Tag: acc

High Court denies ACC injunction as commission appeals Civil Court ruling on Nexbis

The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has appealed a ruling from the Civil Court blocking its order to halt the implementation of a border control system agreement between the Immigration department and Malaysian firm Nexbis.

The commission also called for an injunction on the installation of the system until the High Court case was resolved, however Judge Azmirelda Zahir said such a decision could only be taken after both sides had presented their cases. The ACC requested an injunction on the grounds that it would lose the possibility of appeal should the project be implemented before the conclusion of the High Court case.

The ACC in December forwarded corruption cases against former – and now reappointed – Immigration Controller Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim and Director General of the Finance Ministry, Saamee Ageel, to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG), alleging that the pair had abused their authority for undue financial gain in giving the US$39 million to Nexbis.

The ACC had earlier ordered a halt to the project following the signing of the contract in October 2010, announcing that it had received “a serious complaint” regarding “technical details” of the bid, and that the agreement presented “instances and opportunities” for corruption.

The 20-year Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) agreement with the Malaysian-based mobile security solutions provider was to upgrade border security in the Maldives with new technology including facial recognition and fingerprint identification, facilitating the identification and tracking of expatriate workers and eliminating the opportunity to people to enter the country with forged paper documents.

The agreement allows Nexbis to levy a fee of Rf30 (US$2) from arriving and departing passengers in exchange for installing, maintaining and upgrading its immigration system. The company would also charge a Rf231 (US$15) for every work permit card.

Immigration Controller under the later months of President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, Abdulla Shahid, contended that the agreement meant that Nexbis would draw US$200 million in revenue from the project over the life of the 20 year contract, while five percent royalties to the government would equate to US$10 million.

Speaking to Minivan News following the ACC’s initial injunction, Shahid claimed that the deal would deprive the government of significant revenues, when “border control is not something we are unable to comprehend – it is a normal thing all over the world.”

Shahid estimated that a free system given by a donor country would cost at most several hundred thousand dollars a year, and said he was unsure as to why such an agreement had ever been signed.

However, Nexbis said in a subsequent statement that its agreement meant that neither the government nor the Maldivian public would pay upfront for “state-of-the-art border security protection”, and suggested that “reasonable persons will likely realise that once the hidden costs after are taken into account and adjusted for inflation, the benefits and efficiencies of the Nexbis system will far outweigh the risk, inadequacies and uncertainties of any such alleged cheaper system.”

The Civil Court in January 2012 ruled that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) did not have the legal authority to order Immigration Department to terminate the agreement, with Judge Ali Rasheed ruling that while the ACC Act gave the commission the authority to investigate corruption cases, it was not able to annul contracts.

Judge Rasheed asserted that it was “unfair” to the contractors if ACC could annul an agreement without their input, as this violated their protections under Maldives Contract Law.

During the High Court hearing this week, the ACC charged that the State Attorney during the Civil Court case, Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham, had a conflict of interest as he had been a member of the tender board responsible for awarding the project to Nexbis. Usham disputed the charge.

The case continues.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC investigates awarding of state-owned apartments to judges

Judges occupying state-owned apartments while simultaneously receiving living allowances are currently under investigation following accusations that they are receiving unfair privileges, the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has confirmed.

“We have received complaints that some judges are living in government flats and taking living allowances. The complaint states that giving flats to only certain judges is giving them unjust privileges,” ACC Deputy Chair Muaviz Rasheed said.

Three judges are living in flats leased to the former Justice Ministry, including Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed, High Court Judge Ahmed Shareef and Civil Court Judge Abdullah Adheeb, according to local newspaper Haveeru.

Meanwhile, Haveeru also reported that the parliament’s Finance Committee has decided to grant the ownership of those flats to the judges and has forwarded the matter to the floor for a vote.

A Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP belonging to the finance committee confirmed the decision was taken in his absence during a committee meeting last month.

Minivan News could not get details of the decision at the time of press.

The finance committee is headed by MP Ahmed Nazim from the People’s Alliance (PA). the party headed by former President Gayoom’s half brother, Abdulla Yameen.  Multiple counts of fraud against Nazim were recently dismissed by the Criminal Court.

Asked whether the parliament committee can grant ownership of state property to judges, Muaviz responded that “I cannot comment on as it may affect the ongoing investigation.”

However, he added that parliament must follow the laws while deciding the salaries and privileges of independent institutions.

