State guarantee for GMR to obtain bank loans had no limits: Attorney General

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor has claimed that a loan guarantee provided by the former government to infrastructure group GMR would have allowed the company to obtain finance without limitation.

According to local media, the attorney general has alleged that such a loan agreement would have contravened the country’s financial regulations unless approved by parliament at the time.

However, her claims have been dismissed by former Attorney General Ahmed Ali Sawad, who claimed that the agreement was conducted within state laws.  Sawad helped oversee the agreement between GMR and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government back in 2010.

GMR’s concession agreement was terminated by the Maldives government  late last month after it decided – citing legal advice – that the sovereign contract was invalid from the outset.

Speaking to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee yesterday (December 19), Shukoor revealed that the Maldivian state had agreed under the cancelled contract to act as a guarantor for all loans obtained by GMR under its agreement to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

According to the attorney general, this provision had been approved despite not being part of any senior finance agreement.

Shukoor added that under the primary agreement between the state-owned Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and GMR, should MACL fail to make any repayments, the Maldivian state would have to cover any resulting costs.

“[The state] is not part of the senior agreement, thus to act as guarantor for loans obtained by another group – whether this was done with approval or not – would be to give a ‘blanket’ guarantee. I don’t think this can be permitted. I don’t believe that even the Public Accounts Committee would do that,” local media reported Shukoor as saying.

The agreement, which states that the Maldivian government is responsible for all loans obtained by GMR, was made with the approval of former Attorney General Sawad, Shukoor said.

According to Shukoor, Sawad had permitted the agreement in writing, concluding at the time that the deal would not result in any legal problems.

She also claimed that approving the agreement without parliament’s approval was in violation of the Finance Act.

“Financial guarantees given by the state should have limits. We are signing an agreement allowing future groups to obtain as much money as they want under our guarantee – I don’t believe that this is a valid legal concept,” Shukoor was reported to have said.

Responding to Shukoor’s comments, Sawad today told Minivan News that he “did not believe” there had been a violation of any law whilst he held the position of attorney general.

“I deny her claims, although I’m not actually sure what her claim is. I don’t think she knows what her claim is,” he said.

“She [Shukoor] needs to figure out if it was a guarantee or not a guarantee, because in the meeting she said that it ‘was a guarantee’ and then said that it was like a guarantee’.  Regardless of whether or not it was a guarantee, the whole thing is irrelevant as she has stated the GMR contract is void ab initio (invalid from the outset),” Sawad claimed.

GMR’s tender agreement to develop INIA was overseen at the time by legal and financial experts including the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a World Bank entity.  The deal also obtained the certified approval of former Attorney General Sawad.

Attorney General Shukoor was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Speaking to the committee yesterday, local media reported Shukoor as stating that Singapore’s Axis bank had permitted GMR to obtain loans worth $386 million, of which GMR had taken $165 million. Shukoor highlighted that should GMR fail to repay this loan, then the government would have been required to meet any resulting costs.

She stated that if the government found itself unable to pay back these loans, the image of the state will be damaged, leading to potential implications for securing future finance.

“When we think about taking legal action in relation to this matter, we see that the head state prosecutor has advised that signing that agreement should not cause any legal problems. So it becomes something the state has to honour,” she added.

Despite the former Attorney General approving the agreement, Shukoor stated that government has a strong legal argument over the loan issue, whereby under the Public Finance Act, the government cannot act as a guarantor without the parliament’s approval, which was allegedly not obtained.

“The State is acting as the guarantor to the loans taken based on the transactions between GMR and Axis Bank. I believe that is not something permitted under the Finance Act. It is like a blanket sovereign guarantee. We may not be able to classify it as a sovereign guarantee. But we are seeing an assurance given by the State,” Shukoor was quoted as saying by local newspaper Haveeru.

GMR bid qualification

Meanwhile, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of GMR Airports Sidharath Kapur today rejected comments made by President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad in Indian media alleging that the company did not originally qualify as a bidder to develop INIA in a technical evaluation process.

Masood was quoted in the Business Today publication as claiming that the technical evaluation committee during the bidding process acted under pressure from former President Mohamed Nasheed, who then qualified the GMR Group for the project.

In response, Kapur said that the company had won the project in an “open and transparent” bidding process, stating that GMR had qualified in the technical, financial and legal evaluations.

Kapur noted that the bidding process was supervised by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and that the IFC had successfully handled such public-private partnerships in the airport sector in many countries.

“While other bidders opted for the ‘earn and pay’ route, the GMR consortium adopted a ‘pay and earn’ strategy, and hence paid $78 million up front to the Government of Maldives,” he added.

