Tag: civil court

Civil Court postpones MDP Raalhugandu trial until further notice from High Court

The Civil Court has decided to postpone the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s suit against police until further notice from the High Court, following the dismantling of the party’s protest campsite at ‘Raalhugandu’ on March 19.

The Civil Court’s decision followed a court order from High Court to postpone the trial until the Court had concluded a case lodged by the state challenging the legitimacy of MDP former President Dr Ibrahim Didi, according to local media outlets.

The State Attorney’s issue was that Dr Didi, who signed the form to file the case in the Civil Court, was elected as the president in accordance to an amended version of the MDP Charter which was not submitted to the Elections Commission (EC). That, the state contended, made the appointment illegitimate and Dr Didi ineligible to present the case to the court on behalf of MDP. As such, the state requested the trial be discontinued.

However, the Civil Court’s presiding judge decided that the laws did not state that the amended articles of the charter would be void if not presented to the Elections Commission, and decided to continue the trial.

The Attorney General (AG)’s Office then appealed the Civil Court’s decision to continue the trial. The High Court ordered the Civil Court to postpone the trial until it reached a conclusion.

A similar issue was raised by the State Attorney at the beginning of the trial of the case in which MDP Acting Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik signed the form to file the case in the Civil Court. The state at the time contended that Acting Chairpersons did not have the authority to file cases in court on behalf of MDP according to the MDP charter, and requested the court discontinue the trial.

The Civil Court then threw the case out of court. Then-President Dr Didi signed the form and resubmitted it to the Civil Court.

The MDP protest campsite at the ‘Raalhugandu’ area inside the Antenna Park, was granted to MDP by Male’ City Council, which  has a substantial MDP majority. The camp was dismantled by the police and military hours after President Dr Waheed Hassan Manik delivered his presidential address to parliament on March 19.

Many MDP supporters who had come to Male’ from the islands after the controversial transfer of power on February 7 had camped in the area.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Male’ City Mayor summoned to court to apologise for “harassing” letter

Male’ City Council (MCC) Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali  Manik was summoned to the Criminal Court today to explain to the registrar what the court felt was an “impolite” letter sent to it by the council.

The letter in question had been sent to the Criminal Court by the MCC following the police’s request for a court order for the clearance of the Usfasgandu area.

The police had received instruction from the Home Ministry to clear the area after the MCC had refused to hand the land over to the government.

Manik explained that the reasons for his summons had been “nothing serious”, and that the registrar felt “the letter was too hard and contained no politeness.”

City Councillor Mohamed Abdul Kareem said the court had described the letter as “harassing”. Kareem told Minivan News that the court was not able to promise that it would not give the court order although it agreed that the case was a civil matter, rather than criminal.

He said that the court had confirmed that it would look into the court order, although he claimed that the court was in agreement with him that the case fell under the civil court’s jurisdiction.

The offending letter argued that the Usfasgandu issue did not relate to the criminal court and ought to be dealt with by the civil court. It also said that the issue could not be ordered without the MCC being notified and allowed to represent itself.

Manik said that he had apologised for the tone of the letter, explaining that the matter was particularly urgent: “That’s why the letter was so harsh”.

The MCC has vowed to resist the repeated attempts by the government to reclaim areas of the council given over to it as part of the decentralisation process pursued by the previous administration.

The MCC’s belief that these issues should be dealt with by the Civil Court saw it submit two civil cases today relating to its disputes with the government.

The first challenges the reclamation of the Usfasgandu area by the Housing Ministry, while the second addresses the larger issue of conflicting legislation that it feels has prompted the battles over jurisdiction.

Local paper Haveeru spoke with City Councillor Ibrahim Shujau regarding the submission of these cases.

“The [second] case is regarding the conflict between the Land Administration Regulation, followed by the Housing Ministry, and the Decentralisation Act, Constitution and the Land Act. Thus we have appealed at the court to abolish the regulation,” Shujau told Haveeru.

Last week, the MCC sent letters to the Maldives Police Service (MPS), the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), and the Housing Ministry, informing them of its decision not to comply with cabinet’s decision to reallocate the plot to the Ministry of Housing.

However, Manik argued that the MCC would not resist if a court order was obtained.

“They have to get a court order. If they have a court order, we will comply,“ he said.