According to the Judges Act article 39(a) judges belonging to the same court shall be granted equal salaries and living allowances. Any discrimination in giving living allowances or benefits to judges is restricted under the same clause.

Under the state’s revised pay structure, judges of Superior courts receive Rf45,000, including a Rf30,000 basic salary and a Rf15,000 living allowance while island courts magistrates are paid Rf20,000, including a Rf16,000 basic salary and a Rf4,000 living allowance.

The Supreme Court Judges meanwhile receive a basic salary of Rf51,000 and a living allowance of Rf20 ,000 and the High Court Judges are paid Rf38,000 as basic salary and Rf15,000 as living allowance.

The revised pay structure endorsed by the parliament in 2010, raised the judiciary’s wages and allowances by 87 percent. According to the wage structure, Rf89 million (US$5.7 million) was included in the budget to cover the salaries and benefits for 244 judges in 2011, compared to the Rf 41 million (US$2.7 million) spent in the previous year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Coup investigation not within our mandate”: HRCM, PIC, PG, ACC, MMC

Investigation into the legality and legitimacy of the transfer of power on February 7 is not within Maldives’ independent state institutions’ mandate, the institutions have said.

Instead, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) will respectively investigate human rights violations and police conduct on February 7.

The Prosecutor General (PG) and the Maldives Media Council claim the two bodies do not have investigative authority, while the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) said no cases have been lodged with the commission regarding the transfer of power.

Following the Commonwealth and EU’s call for an impartial investigation into the alleged coup d’état, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan appointed a three member Committee of National Inquiry (CNI) to investigate the transfer of power. However, the commission has come under fire from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and civil society groups for unilateralism and lack of independence.

Moreover, the CNI has said it will not conduct a criminal investigation, but will publish a report based on members’ informed opinions in May. The commission’s mandate “specifically indicates that the inquiry will not be a criminal investigation. Any criminal investigation pertaining to the subject of the inquiry will remain the responsibility of the relevant authorities”.

But with the abdication of responsibility by independent state institutions, it now appears no independent commission in the Maldives will investigate the power transfer of February 7.

Ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) spokesperson Hamid Abdul Gafoor expressed “deep disappointment” and said institutions were “not extending themselves enough.”

“When the system breaks down, it is the responsibility of national mechanisms to deal with it. The democratic impulses driving these institutions are dying. This is why we are asking for external involvement and mediation in the inquiry,” he said.

President Mohamed Nasheed stepped down after elements of the police and military mutinied and called for his resignation. Video footage also show the police and military vandalising MDP’s offices and taking over state media Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) prior to Nasheed’s resignation.

Police cracked down on peaceful demonstrators in Malé the following day on February 8, leading to widespread arson and vandalism of courts, police stations and courts in the atolls.

HRCM

Speaking to Minivan News, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) said the commission will investigate human rights violations on February 6, 7, and 8, and release a comprehensive report by mid-April. However, the commission will not look into the transfer of power.

“We will not be looking into the transfer of power. The transfer of power is out of the commission’s mandate or the capacity in terms of numbers to investigate such a complex matter that involves so many institutions,” said commission member Ahmed Abdul Kareem.

“If HRCM gets involved in this inquiry, then we will not be able to investigate day-to-day cases,” he added.

He also said the best solution was for an impartial state inquiry with the representation of the Majlis and courts.

HRCM is currently investigating former President Mohamed Nasheed’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed. The former President, along with former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Defence Minister Tholath Ibrahim, were last week summoned for questioning by the commission.

In response Gafoor said, “If the HRCM does not understand a coup to be an infringement of an entire public’s human rights, they are not extending themselves at all.”

Police Integrity Commission

President of the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) Shahindha Ismail said the commission would only be investigating the legality of police actions before and after February 7.

“Although the question of a coup has been raised, the PIC does not have the mandate to investigate such a claim. We are investigating police actions before and after February 7—whether they were lawful or unlawful,” she said. The PIC can only address the question of police mutiny once investigations are complete, she added.

Further, the PIC can only investigate the police role, but not that of the military. “There is no oversight body of the military except for the parliament,” she said.

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz previously told local media the police would not be conducting an internal investigation of police conduct during transfer of power, citing concern of investigation “overlap” on the issue between the HRCM and the PIC.

Prosecutor General’s Office

Deputy PG Hussein Shameem said the Prosecutor General was not an investigative body, but could order an investigation if an investigation is not taking place.