Kapur also attacked the present government’s handling of the GMR issue, alleging that the resulting arbitration case to decide on compensation owed to the company from the contract cancellation could have serious financial ramifications for the nation.

“Compensation believed owed to GMR due to the illegitimate cancellation of the contract by the government of Maldives may put a significant and avoidable financial burden on the people of Maldives,” he stressed to Business Today.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government considering seeking compensation from GMR: Attorney General Azima Shukoor

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor has said the Maldives government could opt to seek compensation from infrastructure group GMR after it decided to void the India-based company’s concession agreement to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), according to local media.

GMR last week confirmed that it was seeking an estimated US$800 million in compensation in order to recover what it has claimed are investment and earnings after the government “wrongfully” terminated its contract.

In a press conference held yesterday (December 17), the attorney general maintained the government’s belief that the agreement with GMR to develop INIA was illegal.  She added that the government therefore intended to seek compensation for damages it “might” have incurred during the process of entering into the contract with GMR, local newspaper Haveeru reported.  The contract was signed during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Highlighting the pending arbitration process in Singapore Court between the government and GMR, Shukoor said that efforts were being made to appoint arbitrators for the hearings. She added that the government and Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) had appointed a “member” of Singapore National University as their arbitrator.

Similarly, GMR will also be given a 30-day period to appoint an arbitrator on its behalf.

Shukoor suggested during the yesterday’s press conference that it may take a period of one year until the due procedures were completed before a decision was made in the courts.

“It will take about two months time to appoint the panel to overhear the arbitration case. After that, parties will exchange documents and affidavits and respond to it and only after that a proper hearing on the matter will be held and might take up a period of one year,” she suggested.

Indian media reported last week that GMR had sent a letter to the Finance Ministry stating that it would seek compensation worth US$800 million.  Shukoor denied such a communication had been sent, adding that she did not believe such a demand could even be made.

“We terminated the agreement on the grounds of void ab initio (void from the outset) , therefore we will begin the negotiation on the position that the government of Maldives do not require to pay back anything,” Shukoor explained.

However, she admitted that owing to the size of GMR’s investment, there remained a possibility that government might have to pay some amount that would be determined through the arbitration process.

“Even if we do require paying back as compensation, it would be based on the decisions reached during the arbitration process. If it is settled out of court, then it would be based on legal arguments raised by the parties to the contract,” she added.

Shukoor has also claimed that even before INIA was handed over to GMR, no asset valuation was carried out – a decision expected to cause problems for the government. She also said that it has not been yet decided how the asset valuation would be carried out or how the amount that the government might seek in compensation from GMR would be calculated.

Even with the arbitration process now proceeding, Shukoor told local media that if the government believed additional compensation was required, it would seek the additional amount through the same courts.

“A lot of work is being carried at the moment. However, we have not yet calculated the amount we might have to pay or the amount that had been invested and even the amount we expect to seek,” she explained.

GMR demands US$800 million in compensation

GMR is seeking US$800 million in compensation following the termination of its US$511 million concession agreement signed under the former government back in 2010.

The Indian infrastructure giant has said that the proposed US$800 million claim was based on its “provisional estimates” and that the company had also taken into account the Maldives’ ability to cover such payments if compensation was awarded by the Singaporean courts overseeing arbitration.

GMR’s chief Financial Officer (CFO) Sidharath Kapur previously told Minivan News that the sum was a “preliminary estimate” based on a number of factors including investments made by the company, debt equity and loss of profits as a result of the contract termination.

He also added that on last Tuesday (December 11) the company had communicated with Maldives Ministry of Finance by sending an official letter outlining its concerns that the contract had been “wrongfully” terminated without respect for the agreed procedures.

Meanwhile according to Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad, no mechanism is currently budgeted should the Maldives face a multi-million US dollar bill for evicting GMR, but stressed it was not for the company to decide on any eventual payment.

He also played down fears that any potential fine could prove perilous for the country’s economy, as well as attempts to reduce the spiralling budget deficit, stating that any possible fines would be set by the Singaporean arbitration court hearing the dispute.

“We will deal with the matter when we know the amount of compensation to be paid,” he said at the time. “GMR cannot decide, it will be down to the court [hearing the arbitration].”

The INIA concession agreement

In 2010, the government of Maldives through its Finance Ministry, MACL and GMR-MAHB entered into a concession agreement with INIA whereby the Malaysian-Indian consortium were to develop and operate the airport for a period of 25 years.

According to the concession agreement a “project company” under the name GMR International Airport Limited (GMIAL) was to carry out the development project.

