I continued to criticise President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik over the Nexbis issue. Attorney General insists that the project cannot go on. Home Minister has to be responsible for the Immigration Department. Home Minister had ordered to stop the project. But the project went on. I have voiced my discontent over several such issues. We have all seen the result of that,” Shamheed told Haveeru Online.

Shamheed refused to comment on the current situation when called by Minivan News.

Maamigili airport had originally been leased to Gasim’s Villa Group for 30 years, and according to JP, the decision to extend the lease by Shamheed had been unanimously approved by the government’s Economic Committee on November 1.

In addition to Shamheed, the Economic Committee consists of Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad and Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu, Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muizzu, Environment Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb.

Shamheed, in a quote from newspaper Haveeru, said: “Documents to extend the lease of Maamigili Airport for 99 years were sent to the transport ministry by [former President Mohamed] Nasheed’s government. But the current government delayed the matter. The present government only endorsed the decision. It was decided by the NPC [National Planning Council] during the former government.”

More recently however, Haveeru Online learned that Shamheed had announced the extension of the airport’s lease before the ministerial cabinet had sanctioned it.

A tweet from government spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza on the day of Shamheed’s dismissal read: “Transport Minister Dr Shamheed has been relieved from his duties today. Defence Minister Nazim will be the care taker until replaced by JP.”

He added that the cabinet seat will be reserved for the JP, currently the third largest party in terms of membership in the ruling coalition.

Minivan News was informed by Riza that the decision to extend the lease has not yet been reversed.

Following Shamheed’s dismissal, Dr Shamheed told Sun Online he believed he was sacked for difference of opinion with the President on a number of issues, including his opposition to the sale of the AIA stake and the agreement with Nexbis to install a border control system.

On November 5, Dr Shamheed tweeted that there was “no justification” for the valuation of an asset worth US$150 million for US$13 million.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government’s contract with Ruder Finn PR firm expires

The Maldivian government has concluded its contract with international public relations firm Ruder Finn, according to industry publication PR Week.

Head of the agency Nick Leonard told PR Week that the account had concluded upon reaching the end of its time frame.

Ruder Finn was selected in April by the new government to improve the Maldives’ international image, following widespread negative media coverage of February 7’s controversial transfer of power, at a reported cost of £93,000 per month (US$150,000).

Rumours in August that the contract had ended after six months were unconfirmed. Ruder Finn’s Senior Vice President and Ethics Officer Emmanuel Tchividjian at the time referred Minivan News to the government, “as we do not comment publicly on contracts that we have with our clients.”

In July, a small group of protesters gathered outside the PR firm’s London offices to mark Maldives Independence Day, including President Mohamed Waheed’s brother, Naushad Waheed Hassan.

The protest saw placards bearing slogans ‘Islamophobes and dictators’, ‘Ruder Finn: no client too toxic’ and ‘Gold medallists of spin: Ruder Finn’, according to PR Week.

Former International Spokesperson for the President’s Office, Paul Roberts, told Minivan News that a source inside Ruder Finn had revealed that the agency considered President Waheed “a lost cause from a PR point of view”.

“They said that the senior people in Ruder Finn worried that representing the Maldives government had damaged the company’s brand,” Roberts said.

Ruder Finn’s previous work includes the Philip Morris campaign disputing the health hazards of smoking, and publicising the release of the anti-Islamic film ‘Fitna’.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad confirmed that Ruder Finn had ceased working with the Maldivian government, but did not elaborate on the reason.

Journalist and climate activist Mark Lynas, formerly Nasheed’s climate advisor, has previously argued that the appointment of a such a large PR agency was counterproductive as it made journalists “doubly suspicious”.

The original request for proposals (RFP) document issued by the MMPRC on April 9 stated that the successful agency would be required to target stakeholders in the UK, USA, Commonwealth countries, “all relevant EU institutions”, academic institutions and NGOs, “arrange 1:1 meetings with influential and open minded potential champions”, and “arrange briefings to build links at various levels with the UK, US, Commonwealth and major European governments.”

The agency will “feed in academic arguments to those identified”, and “determine champions who are willing to speak publicly on Maldives”, in a bid to “Rally an alliance of support for the Maldives”.

Locally, the chosen company will be required to “assist with the roll out of policy and other announcements to media, parliamentarians,government, NGOs and others.”