“We have not ordered an investigation because we have been informed such an investigation is ongoing,” Shameem said referring to the CNI’s work.

Article 223 (d) of the constitution gives the PG the authority to oversee the legality of preliminary inquiries and investigations into alleged criminal activity. However, with the CNI stating it will not conduct a criminal investigation, the PG office’s role in the CNI inquiry is now unclear.

Maldives Media Council

Minivan News asked the Maldives Media Council (MMC) whether it was investigating the police and military takeover of the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) on February 7. Video footage shows some kind of firearm or explosive being used to enter the courtyard, and MNBC staff alleged the police and military intimidated them, and forced some journalists to go home before rebranding the station to its former title under Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The 15 member MMC is mandated by law to establish and preserve the freedom of media.

MMC President Mohamed Nazeef said the council was not an investigative body, and was waiting on other institutions to complete investigations.

“We are waiting since other institutions, such as the HRCM are investigating this matter. We do not want an overlap. We are not an investigative body and we cannot conduct an in-depth criminal investigation. We can only recommend matters of concern to the police. But if no one is investigating the issue, we will address it,” he said.

“MNBC was state media, controlled and protected by the government. Our concern and focus was more on the media personnel and private independent media organisations,” Nazeef added.

The Anti-Corruption Commission

The Anti-corruption Commission (ACC) said that although the MDP alleged elements of the police and the Maldives National Defense Forces (MNDF) were bribed to revolt against Nasheed, the commission could not investigate the entire military and police force.

“There are allegations that the police and military took bribes during the transfer of power. But there are approximately 5000 police officers. We cannot investigate the entire police force. We would need to conduct a forensic investigation, check their bank accounts and the bank accounts of relatives. But no one, even on a podium, has said with certainty the individual who took bribes. They say all police officers took bribes. I would like whoever is accusing the police to give us more details,” ACC President Hassan Luthfee said.

He also said there had only been two cases submitted regarding the transfer of power. One of them concerned a complaint that MDP demonstrators who laid money at police feet were actually bribing the police. The MDP were protesting against alleged police bribery.

The CNI

The CNI has now asked for witness statements and asked the public to upload statements and videos on their website if witnesses were uncomfortable giving statements in person.

The CNI has collected statements from all political parties except the MDP. But the MDP has refused to cooperate with the committee.

“We do not recognise the CNI. How can the people who instigated a coup investigate the coup? There is no validity in the process. How can we give any weight to it?” Gafoor told Minivan News.

The MDP has raised concerns over the committee’s composition. The CNI is chaired by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Defence Minister Ismail Shafeeu. The MDP has also called for strong international presence on the commission.

The EU, Commonwealth, India, UK and the US have called for an impartial investigation.

Dr Waheed Hassan told local television station Villa TV (VTV) he would resign and reinstate ousted President Nasheed if the CNI established the February 7 transfer of power to be illegitimate.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Anti-Corruption Commission releases annual report: state owed RF 91 million

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has revealed that the state is owed Rf91million based on the cases it has forwarded to the office of the Prosecutor General (PG).

In its yearly report the ACC revealed that only one of twenty-six cases sent to the PG’s office last year had been settled in court.

The ACC President Hassan Luthufy said that most cases received by the commission had been ‘petty corruption’ cases and would be put aside in order to focus on more serious allegations of graft such as that of government institutions, the People’s Majlis in particular.

“For the year 2012 we’re gearing more towards investigating serious corruption cases rather than such petty cases. I think it would give out an effective message to those who are inclined to commit serious acts of corruption,” Luthufy said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC forwards Disaster Management Centre corruption case for prosecution

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has sent a corruption case to the Prosecutor General’s Office concerning the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) and a housing project carried out on Gan in Laamu Atoll, following damage suffered in the 2004 tsunami.

The ACC entered the Disaster Management Centre with police escort in October last year during the investigation process. The case involves Rf 18.7 million (US$1.2 million) for 240 housing units.

The ACC asked the Prosecutor General’s office to prosecute the two deputy heads of DMC, and a senior official of the Ministry of Finance and Treasury.

The three parties facing corruption charges are Deputy Minister Ahmed Zaki, and Deputy Minister Adam Saeed – both deputy heads of DMC – and Deputy Director General of Ministry of Finance and Treasury, Ali Arif.