However, a lengthy dispute between the new government of President Dr  Mohamed Waheed Hassan and the GMR Group led to the eviction of the agreement.

On November 27, President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet declared the agreement void, and gave the company a seven day ultimatum to leave the country.

Shukoor at the time stated the government reached the decision after considering “technical, financial and economic” issues surrounding the agreement.

She also claimed the government had obtained legal advice from “lawyers in both the UK and Singapore as well as prominent local lawyers – all who are in favour of the government’s legal grounds to terminate the contract.”

The INIA was handed over to the government on December 8, in an invitation-only press conference; Finance Minister Jihad presented the official handover documents to MACL Managing Director Mohamed Ibrahim, and said that the Maldives would pay whatever compensation was required “however difficult”.

With arbitration proceedings underway in Singapore over the contested airport development charge (ADC), GMR received a stay order on its eviction and appeared confident of its legal position even as the government declared that it would disregard the ruling and proceed with the eviction as planned.

On December 6, a day prior to its eviction, the government successfully appealed the injunction in the Supreme Court of Singapore. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon declared that “the Maldives government has the power to do what it wants, including expropriating the airport.”

That verdict, effectively legalising the sovereign eviction of foreign investors regardless of contractual termination clauses or pending arbitration proceedings, was “completely unexpected”, according to one GMR insider – “the lawyers are still in shock”, he said at the time.

A last ditch request for a review of the decision was rejected, as was a second attempt at an injunction filed by Axis Bank, GMR’s lender to the value of US$350 million.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Auditor General, ACC Chair dismiss Attorney General’s delay allegations over GMR issue

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim and Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Chair Hassan Luthfy have dismissed claims by Attorney General Azima Shukoor last week that the government was awaiting completion of investigations by the independent institutions before making a decision on annulling the concession agreement with Indian infrastructure giant GMR, to develop and operate the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

“I would like to point out that the Anti-Corruption Commission still hasn’t finished the complete investigation into the GMR matter. This also presents difficulties for us,” Azima said at a press conference last week.

“I have met with the heads of ACC and Auditor General two, three times. I can’t say anything about the investigations. But I haven’t heard back anything after I shared the information I had available with them.”

However, ACC Chair Hassan Luthfy told newspaper Haveeru yesterday that he did not believe that the government was awaiting the completion of the ACC investigation to take action.

Luthfy said that the government had failed to take action on corruption cases investigated by the ACC and forwarded for prosecution.

“Hence in reality this is blaming someone else while failing to undertake their own responsibilities. I do not think that a party [government] who cannot take action over our previous findings on inquiries can take action in this [GMR] case,” Luthfy was quoted as saying.

Luthfy told Minivan News in September that the investigation could “take some time.”

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim meanwhile told state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) yesterday that he “could not accept” the Attorney General’s claim.

“If the government believes the agreement should be annulled, the government has the discretion or powers to do so,” he said. “The work of the Auditor General’s Office is not part of the government’s decision-making process. If the government made decisions based on what the Auditor General’s Office says, that would compromise the independence of the Auditor General’s Office.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Riyaz Rasheed threatens to sue Finance Minister, Attorney General over state benefits to former President Nasheed

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed threatened to sue Finance Abdulla Jihad and Attorney General Azima Shukoor at parliament today for providing state benefits to former President Mohamed Nasheed under the Privileges and Protection for former President’s Act of 2009.

Riyaz’s remarks came during introduction of a bill the MP for Thaa Atoll Vilufushi has submitted to bring amendments to the 2009 law, specifying circumstances where the financial benefits could be denied to ex-Presidents.

Riyaz contended that former President Nasheed was not eligible for financial benefits under the law as he had not completed a full five-year term.

While the government had initially questioned Nasheed’s eligibility, the Finance Ministry began providing the financial benefits to the former President in May 2012.

“Even though the Finance Minister is doing it [releasing the funds] based on legal advice from the Attorney General, they have to answer for this,” Riyaz said today. “There will come a day when these two will face a lawsuit over this. We are waiting for the day when this government ends. We will sue the Attorney General and Finance Minister on that day.”

He however added that it was “not easy to proceed with this now” as the DQP was part of the ruling coalition.

Riyaz’s amendments meanwhile state that ex-Presidents would not be eligible for state benefits if they committed or participated in an unlawful act or encouraged such an act.

Moreover, former Presidents would be deprived of all privileges and protection if they commit or encourage an act that threatens the country’s independence; commit an act that leads to the loss of Maldivian territory; commit or encourage an act of terrorism, join a terrorist organisation or call for others to join such a group; and commit, encourage or call for “an act that could pulverize the country’s economy”.