The Usfasgandu area is currently leased to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and is being used as the base of operations for their political activities. Most recently, these activities have consisted of weekly marches around the capital, attended by many thousands, protesting against the current government and calling for early elections.

The MDP’s previous base of operations at Lonuziyaaraiy Kolhu was dismantled by security forces on March 19. The government on this occasion acted without a court order, prompting legal challenge from the MDP.
The subsequent court case was first dismissed on a technicality and, after being re-submitted has once again been delayed for similar reasons.

When asked whether it was normal procedure to request a court order after a request from the Home Ministry, Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said that it depended on the case in question.

“We are trying to follow legal procedures. We want to make sure to follow law and order, to maintain peace. We understand that this is sensitive issue,” he said.

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed was not responding at time press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State lawyers delay protest camp case, challenging legality of MDP leadership

State lawyers have challenged the legal capacity of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s former president Dr Ibrahim Didi to sign on behalf of the party, in an ongoing court case between the MDP and the Maldives Police Services concerning the dismantling of the party’s tsunami monument protest site.

In April, after more than two weeks of hearings, the Civil Court dismissed the MDP’s case against the state claiming that the party’s interim chairperson Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik did not have the authority to file the case on behalf of the MDP. Didi then signed the court documents and the case was resubmitted.

The state lawyer representing police raised the procedural issue, arguing that the MDP had failed to inform the Elections Commission (EC) after amending the party constitution.

State lawyer Ahmed Ushaam stated in the session that the MDP had changed the method of leadership election from a vote in a party congress to a direct vote by the entire party’s membership.

However, Usham claimed the MDP had failed to inform the EC of the change as required by the political parties regulation, and therefore the legal legitimacy of party president Didi.

In response, former Minister of Human Resources Youth and Sports, Hassan Latheef, questioned whether the judge would also consider the legitimacy of the current government, to which the judge replied that such matters would be decided by the Supreme Court.

Speaking on behalf of MDP, lawyer Hisaan Hussain argued that the court would not be able to proceed with the case if the state kept taking procedural issues every day, noting that the state had earlier accepted that there were no more such issues to take note of.

Speaking to Minivan News, Hussain alleged that the government was trying to delay the proceedings by making “petty excuses”, while the party was fighting for fundamental rights entitled to it by the constitution of the country.

“We have changed the constitution in the last congress, and I do not believe that the amended constitution does not have legal effect just because it was not presented to the elections commission. It is an administrative matter that every party has to send its constitution to the elections commission, and that does not mean that the constitution is not legally ineffective,” she said.

“The court needs to draw the line as to the extent they should accept procedural issues. The elections commission is in charge of regulating the political parties and before they make any statement regarding the party’s constitution, and can the court take procedural issues on the matter?”

During the MDP’s first attempt to submit the case, Judge Aisha Shujon argued that the court could not verify whether an interim chairperson had been elected and so did not see sufficient grounds to continue with the case.

On 25 April, MDP resubmitted the case with the signature of then party president Didi, who was Fisheries and Agriculture Minister under the former government.Civil Court Judge Hathif Hilmee presided over the second hearings.

However five days later, the MDP National Council passed a no-confidence motion in the leadership of the party’s President Didi, and its Vice-President, former Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Alhan Fahmy, removing both from their positions with an almost unanimous majority.

After the Maldives Police Services (MPS) dismantled the party’s first protest camp at tsunami monument area in mid-March, MDP moved its protest site to Usfasgandu. Male’ City Council permitted the party to use the premises as a compensation.

However, the cabinet of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has decided to take over the control of the area last week, giving the MDP a deadline of May 14.

In a press statement released by the President’s Office, the government stated that the city council had “breached” the agreement with Ministry of Housing and Environment in utilising the land plots and other properties handed over to the city council by the ministry.

Male’ City Council however decided that it would not hand over the premises to the Ministry in a letter sent by the council to the ministry, stating that that the ‘Usfasgandu’ area was “temporarily leased” to the former ruling party in accordance with the Decentralisation Act, contending that the ministry did not have the legal authority to reclaim council property.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rules Deputy Solicitor General cannot represent state in ACC lawsuit

The High Court has ruled that Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham cannot represent the Attorney General’s Office (AG) in a case forwarded by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) over the Nexbis border control contract.