The commission said the investigation had determined that the invoice sent to the DMC from the party contracted to carry out the project was proven invalid.

The ACC stated that the amount in the invoice that was billed to DMC was prepared in 2007 and sent as a retention claim, but the commission had found during the investigation that such a claim could not be submitted.

“Since the retention claim was found invalid, the investigation finds that the claim had been processed in a manner that gave way for corruption,” the ACC stated.

The ACC stated that it has found that Deputy Ministers Saeed and Zaki had approved the payment voucher of Rf 18.7 million for the invoice, and that Zaki was “practically” involved in the process of ensuring that the money was delivered.

The accused Deputy Director General Arif was responsible for allocating the money which had not been budgeted, and had given budget control approval to ensure the money was delivered to the parties.

The ACC is charging the parties with embezzlement of state funds and would claim for the loss of Rf 18.7 million from the DMC.

The party that were contracted to carry out the project was identified as Movey Construction Company. The company was given the project during the government of Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom in 2006, which was completed in 2007.

In 2009, DMC delayed payments due to a financial shortage, and in January 2011, Movey Construction filed a complaint for their financial losses.

Zaki, speaking to Minivan News after the ACC had accompanied police and forensic experts to DMC during the investigation of the case, said that he had been puzzled by the delay and that all the paperwork had been completed.

Zaki also said at the time that he did not believe there was any reason to suspect corruption in the dealings between DMC and Movey Construction Company.

“This is just an accusation because payments were delayed. But the payments were made this May with sufficient documents from all parties. The financial system in the Maldives is very transparent, there are a lot of layers, checks and balances, so I am confident that there is no issue of corruption here,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC cannot terminate Nexbis agreement, court rules

The Civil Court has ruled that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) does not have the legal authority to order the Department of Immigration and Emigration to terminate the border control system contracted to Malaysia’s Nexbis Limited in November 2010.

ACC filed a court case against the Rf500 million (US$39 million) Nexbis system in November 2011, two days after cabinet decided to resume the project.

The cabinet’s decision contradicted ACC’s earlier command to terminate the existing agreement with Nexbis and re-tender the project with the cabinet’s consent.

In December, the ACC forwarded a corruption cases against former Immigraiton Controller Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim and Director General of Finance Ministry, Saamee Ageel to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG), claiming the pair had abused their authority for undue financial gain in awarding the Nexbis project.

However, in Sunday’s hearing Judge Ali Rasheed ruled that the ACC Act clearly allows the commission to investigate corruption cases, but does not give ACC legal authority to issue an order which can annul a formal agreement signed between one or more parties.

He asserted that it is “unfair” to the contractors if ACC can annul an agreement without the contractors’ say, adding that such a decision violates the protection granted to the contractors under the Maldives Law of Contract.

Following the court’s ruling, Immigration Controller Abdulla Shahid told Minivan News that the ruling is subjected to the ACC and it does not directly relate to the department.

He noted that it is too soon to say how the department will proceed with the project.

“We have not even received the documents. We will look into the matter legally,” Shahid said, adding that the court’s decision does not does indicate whether the agreement with Nexbis is “good”.

The 20-year Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) agreement with the Malaysian-based mobile security solutions provider was to upgrade border security in the Maldives with new technology including facial recognition and fingerprint identification, facilitating the identification and tracking of expatriate workers and eliminating the opportunity to people to enter the country with forged paper documents.

The Maldives currently receives three times its population of 350,000 in tourist arrivals each year. It has lately begun addressing a rise in human trafficking.

The day after the October 2010 signing of the concessionaire contract, ACC announced it had received “a serious complaint” regarding “technical details” of the bid, and issued an injunction pending an investigation into the agreement citing “instances and opportunities” where corruption may have occurred.

After the investigation, the commission deemed the procedure of awarding the project to Nexbis was corrupt, and ordered the Immigration department to terminate the project.

Nexbis shares immediately plunged 6.3 percent on the back of the ACC’s announcement. The company subsequently issued a statement claiming that speculation over corruption was “politically motivated” and had “wrought irreparable damage to Nexbis’ reputation and brand name.”

“Nexbis’ shareholders own and manage multi-trillion dollar assets globally and will not jeopardise their reputation for an investment return,” the company said at the time.

Claiming financial loss Nexbis subsequently threatened legal action over the stalled border agreement, prompting the cabinet to resume the project after reviewing the existing agreement with Nexbis to address the concerns raised by the department.