If a former president is convicted of corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds during his or her tenure, Riyaz’s amendments state that he or she would be deprived of state benefits for a period of 10 years.

If the amount embezzled or misappropriated exceeds MVR 10,000 (US$650) the amendment proposes extending the period by one month for each additional MVR 1,000 (US$65).

In addition, if a former president is convicted of a criminal offence committed while in office, state benefits would be discontinued for a period of 10 years.

If a former president is convicted of a criminal offence committed after leaving office, he or she would be deprived of state benefits for five years.

During today’s debate, MPs of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) claimed that the purpose of Riyaz’s amendments was to terminate state benefits to former President Nasheed, accusing him of personally targeting the MDP presidential candidate.

Government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Alhan Fahmy – former vice president of MDP before defecting to the JP – agreed with his former colleagues that the bill was “politically motivated” and submitted “out of personal animosity.”

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ilham Ahmed however supported the amendments and suggested that Nasheed should not receive state benefits based on the former President’s disrespect of courts, alleged sale of national assets and call for a tourism boycott.

Meanwhile, the office of former President Nasheed last week accused the government of “negligence” in providing the legally mandated monthly allowance to cover expenses of the office.

In a press release on Thursday, the former president’s office noted that article 8 of the Privileges and Protection for Former President’s Act (Dhivehi) states, “In the event that a former president wishes to conduct social work beneficial to the community, the state shall provide up to MVR175,000 (US$11,350) a month to arrange for an office, employees and other matters.”

Article 128 of the constitution states that a former president “serving his term of office lawfully without committing any offence, shall be entitled to the highest honour dignity, protection, financial privileges and other privileges entitled to a person who has served in the highest office of the land.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

IFC responds to government’s allegations of negligence in airport bid

Additional reporting by Neil Merrett

A spokesperson for the International Finance Corporation (IFC) has defended the organisation against charges of negligence during the bidding process for the development of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

In a press conference last Thursday held by the Attorney General  Azima Shukoor, Economic Development Minister Ahmed Mohamed, Toursim Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Civil Aviations Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed, it was alleged there were discrepancies in the bid awarding and concession process.

The cabinet members claimed that the IFC had been “irresponsible” and “negligent” in advising the former government of President Mohamed Nasheed in the concession of INIA by Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

“The current government believes that the IFC had not given the most appropriate legal, financial and economic advice to the Maldivian State,” Azima Shukoor said.

The IFC denied the accusations, stating that its advice was geared towards achieving the “objective of upgrading the airport and ensuring compliance with applicable international regulations” and providing the Maldives government “with the maximum possible revenue”.

“A competitive tender was organised with the objective of selecting a world-class, experienced airport operator, who would rehabilitate, develop, operate and maintain the airport,” said an IFC spoksperson.

The IFC – a member of the World Bank Group – was established in 1956 to stimulate private investment in developing countries through investment, advisory, and asset management services.

The spokesperson stated that the bids were evaluated by a government appointed committee, comprising senior government officials, using two key criteria.

The first criterion required firms to meet all the technical requirements set out in the tender documents which, Seth stated, were designed to meet the objectives of the government, and ensure the airport becomes a world class airport with ‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’ certification (Silver).

The second criterion was financial, favouring the highest offer from firms that passed the technical stage. The financial criterion was a combination of a one-time up-front fee, and fixed and variable fees to be paid throughout, explained the spokesperson.

“The IFC’s advice complied with Maldivian laws and regulations and followed international best practices at each step of the bidding process to ensure the highest degree of competitiveness, transparency and credibility of the process,” the organisation stated.

“These processes have been followed globally in several Public-Private-Partnership projects in the airport and other infrastructure sectors,” it added.

Asked if the IFC was currently continuing assistance to GMR or the Maldivian government, it replied “We are currently not working in any capacity with the authorities on this project. We however remain available to address any issues or concerns that the government may have relating to the project.”

A GMR Spokesperson said that the company did not wish to comment on the remarks made by government ministers.

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), which is currently investigating the GMR deal, said last week that continued work on the project may be delayed considerably whilst the investigations are completed.

ACC investigations began in June, although building work on the new terminal – due to open in July 2014 – was ordered to halt in early August after the government claimed that the company had not acquired the appropriate permits.

Government’s critique of bidding process

During Thursday’s press conference, Shukoor claimed that the role played by the IFC during the bid awarding process – as well as the technical, financial and legal advice given – was unacceptable and included “major inconsistencies” in the “loss-benefit assessment” carried out before awarding the project to GMR.

“The legal agreement also lacks equity between the state and GMR, and gives significant powers which have narrowed the government’s ability to manoeuvre within the agreement. For this reason, the state is facing a huge loss even in taking steps that have to be taken immediately,” she added.