In a hearing Monday, the High Court said Ahmed Usham, appointed by the AG’s Office to defend the state, was a member of the tender evaluation board that originally awarded Nexbis the contract . It ruled that Usham’s involvement in the process therefore represented a “conflict of interest”.

The High Court added that having Usham as a representative for the government would not be appropriate to continue the case, which was related to the tender evaluation process of the contract.

The court body said the decision was made was by the three presiding judges Dr Azmiraldha Zahir, Abdulla Hameed and Yousuf Hussain.

The case was first filed at the Civil Court after the previous government defied an ACC order to discontinue the Nexbis border control system project.  The ACC claimed that there might have been corruption involved in awarding the contract to Nexbis and asked parties to re-submit their bid for the contract.  Nexbis denies the allegations.

In a previous ruling, the Civil Court issued a declaration that there was no legal grounds for the Immigration Department to follow the ACC’s order to stop the border system.  The case has now been filed by the ACC at the country’s High Court.

Meanwhile, newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported that a hearing was held yesterday where the state attorney told the High Court bench that the Home Ministry had asked the Immigration Department to stop the border control project.

The state attorney told the High Court bench that the Home Ministry had sent a secret letter to the Immigration Department.  The letter could not be given to the ACC, but was able to be shown to the presiding judges, reported Haveeru.

The paper also reported that lawyers for the ACC contended that the Immigration Department was still continuing with the Nexbis project.

Legal authority

The Civil Court in January 2012 ruled that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) did not have the legal authority to order the Immigration Department to terminate the agreement.  Judge Ali Rasheed said at the time 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 contractors if the ACC could annul an agreement without their input, as this violated their protections under Maldives Contract Law.

In December last year, the ACC forwarded a corruption case against former – and now reappointed – Immigration Controller Ilyas Hussain Ibrahim to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG).  The case, which also implicates Saamee Ageel, Director General of the Finance Ministry at the time, alleged that the pair had abused their authority for “undue financial gain” in giving US$39 million to Nexbis as agreed under the deal.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court restarts MDP ‘Justice Square’ case

The Civil Court has yesterday reinstated a  suit filed in the court by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) against the Maldives Police Service regarding its dismantling of MDP’s protest site at the tsunami monument.

The case was initially presented to the court by MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, whom the court deemed did not have the authority to file cases on behalf of the party.

The case was filed this time by the party’s president, Dr Ibrahim Didi, who was the Fisheries and Agriculture Minister under the former government. Judge Aisha Shujoon was the presiding judge in the first hearing, while Civil Court Judge Hathif Hilmee presided over the second.

In yesterday’s hearing MDP requested the court declare that the MDP had the right to protest near the surf break and to stop police actions that would halt MDP activities in the area. The party furthermore requested that the court order police to return everything confiscated from the area.

The first case was thrown out with the declaration that the acting chairperson could not file cases in the court on behalf of the party. The case was nearly at an end when the decision was made.

Police and MNDF dismantled the MDP camp site – dubbed ‘Justice Square’ by MDP supporters – on March 19. The move followed violent protests in Male’ during which police officers used rubber bullets and other less-lethal weapons to control protesters.

The last time the case was presented MDP lawyer Hisan Hassan told the court that police could only search the area with the presence of MDP senior persons, and that MDP wanted to clarify why the area was destroyed.

Hisan also told the judge that police did not even have a list of items they confiscated from the area.

In response the state attorney Ahmed Usham told the court that the area was dismantled because the protesters threw bricks at the security forces, and that the dismantling of the protest was not an action that was taken to narrow freedom of speech.

Usham also said that alcohol and items “used to conduct sexual activities” were discovered in the area, and that those were items disallowed under Islamic Sharia.

The state attorney claimed knives and sharpened iron bars and other materials were also found and alleged that MDP protesters had been attacking police officers that went there to investigate violence that had occurred in the area.

Usham claimed that people gathered in the area had been using filthy words to speak and had been encouraging violence.

He also alleged the education of children living in the area had been affected and that their rights had been violated.

‘’Maldives Police Services and MNDF officers blockaded, occupied and dismantled Justice Square, at south east side of Male’ where the Maldivian Democratic Party has organised peaceful, pro-democracy rallies since the first democratically elected Government was ousted on February 7 in a military and police backed coup,’’ the MDP said in a statement issued at the time.