Minivan News also sought clarification from Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) head Mohamed Maleeh Jamal, but he had not responded at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DQP, PPM MPs defend government spokesperson in debate over Friday’s diplomatic incident

Members of parliament have expressed concern over recent remarks against Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives, D M Mulay, by President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza.

MPs debated the matter on Tuesday after a motion submitted by MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed, condemning government’s failure to take action against the spokesperson’s remarks.

Following criticism from the High Commission and the Indian government, the President’s Office published a statement distancing the government from Riza’s remarks.

During a rally organised by parties of the ruling coalition calling for the seizure and nationalisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from Indian infrastructure giant GMR, Riza described Mulay as a “traitor and enemy of the Maldives and the Maldivian people”, accusing him of taking bribes and threatening the government.

During the debate, MPs of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) condemned the remarks claiming they were made against diplomatic protocol and could affect bilateral relations with India.

Presenting the motion, MP Rasheed highlighted that GMR operates airports in New Delhi, Hyderabad and in Turkey.  He added that Turkey also has a strong Muslim majority but the people there do not go out on to the streets calling to take back the airport in the name of protecting Islam.

Rasheed added that tourists would obviously see protesters hollering around the airport on boats, and that this could potentially harm foreign investment in the country.

He also added that after talking “nonsense” in front of the general public, a president’s spokesperson cannot later claim that he was expressing his “personal opinions”, and that a repeat of such actions could inflict irreparable damage to the economy.

“Act of terrorism”

Speaking on the motion, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP MP Ali Waheed described the anti-GMR armada as an “act of terrorism”.

“What we saw yesterday was an act of terrorism. If the government wishes to terminate the contract with GMR that was entered into during the former government, then do it, instead of nonsense like this,” Waheed said.

He further added that Spokesperson Riza had made a huge blunder by speaking “so lowly” of the high commissioner, and the best thing for him to do was apologise or resign from his position as spokesperson.

Deputy leader of the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP)  MP Abdulla Jabir echoed similar sentiments during the debate.

“What I saw was a group of terrorists who went to stop the businesses of this country and to take over those businesses in the international airport illegitimately. I condemn these actions and this is not something that should be repeated in this country ever again,” said Jabir.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that during the MDP’s three year democratic government, the country saw a large number of foreign investors investing in the Maldives because of the trust those investors had in the government.

He added that India alone had contributed nearly a billion dollars to the Maldivian economy, and that GMR was one of the many that came through a transparent international bidding process with the technical assistance of International Finance Corporation (IFC), a group under the World Bank.

He expressed concern that if similar blunders were seen from the government, the Maldives risked losing the investor confidence gained over the last three years.

Meanwhile, MDP MP Eva Abdulla alleged that the remarks made by Riza were not those of his own but were rather under “direct orders” from President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

“Indian government is involved in this conspiracy”: DQP MP Riyaz Rasheed

During the debate, the majority of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MPs attempted to defend Riza, and tried to switch the focus on to High Commissioner Mulay.

In an apparent contradiction to its comments in parliament, the PPM on November 12 issued a statement dissociating the the party from the “slanderous” allegations made against Mulay.

Deputy leader and the only MP from the government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), MP Riyaz Rasheed made strong allegations against the Indian government, repeating Riza’s allegations against Mulay.

“[Mulay] is trying to declare the airport a property of the Indian government or the GMR group, and it is a fact that the Indian government working on the agenda as well,” he claimed.

Riyaz alleged that GMR and the Indian government were “eyeing” the MPs who spoke against them and that if those MPs travelled to India, he had information that GMR was “intending to plant drugs in their baggage.”

He also said it was saddening to see that a High Commissioner from the world’s largest democracy could not digest remarks made by the spokesperson, and added that there was a great difference between speaking in an official capacity and in an individual capacity.

Meanwhile, PPM MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal Aboobakr defended Riza, stating that a person’s freedom cannot be limited because of his employment, and that Riza too had his freedom of speech.

Aboobakr also highlighted that Riza had at the beginning of Friday’s speech said that he was going to make the remarks not in his official capacity as the spokesperson, but in an individual capacity.

Another PPM MP, Ahmed Mahloof, said the current government of President Waheed had all the needed powers to terminate the GMR agreement.

“This is something that could be done even sitting inside a luxurious air-conditioned room. All President Waheed has to do is decide on the matter,” Mahloof said.

He added that it was unnecessary to make a fuss out of the issue, referring to the anti-GMR boat armada, and that those who really wanted to terminate the GMR contract should have protested in front of the president’s office.