Speaking about the prospective profit, Shukoor claimed the agreement made between GMR and the government would lose the country more than that it would earn, and a much more cost effective master plan had been made during the tenure of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

She said that as long as the agreement between GMR and the government is not invalidated, the agreement would be “legally binding” despite a “majority of the people” who wish to “terminate the agreement immediately”.

“The government must also consider how much money has to be paid back as compensation if terminating the agreement, and it is clear to all of you that the Maldives financial and economic situation is at a critical level, and in this situation it is not an easy thing to do,” she told the press.

Shukoor also expressed the government’s concern about the effect on investor confidence that may result if the agreement is terminated in addition to other “diplomatic issues” that may arise from such a decision.

The Economic Minister, Ahmed Mohamed, claimed that the Nasheed government had only considered the lump sum that it received as the upfront payment, rather than long term benefits that the government could have achieved.

“They awarded the bid to a party who proposed to pay US$76million, but if you look at the other bidders, their bids were more profitable in the long run. For example one of the bidders proposed to give a 31 percent share to all the businesses except that from oil trades until 2014, but GMR proposed only one percent,” he claimed.

He added that another bidder had proposed to share 16 percent of the profits gained from the oil trades with the government.

“It is clear that the government did not consider, when awarding the bid, the long term benefits of the people but rather an instant short term profit,” he argued.

Highlighting the already much disputed issue of the Airport Development Charge (ADC), Mohamed claimed the government had given up a lot of power to GMR in the contract, allowing them to dictate all the fees during the concession.

He stated that there were only two options left for the government: “Either find a solution within the concession agreement with GMR or terminate it.”

Civil Aviation Minister Dr Shamheed said the initial INIA master plan, made by British consultancy firm Scott Wilson, was considered too costly by the IFC.

“So we checked the truth of IFC’s report. The master plan by Scott Wilson is a phase based development. There were developments that were to be brought in the first phase, the second and other phases that followed were mentioned very much in detail,” he claimed.

Shamheed claimed that despite the fact that Wilson’s master plan was more cost effective the IFC made a new master plan, hiring another foreign Consultancy firm – Halcrow- which Dr Shamheed claimed was more costly.

“Scott Wilson’s phase one cost us US$390 million, and all the three phases summed up came to a figure around US$590 million. IFC did not provide this information to the government. We are talking about a development of 30 years,” he said.

Shamheed also alleged that the new master plan was made without even testing the status of the current runway at all and said they relied on a test that was made a long time ago.

“Even those tests showed that the runway needed significant repairs and some parts of the runway had to be removed,” he added.

“This is very irresponsible that the former government entered into a contract with a party who did not assess the situation of the existing runway,” he claimed.

Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb alleged that because of the new fees implemented by GMR following its take-over, the flight frequency from Europe had declined.

“Coming to Maldives is no longer feasible for most of the chartered flights.  Sri Lankan airlines’ Male to London direct flights have been pulled out following the decision. Even though the flight frequency from China has increased, the number of bed nights has declined,” Adheeb said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill for Nasheed govt’s investigation of STO-Burma oil trade US$10 million: AG

Attorney General Azima Shakoor yesterday revealed to local media that the government has to pay US$ 10 million (MVR 154.2 million) to forensic accounting firm Grant Thornton following the firm’s investigation of the State Trading Organisation (STO)’s international illegal oil trade allegedly worth up to US$800 million.

In a press conference following reports that President Mohamed Waheed’s government spent £75,000 (MVR 1.81 million) on advice from former UK Attorney General Baroness Patricia Scotland, Shakoor announced that the government had received invoices for US$10 million from Grant Thorton.

However former Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed told Minivan News that the US$10 million was a ‘penalty’ fee that was only to be charged if the investigation was stopped.

“Grant Thorton was working on a contingency basis. Besides hard costs such as flights the investigation itself was free, and we only had to pay a percentage of the assets recovered. However if the government stopped the investigation – say if it made a political deal – then Grant Thorton would impose a penalty,” Dr Shaheed explained.

“As of February, Grant Thorton were ready with a criminal complaint, having obtained a number of documents relating to financial dealings from Singapore banks through court orders issued by Singapore courts. The documents revealed at least US$140 million defrauded between 2002-2004. There would of course be no penalty if the government suspended the investigation due to lack of evidence or progress,” Dr Shaheed said.

Following the controversial transfer of power on February 7 2012 that saw the ousting of President Nasheed’s government, the case fell silent – despite the matter having been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s office a week earlier.