After the police and MNDF dismantled the area, Male’ City Council granted the ‘Usfasgandu’ area for MDP to hold their protests.

Male City Council Deputy Mayor Ahmed Falah told Minivan News at the time that the land was given to MDP because “terrorists” had attacked the Justice Square.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court issues injunction against Male City Council’s public referendum on the reopening of Fantasy Bakery

The Civil Court has issued an injunction to halt a public referendum planned by the Male’ City Council concerning the reopening of Fantasy Bakery, which was closed by health inspectors in October 2011 for selling expired food products.

The court’s injunction said if Male’ City Council held a public referendum that was not stipulated in any laws or regulations, it will hurt the business as well as making the public lose confidence in any verdict the court may deliver in Fantasy’s countersuit.

The Bakers Fantasy Private Limited had requested the court issue the injunction to halt the referendum, the Civil Court said.

The Civil Court’s injunction was delivered by Judge Abdulla Adheeb and a copy of the injunction was sent to Male’ City Council, Bakers Fantasy Private Limited and the Maldives Food and Drug Authority.

Male’ City Council was sued by Bakers Fantasy Private Limited following a decision of the council to withhold the license of the company to sell food products.

The company has claimed that they have paid the Rf 6500 (US$420) fine imposed on the company and have corrected issues noted by the council.

When Minivan News contacted Bakers Fantasy, the receptionist said no one was present who could speak with the media and would not provided a contact for management.

Last year when the issue came to light, police conducted an operation to close down the bakery and remove expired items from the store.

Police involvement came after the store disregarded orders from Community Health Services which had the legal authority to close food outlets.

The police at the that time went to the administrative office with a search warrant, but the staff refused to open the door stating that they did not have the authority to do so, according to police. Police called senior management, but they did not answer calls. Police waited outside for two hours before Fantasy management came to open the doors.

The Fantasy store was popular among locals as well as foreigners living in Male’, and was widely patronised.

Bakers Fantasy was closed by Male’ City Council on October 28. The council subsequently inspected three storehouses and Aioli Restaurant, which is also owned by Fantasy Pvt Ltd.

Male’ City Council’s head of health section Hassan ‘Jambu’ Afeef told local media at the timethat  expired products were found in two of three storehouses, and that storehouses were not properly lit. All expired products were destroyed, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

STO withdraws US$1.2 million case against DQP MP Riyaz Rasheed’s Meridian Services

The government-owned State Trading Organisation (STO) yesterday withdrew a case worth more than a million US dollars lodged against Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed’s Meridian Services Private limited.

The case concerned an unpaid sum of money worth Rf 19,333,671.20 (US$1,253,804.88), regarding Meridian’s use of the STO’s credit facilities.

Civil Court Judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa ruled that the case was dismissed, in response to a letter sent by the STO requesting the case be withdrawn.

Judge Moosa in his verdict stated that the court had received a letter from the STO requesting the court withdraw the case.

The letter noted that there were decisions to be made by the STO’s board of directors, and that after the “change in government”, the board did not have a sufficient number of members left to meet quorum and hold a board meeting. Therefore, the board was unable to make the required decisions, the organisation stated.

The sum of money the STO sought from Meridian Services included a sum of Rf 18,949,473.20 (US$ 1,228,889.31) for the use of STO credit facilities in payment for fuel oil, and a sum of Rf 384,198 (US$ 24,915.56) as a fine for the failure to make the payments on the date agreed in the contract made between the companies.

Initially, STO and Meridian Services made an oil trade agreement on 31 March 2010, which gave Meridian Services a credit facility worth 20 million rufiyaa (US$ 1,297,016.86) for purchasing oil from STO, and that payments had to be made within a period of 40 days.

However, in August 2010, STO lowered its credit limit from Rf20 million to Rf10 million (US$648,508.43) and shortened the payment period from 40 to 30 days.

Meridian Services sued the STO for breach of contract claiming that STO had brought in the changes to the credit facilities without giving the required notice of one month, in the event that the STO decided to change the credit facility with regard to a policy change.