In earlier interviews with Minivan News, Shahid had expressed concern over both the cost and necessity of the project, calculating that as tourist arrivals continue to grow Nexbis would earn US$200 million in revenue over the project’s 20-year lifespan.

Comparatively, at five percent royalties to the government would come to US$10 million, Shahid said, when there was little reason for the government not be earning the revenue itself by operating a system given by a donor country.

“Border control is not something we are unable to comprehend – it is a normal thing all over the world,” Shahid told Minivan News at the time.“There is no stated cost of the equipment Nexbis is installing – we don’t know how much it is costing to install, only how much we have to pay. We need to get everything out in the open.”

The agreement allows Nexbis to levy a fee of Rf30 (US$2) from arriving and departing passengers in exchange for installing, maintaining and upgrading its immigration system. The company would also charge a Rf231 (US$15) for every work permit card.

Shahid estimates that maintaining a free system given by a donor country would cost at most several hundred thousand dollars a year, and said he was unsure as to why such an agreement had ever been signed.

However, Nexbis said in a statement that neither the government nor the Maldivian public have to pay in exchange for a state-of-the-art border security protection and suggested that “reasonable persons will likely realise that once the hidden costs after are taken into account and adjusted for inflation, the benefits and efficiencies of the Nexbis system will far outweigh the risk, inadequacies and uncertainties of any such alleged cheaper system.”

Nexbis also said it had agreed to review the government’s additional requirements, “and have expressed our willingness to accommodate any such changes within commercially viable terms.”

“While this requires some changes to the solution we ultimately provide, it is within the scope of our agreement to accommodate these changes,” the company said.

Meanwhile, yesterday’s court’s ruling set a precedent on the question raised by some legal experts on whether ACC has the authority to halt or terminate a government project agreement.

Civil court is hearing a similar case against the ACC by Thilafushi Corporation Limited (TCL), which contested the legality of ACC’s decision to halt the US$21 million reclamation project awarded to Heavy Load Maldives, owned by MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik, on suspicion of corruption.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court ends hearing on Thilafushi reclamation case

The Civil Court has concluded hearings over the Thilafushi development project, which was awarded to Heavy Load Maldives by Thilafushi Corporation Limited (TCL).

Heavy Load is owned by ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik.

The ACC had previously noted the US$21 million project was not awarded with the advice of the TCL board and was in violation of the government-owned company’s operating procedures.

TCL’s lawyer Mazlan Rasheed claimed that the ACC had ordered TCL to stop the project without carrying out any investigation, Haveeru reports.

Rasheed further claimed that the ACC violated legal requirements by not issuing a formal report.

ACC’s lawyer and the former attorney general Aishath Azima Shakoor countered that TCL disobeyed the ACC’s order and continued with the project.

Shakoor added that the ACC had issued its order after finding evidence that TCL had violated the law in 10 separate counts when awarding the project to Heavy Load, therefore the ACC had been within its rights to issue the order.

Judge Abdulla Ali presided over the case. The final verdict will be released during the next court session, reports Haveeru.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC files against Home Ministry over office partitions

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) filed a corruption case with the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office on Tuesday against certain members of the Home Ministry’s Tender Evaluation Board.

The case accuses members of engaging in “unlawful practices” while evaluating bids to set up partitions in the ministry’s office, located on the tenth floor of the Velaanage office complex.

The case accuses State Home Minister Mohamed Mahir Easa, Maimoona Ahmed of Henveiru Mahaasa, Hamid Yousuf of Zeelithan/Raa atoll Hulhudhuffaru, Ahmed Shareef Nafees of Dhaftharu 1119, Ahmed Ishaq of Galolhu Cherry, Hussein Rasheed Yousuf of Dhaftharu 2065 and Mohamed Adam of Machangoalhi Maanika, Haveeru reports.

According to the ACC, marks were given for experience not conforming with the criteria stated in the information leaflet for setting up partitions, Haveeru reports.

The case has been filed under Article 12(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC investigates Ministry of Human Resources over recruitment agency licenses

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has launched an investigation into the Ministry of Human Resources’ decision to license certain recruitment agencies which are blacklisted.

ACC Commissioner Hassan Luthfee said the case involved reissuing recruitment licenses to blacklisted agencies but did not provide further details, Haveeru reports.

Agency licenses were revoked when the agencies illegally recruited expatriate workers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)