Nasheed’s Presidential Commission on corruption, which had been charged with investigating the STO case and of which Dr Shaheed was appointed a member, was disbanded – one of incoming President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s first acts in power.

Burma oil trade expose

The oil trade first came into the limelight following an explosive article in India’s The Week magazine by Sumon K Chakrabarti, Chief National Correspondent of CNN-IBN, which accused former STO head Abdulla Yameen – Gayoom’s half-brother – of being “the kingpin” of a scheme to buy subsidised oil through the State Trading Organisation’s branch in Singapore and sell it on through an entity called ‘Mocom Trading’ to the Burmese military junta, at a black market premium.

“The Maldives receives subsidised oil from OPEC nations, thanks to its 100 percent Sunni Muslim population. The Gayooms bought oil, saying it was for the Maldives, and sold it to Myanmar on the international black market. As Myanmar is facing international sanctions, the junta secretly sold the Burmese and ‘Maldivian’ oil to certain Asian countries, including a wannabe superpower,” alleged Chakrabarti.

“Sources in the Singapore Police said their investigation has confirmed ‘shipping fraud through the diversion of chartered vessels where oil cargo intended for the Maldives was sold on the black market creating a super profit for many years,’” the report added.

Quoting an unnamed Maldivian cabinet Minister, The Week stated that: “what is becoming clear is that oil tankers regularly left Singapore for the Maldives, but never arrived here.”

The article drew heavily on the investigation report by Grant Thorton, commissioned by the Maldives government in March 2010, which obtained three hard drives containing financial information detailing transactions from 2002 to 2008. No digital data was available before 2002, and the paper trail “was hazy”.

According to The Week, Grant Thorton’s report identifies Myanmar businessman and head of the Kanbawza Bank and Kanbawza Football Club, Aung Ko Win, as the middleman acting between the Maldivian connection and Vice-Senior General Maung Aye, the second highest-ranking member of the Burmese junta – one of the world’s most oppressive regimes.

Operation

According to The Week article, the engine of the operation was the Singaporean branch of the government-owned State Trading Organisation (STO), of which Yameen was the board chairman until 2005.

Fuel was purchased by STO Singapore from companies including Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd, Singapore Petroleum Company and Petronas, and sold mostly to the STO (for Maldivian consumption) and Myanmar, “except in 2002, when the bulk of the revenue came from Malaysia.”

The “first red flag” appeared in an audit report on the STO by KPMG, one of the four major international auditing firms which took over the STO’s audits in 2004 from Price WaterhouseCoopers.

The firm noted: “A company incorporated in Singapore by the name of Mocom Trading Pte Ltd in 2004 has not been discluded under Note No. 30 to the Financial Statements. There was no evidence available with regard to approval of the incorporation. Further, we are unable to establish the volume and the nature of the company with the group.”

In a subsequent report, KMPG noted: “The name of the company has been struck off on 20th April 2006.”

Investigators learned that Mocom Trading was set up in February 2004 as a joint venture between STO Singapore and a Malaysian company called ‘Mocom Corporation Sdn Bhd’, with the purpose of selling oil to Myanmar and an authorised capital of US$1 million.

According to The Week, the company had four shareholders: Kamal Bin Rashid, a Burmese national, two Maldivians: Fathimath Ashan and Sana Mansoor, and a Malaysian man named Raja Abdul Rashid Bin Raja Badiozaman. Badiozaman was the Chief of Intelligence for the Malaysian armed forces for seven years and a 34 year veteran of the military, prior to his retirement in 1995 at the rank of Lieutenant General.

As well as the four shareholders, former Managing Director of STO Singapore Ahmed Muneez served as director. The Week reported that Muneez informed investigators that Mocom Corportation was one of four companies with a tender to sell oil to the Burmese junta, alongside Daewoo, Petrocom Energy and Hyundai.

Under the contract, wrote The Week, “STO Singapore was to supply Mocom Trading with diesel. But since Mocom Corporation held the original contact, the company was entitled to commission of nearly 40 percent of the profits.”

That commission was to be deposited in an United Overseas Bank account in Singapore, “a US dollar account held solely by Rashid. So, the books would show that the commission was being paid to Mocom, but Rashid would pocket it.”

In a second example cited by The Week, investigators discovered that “STO Singapore and Mocom Trading duplicated sales invoices to Myanmar. The invoices showed the number of barrels delivered and the unit price. Both sets of invoices were identical, except for the price per barrel. The unit price on the STO Singapore invoices was US$5 more than the unit price of the Mocom Trading invoice. This was done to confuse auditors.”