However, Meridian Services lost the case after Civil Court Judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa ruled in favor of STO, stating that the STO had not breached the contractual terms agreed between the parties and that the documents the STO had submitted to the court was evident that it had brought the changes in proper compliance with the agreement.

Speaking to Minivan News, former legal director of President’s Office and lawyer Hisaan Hussain questioned whether such a big case could be withdrawn without even a board resolution.

“We are not speaking of an ordinary company. This is a public company and its making such a decision without a board resolution is a huge concern,” she said.

“STO has public share holders; they have to be answerable to the share holders,” she said.

The STO is a major supplier of general goods and pharmaceuticals to the Maldives, as well as fuel. It also supplies aviation fuel to Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

“Political Motive”

MP Riyaz Rasheed was a very vocal critic of Nasheed during his tenure as president. He at the time alleged that Nasheed’s government had attempted to ruin his business, and when the STO had initially reduced the credit facilities in August 2010, his business suffered significant losses and forced him to fire several employees.

Riyaz was not responding to calls at time of press.

With regard to the case, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson MP Imthiyaz Fahmy alleged that the decision to drop the case was politically motivated and that the STO’s making such a decision without a board resolution was part of an ongoing campaign to “cleanse” political figures affiliated to the current “coup regime”.

“They are now cleansing all the corrupt politicians who were involved in bringing about the coup on February 7. They started doing this from day one. At first it was MP Ahmed Nazim [Deputy Speaker of Parliament], then MP Ahmed ‘Redwave’ Saleem and now it is MP Riyaz,” Fahmy said.

In late February the Criminal Court dismissed four cases of fraud against Nazim – an MP of the People’s Alliance formerly headed by Gayoom’s half brother, Abdulla Yameen – stating that his “acts were not enough to criminalise him”.

All four cases against Nazim concerned public procurement tenders of the former Atolls Ministry secured through fraudulent documents and paper companies, and included setting up several paper companies to win a bid worth US$110,000 to provide 15,000 national flags for the atolls ministry in 2003, and a similar tender worth US$92,412 to provide 15,000 national flags in 2005. A third count – conspiracy to defraud the ministry in 2003 in a similar manner to win a public tender for procuring US$115,758 worth of mosque sound systems – was also dismissed.

On February 28 the Criminal Court ruled that MP ‘Red Wave’ Ahmed Saleem – a member of Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) – was not guilty in a corruption case filed by the state, accusing him of paying Neyza Enterprises Private Limited 50 percent of the money given to the former atolls ministry to buy sound systems for mosques in the islands.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged that key parts of the judiciary were in the hands of the supporters of former President Gayoom, “and now we are seeing the truth of that claim,” said the party’s spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, following Saleem’s case.

“Dr Waheed’s regime is using the courts to settle old scores, to reduce MDP’s parliamentary majority and to wipe the slate clean for government supporters,” he claimed.

Fahmy today alleged that the courts were now “turning down cases against these people, even when the cases have been submitted by an independent auditor general.

“This is clear infringement of free and fair justice system. Now Riyaz is released from owing millions of rufiyaa to a public company, with public shareholders,” Fahmy said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MMA accepts MDP MP Musthafa’s BCCI debt after the court rejected the money

The Civil Court has refused to accept payment of the debt it had ordered paid by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa, after the ruling against him was last week upheld by the Supreme Court.

The case had been filed against him by Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Deptuy Leader Umar Naseer, and the ruling meant that Musthafa was disqualified as an MP for the former ruling party, forcing a by-election in his seat of Thimarafushi.

Musthafa this morning sent a person to pay the debt to the court – a loan of US$31,231.66 (Rf 481,952) borrowed from the now defunct Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

The Civil Court has confirmed that a person had sought to pay the debt on Musthafa’s behalf, after the Supreme Court ruling did not mention that the money was to be paid to the former ‘Madhanee’, or Civil, Court.

Until President Nasheed signed the Judicature Act into law last year, the official name of the Civil Court had been Madhanee Court – ‘madhanee’ being the Arabic word for ‘civil’.

MDP MP Musthafa today told Minivan News that he had been trying to pay the money every day since losing the caase last Friday, but said the court had not accepted it.

‘’Today I thought I would inform that media and send someone to the court to pay the money, and the court did not accept it again,’’ Musthafa said. ‘’I wrote a letter to the court but they did not respond to it.’’