He also admitted that he could be subjected to allegations of taking bribes from his fellow MPs after making a remark in favour of GMR.

During the debate, MPs from the second largest political party Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) followed the opposition MDP in condemning the remarks made by Riza.

DRP MP Ahmed Mohamed during the debate stated that he condemned the remarks made by Riza and Deputy Home Minister Ahmed ‘Boafan’ Abdulla during Friday’s rally.

“I call upon the government to settle this issue as soon as possible. I urge the government to finish the this issue before the political figures of this country begin to take advantage and politicise it,” he warned.

DRP MP Hussain Mohamed stated that the local party to the agreement was a 100 percent government owned company and therefore it was up to the government to make a decision.

Hussain Mohamed added that it was “utter nonsense” for political parties in government to come out and protest against the government.

Indian High Commissioner “traitor and enemy of the Maldives and the Maldivian people”: Riza

The debate stirred up in parliament followed remarks made by Riza during an anti-GMR rally held on Friday, calling the government to terminate the agreement with GMR – a 25-year concession agreement to develop and manage the airport, and overhaul the existing terminal while a new one is constructed on the other side of the island. The agreement represents the largest case of foreign investment in the Maldives.

“Trade between the Maldives and India reaches billions. Indian tycoons have the biggest share in Maldives tourism.  Indian people are deepest in Maldivian business.  We have to protect the businesses of those who import and sell potatoes and onions from India. We also have to protect the businesses of those who import gravel and sand from India. It should not be GMR that [Mulay] should take into account,” Riza declared during the rally.

“Today, like someone who has chilli smoke on his eyes, like someone who has ants at his feet who is threatening us Maldivians, the Indian ambassador here has forgotten what his job here in Maldives is. We are not in the mood to allow him to commit the crimes he is committing in our country,” he told as the crowd roared in support.

“A diplomat’s job is to work for his country and people and not to protect the interests of one private company… He is a traitor and enemy of Maldives and Maldivian people. We don’t want these kind of diplomats on our soil,

“Today we are also calling on for something else. On the day when we get GMR out of the Maldives, Mulay must also get out of here!” Riza said.

Riza’s comments were widely reported in Indian media.

Television channel Times Now described the “vicious targeting of the Indian envoy as leaving “a bitter taste”, and sparking a “huge diplomatic row”. The story had also been picked up by the Hindu and the Indian Express.

The remarks were quickly met with concern and condemnation by the Indian High Commission, which issued a statement dismissing the Presidential spokesperson’s allegations as being “against the diplomatic protocol”.

“We have told the government of Maldives that settling issues of huge mutual interest cannot be done on public space or on stage. This has to be done through discussion,” the High Commission said in a statement.

The Indian High Commission also made it clear that India would safeguard its interests including the investments of Indian companies.

Anti-GMR armada

On Monday afternoon, three days following Riza’s remarks, the anti-GMR campaign took to the seas in an effort to increase pressure on the government to “reclaim” INIA from the Indian infrastructure giant.

A seaborne armada of about 15 dhonis carrying flags and banners circled the airport as part of an ongoing campaign to annul the contract signed between the former government and GMR to manage and develop a new terminal at INIA.

Deputy Home Minister Abdulla told Haveeru that 50,000 people have signed the petition put together by a group of NGOs seeking to annul the agreement and nationalise the airport.

In response to the large number of boats circling the airport, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) increased its seaborne presence to counter the rally, using coastguard vessels to block the entrance to the airport harbour.

MNDF Colonel Abdul Raheem told Minivan News: We had no major concern yesterday, we did not increase our military presence at the airport itself, instead we wanted to make sure that no one [from the protest] could enter the airport area from the sea.”

Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla told Haveeru the protesters had no intention of disembarking at the airport and that the purpose of the rally was to “observe airport operations in the area”.

Last week Sheikh Imran gave the government a six-day ultimatum to annul the GMR agreement (by November 15).

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, whose government approved the deal in 2010, this month slammed statements over the “reclaiming” of the airport from GMR. Nasheed claimed such comments were “highly irresponsible”, stating that such words from the government could cause irreparable damage to the country.

The present government has continued to press to “re-nationalise” the airport, with the country’s Deputy Tourism Minister confirming to Indian media in September that the administration would not “rule out the possibility of cancelling the award [to GMR]”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)