As a result, “the sum total of all Mocom Trading invoices to Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprises was US$45,751,423, while the sum total of the invoices raised by STO Singapore was US$51,423,523 – a difference of US$5,672,100.”

Furthermore, “investigators found instances where bills of lading (indicating receipt of consignment) were unsigned by the ship’s master.”

Money from the Maldives

Despite his officially stepping down from the STO in 2005, The Week referenced the report as saying that debit notes in Singapore “show payments made on account of Yameen in 2007 and 2008.”

Citing the report directly, The Week wrote: “The debit notes were created as a result of receiving funds from Mr Yameen deposited at the STO head office, which were then transferred to STO Singapore’s bank accounts. This corresponded with a document received from STO head office confirming the payments were deposited by Yameen into STO’s bank accounts via cheque.

The Week claimed that Yameen was aided by Muneez on the STO Singapore side, and by Mohamed Hussain Maniku, former STO managing director, on the Maldivian end until 2008.

“In conversation with Mr Muneez, this was to provide monies for the living expenses of his [Yameen’s] son and daughter, both studying in Singapore. Their living expenses were distributed by Mr Muneez,” the Grant Thorton report stated, according to The Week.

In a previous interview with Minivan News, Yameen confirmed that he had used the STO’s accounts to send money to his children in Singapore, “and I have all the receipts.”

He described the then STO head in Singapore as “a personal friend”, and said “I always paid the STO in advance. It was a legitimate way of avoiding foreign exchange [fees]. The STO was not lending me money.”

He denied sending money following his departure from the organisation: “After I left, I did not do it. In fact I did not do it 3 to4 years before leaving the STO. I used telegraphic transfer.”

Yameen described the wider allegations contained in The Week article as “absolute rubbish”, and denied being under investigation by the Singaporean police, saying that he had friends in Singapore who would have informed him if that were the case.

The article, he said, was part of a smear campaign orchestrated by then President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed, a freelance writer and the dismissed Auditor General “now in London”, who he claimed had hired the audit team – “they spent two weeks in the STO in Singapore conducting an investigation.”

Yameen said he did not have a hand in any of the STO’s operations in Singapore, and that if Muneez was managing director at the time of any alleged wrong-doing, “any allegations should carry his name.”

He denied any knowledge or affiliation with Steven Law or Lo Hsing Han, and said that as for Mocom Trading, “if that company is registered, Maniku would know about it.”

Asked to confirm whether the STO Singapore had been supplying fuel to Myanmar during his time as chair of the board, “it could have been – Myanmar, Vietnam, the STO is an entrepreneurial trade organisation. It trades [commodities like] oil, cement, sugar, rice to places in need. It’s perfectly legitimate. “

Asked whether it was appropriate to trade goods to a country ostracised by the international community, Yameen observed that the trading had “nothing to do with the moral high-ground, at least at that time. Even even now the STO buys from one country and sells to those in need.”

Asked why the President would hire a freelance writer to smear his reputation after the local council elections, “that’s because Nasheed would like to hold me in captivity.”

The only way Nasheed could exert political control, Yameen claimed, “was to resort to this kind of political blackmail”.

“Unfortunately he has not been able to do that with me. I was a perfectly clean minister while in Gayoom’s cabinet. They have nothing on me.”

On February 1, 2012, the Presidential Commission set up during Nasheed’s administration to look into the malpractices of his predecessor Gayoom’s administration, sent the case to Prosecutor General for prosecution.

Parliament resolution

However, in June 2011, former Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa presented a resolution to the parliament demanding the investigation by the parliament.

In the motion, Musthafa claimed that the article in the week magazine had outlined how the fraud was conducted to local media, and provided evidence.

His resolution requests an investigation into what it describes as “the biggest corruption case in the history of the Maldives”.

Issues relating to the Singapore-based joint venture that allegedly carried out the deal, Mocom Trading Pvt Ltd, which was used established to carry out this fraud, were first raised by audit firm KPMG, Musthafa noted in the resolution.

The resolution stated that later in 2004, audit firm Price Water House Coopers also audited the STO.

“This year the government handed the auditing to [forensic accountancy firm] Grant Thornton which found that the two audit reports contained legitimate concerns in their reports,’’ the resolution said.

Yameen dismissed the allegations and called on the government of Nasheed to investigate the allegations during the debate on the resolution.

He conceded that the STO did sell oil to Burma “but if you claim that the trade was illegal, you have to prove it first.”

Yameen added that STO senior officials alleged to be involved in the oil trade were still employed by the government: “They are now in high posts in the MDP,” he said.

“So if you dare to investigate this, by all means go ahead,” he continued. “I encourage that this be investigated. The other thing I want to say is that I have now become impatient. Even if they stack US$800 million worth of documents on one end of the scale, there is no way they would be able to prove [any wrongdoing].