Later today, Musthafa said the Civil Court registrar had called him and met with him, and said the Supreme Court’s ruling did not specify who the recipient of the money was to be, and that the Civil Court did not know what they should do with it, Musthafa said.

‘’The Supreme Court told me to get assistance from the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) and the Attorney General,’’ he said. ‘’So then I sent the money to the MMA, and the MMA has received the money.’’

He also said that tomorrow he will file a case in the Civil Court asking the court to order the MMA to pay him the US$500,000 that the BCCI was obliged to pay Musthafa, in a separate case concerning the supply of meat and other goods.

‘’They have today proved that the MMA are the live parent of BCCI [despite BCCI being defunct],’’ he said. ‘’This is funny to me – because when they have to pay me something owed by BCCI, they deny they are the live parent, but when I have something to pay to BCCI they become the live parent of BCCI.’’

In November last year Musthafa threatened legal action against the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) if it did not pay the US$500,000 that BCCI owed his company Seafood International, alleging that the sum was due to be paid to his company according to a 1991 London court ruling.

Citing MMA as the “live branch of BCCI in the Maldives,” Musthafa previously stated that “the debt of a dead person has to be paid by a living legal parent.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

GMR and government to seek “win-win situation”: Razee

Infrastructure company GMR has said it will deduct revenue received from collecting a US$25 (Rf385.5) Airport Development Charge (ADC) from every passenger departing on an international flight from the concession fee to be paid to the government.

GMR informed Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) last Thursday of its decision. MACL officials had not responded to inquiries at time of press.

GMR planned to begin collecting the ADC at midnight on January 1 this year as per its contract with the Maldives government. Revenue was expected to amount to US$25 million (Rf385.5 million) in 2012, and would be put towards the ongoing development of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

However, a Civil Court ruling in December blocked the ADC on the grounds that it was identical to an existing Airport Services Charge (ASC) of US$18 (Rf277.56). The company’s shares on the Mumbai stock exchange subsequently fell 7.57 percent, India’s Economic Times reported.

The government subsequently appealed the case to the High Court. Meanwhile, GMR is not collecting the ADC.

Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razee said that the concession agreement between GMR and the government assured each party a certain level of income.

“Because the ADC was included as revenue, until the matter is resolved any money that was going to be received from the ADC should be deducted from what GMR owes the government,” Razee explained.

Razee said that the Ministry of Finance will work with GMR and the government to resolve the matter, adding however that much of the decision rests on a verdict from the High Court.

He added that the related Amendment of Collection of Airport Tax (international travelers) Act 7/78 Bill is also before the Parliament, which is currently in recess until March.

Razee was optimistic about the outcome, however far in the future.

“The contract between the government and GMR allows for certain changes which are mutually respected and agreed upon by both parties,” Razee observed. “They will reach a win-win situation, even if some revenue is lost.”

GMR previously noted that the payment of a development fee was “a common concept in many airports globally”, particularly as a part of concession agreements where airports are privatised.

“The reason for the inclusion of ADC in many global concession agreements is to address the funding needs to meet the investment model required to upgrade and develop new airport facilities at significant costs,” GMR stated.

The company further claimed that the charge was included in the concession fee proposed between GMR and the government in 2010.

Meanwhile, in April India’s Supreme Court ruled against the charging of airport development fees which are not approved by India’s Airport Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA). However Delhi airport, developed by GMR, continued to charge the fee as GMR had obtained permission to collect the sum in 2010.

Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony for INIA’s new terminal on December 19, President Nasheed said he wished to assure GMR that the government was “200 percent behind your contract, and every single other contract the government has signed with any other foreign party in this country. Not just contracts signed by our government, but also contracts that any ruler of the Maldives has signed with any party. We will honour it.”

The public response has not been so positive. Following GMR’s closure of duty-free shop Alpha MVKB, company CEO Ibrahim Shafeeq organised a protest under the slogan “Go GMR Go!” The protest was held on the grounds that the company was “demonstrating our opinions and dislike of what GMR has done to us and to get public responses,” Shafeeq told Minivan News at the time.

Kulhudhuffushi-South Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed also proposed an amendment to the Business Registration Bill in a bid to reserve airport shops and services for local ownership and “clip GMR’s wings”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)