“The documents are with the government. We did not take documents home with us when we left office,” he said.

Yameen claimed at the time that the Nasheed administration possessed a list of senior officials of the previous government who had purchased assets overseas.

“The government will have that list now,” he said. “Why is it that they won’t make it public? I know that this work was done under the World Bank’s stolen assets recovery programme [StAR]. This list will have people who are now helping this government, not anyone else. Why don’t you release the list?”

The MP for Mulaku claimed that the government had paid “over a million dollars” to Grant Thornton, without uncovering any evidence to implicate him..

“In such investigations, forensic accountants are given two or three weeks to complete their work,” he said. “[But] this has now been dragged out for over a year.”

Yameen said that he was “ready to sue” for defamation if a final report “under seal and signature of Grant Thornton” was made public.

“But there’s no way to file this suit because no official document has been released,” he continued. “All that’s been released are draft reports without any signature or seal that can be taken to court.”

Yameen added that “the US$800 million worth of trade was done with back-to-back LCs (lines of credit) in Singapore based on trust between one bank and another.”

“All the bank documentation is there,” he said, claiming that Grant Thornton had cleared out all the “invoices and documents” from STO Singapore so that “there’s not even one photocopy left.”

“How can eight or nine years worth of documents of a government company be taken like this?” he asked. “I know this for a fact.”

The right of individuals to be considered innocent until proven guilty was “a sacred provision” in the Maldivian constitution, he said.

The resolution was later sent to a committee to investigate by an approval of 52 – 11.

In his closing statement, Musthafa said that MP Yameen’s conceding during the debate that US$800 million worth of trade in oil did take place had “fulfilled the main purpose of my resolution.”

Counter claim?

The Attorney General’s revealing of the expenses of the Grant Thornton investigation comes a day after it was revealed that President Waheed’s government spent £75,000 (MVR 1.81 million) on advice from former UK Attorney General and member of the House of Lords, Baroness Patricia Scotland, in a bid to challenge the Commonwealth’s “biased” stance on the Maldives.

The Maldives was suspended from the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) – the Commonwealth’s democracy and human rights arm – and placed on its formal agenda after former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged that his resignation on February 7 had taken place under duress.  Nasheed contended he was forced out of office amid a mutiny by police and armed forces, orchestrated by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and funded by several local wealthy resort businessmen.

CMAG swiftly challenged the impartiality of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) established by incoming President Mohamed Waheed to examine the circumstances of his own succession, and called on Waheed to hold early elections to restore the country’s democratic legitimacy.

After a number of countries – including the UK and EU – backed the Commonwealth’s stance, the government was pressured into reforming the CNI to include a member of Nasheed’s choosing and a retired judge from Singapore, GP Selvam. The reformed Commission is due to publish its findings in late August.

“The Maldives government is of the view that the Maldives has been placed on the [CMAG] agenda unfairly, and there is a general feeling that the Commonwealth and the CMAG view points are biased in favour of President Nasheed’s allegation of a coup,” the Attorney General’s office, stated in the terms of reference.

The terms of reference document for the contract, obtained by Minivan News, is dated May 28, 2012 and is signed by Scotland and the Maldives’ Deputy Attorney General, Aishath Bisham.  It also carries the official stamp of the Attorney General’s Office.

The story first emerged in the Daily Mail, a UK newspaper based in London.  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 (MDP), 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 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.

Following the reports, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza in an interview given to local TV station VTV denied the allegations.

“It is not true that the government spent 75,000 pounds on a former British attorney general. It is part of the lies that the Maldivian Democratic Party is spreading,” Riza was reported as stating in Haama Daily.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad meanwhile told Minivan News “I think that case was handled by [President Waheed’s Special Advisor] Dr Hassan Saeed.”

“[Baroness Scotland] did consult with us during the time CMAG was pressuring us, and we sought legal advice as to how to proceed,” Masood added.

In today’s press conference, in contrast to Riza, Shakoor conceded that the claims made in Daily Mail were true and that It was normal for the government to seek legal advice on international matters.

“The government has previously sought international legal advice on several other issues including the Air Maldives case and GMR’s lawsuit against Maldives government in Singapore arbitration court over the Airport Development Charge (ADC),” she said.

Shakoor said that the case of Scotland was carried out similarly.

“We believe that the CMAG has put the Maldives in its agenda not in accordance with their own procedures and also their calls for an early election reflects that they did not do proper research on the Maldivian Constitutional mechanism, therefore we had to seek legal advice from Baroness Scotland,” he added.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)