Tag: GMR Agreement

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)

No plans to privatise airport, “might sublease”: Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb

Minister of Tourism Ahmed Adheeb has said the government is not planning to hand over full control of operations at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), but might sublease specific development projects to international parties through a “transparent” bidding process.

Minister Adheeb told Minivan News that privatising the only international airport allowed it to become a monopoly which was not in the best interests of the country.

“What we saw was that handing over operation of the only international airport in the country meant it was monopolised. What we are saying is that if the airport is given like that without any competition, it is not in the best interest of the country,” he said.

Adheeb admitted that INIA needed further development and refurbishment, including the addition of an extra runway, and said such projects would be subleased to developers through a transparent bidding process. He also maintained that “operation and control” of the airport would not be given away as he alleged the former government had done with GMR’s concession agreement.

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan also highlighted in an interview to India’s Business Standard that MACL would “open tenders for major development projects”.

“I think it’s too early to talk about the rebidding but, yes, MACL will open tenders for major development projects in connection with the airport modernisation program. GMR is eligible to participate. I don’t see any reason why Chinese companies should be barred from participating in the bidding process,” he told the Business Standard.

However, when contacted by Minivan News, MACL Managing Director Mohamed Ibrahim denied any knowledge of such bidding processes and said he did not wish to further comment on the matter.

Minister Adheeb said 75 percent of the tourists coming into the country were from Europe and following the “European [economic] crisis, the Maldives government should have provided an incentive to those tourists arriving to the country, but because of INIA being operated by GMR, several airport fees were raised.”

“Flight operators operate as a business. They will not consider us if we give no incentives in such a time of crisis and when the airport handling charges are too high. We have to understand that INIA is a tourist airport, it is not a shopping airport or a transit airport,” he explained.

Therefore, the Minister said that the country needed an efficient airport where tourists can go through quickly, with an efficient check-in system.

Earlier on February 2, Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker warned the airline will re-consider flying to the Maldives if the airport operator maintained its plan to raise airport handling fees at INIA by 51 percent.

Reuters at the time reported that the airline was “‘dismayed’” over what it understood to be GMR’s plan to increase the handling fee at a future date, and suggested such a move would “threaten Qatar Airways’ continued presence in the Maldives.”

However, the GMR Group at the time denied the allegations stating that it had had received no official communication from the airline about its concerns.

GMR spokesman Amir Ali responded at the time saying that the fee hike had already been made by MACL shortly before GMR assumed control of the airport, adding that while there were no plans for a further increase at present, prices were dependent on factors such as fuel costs.

Adheeb also alleged that the former government intended to rush the development process of the airport rather than a “well contemplated phase by phase development plan”.

“Why do we really need to develop the airport to cater to four million people? We could have done that through proper planning in a phase by phase development process,” he said.

The INIA concession agreement

In 2010, the government of Maldives through its Finance Ministry, Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and GMR-MAHB entered into a concession agreement withINIA 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 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.

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor 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 favor 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 Abdulla 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.

Scott Wilson Plan

Minister Adheeb said the Scott Wilson master plan produced during former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration would have been “a better master plan to develop the airport.”

“Sir Scott Wilson’s master plan to development of INIA was a good master plan. We actually did not require a plan to be implemented immediately. The plan was to develop the airport in a phase by phase development process. Some of the development projects had already been completed at the time the airport was given to GMR for development,” he explained.

Following the signing of the concession agreement of INIA with India’s GMR group, the Scott Wilson master plan was abandoned for a new master plan produced by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) through another foreign consultancy firm – Halcrow – which the current government 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. The IFC did not provide this information to the government. We are talking about a development of 30 years,” former Civil Aviation and Communications Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed said previously.

The current government criticised the IFC for abandoning the Scott Wilson plan for a more “costly master-plan”  and alleged that the World Bank affiliated group had been “irresponsible” and “negligent” in advising the former government of President Mohamed Nasheed in the concession of INIA by Indian infrastructure giant GMR.

However the IFC denied the allegations, 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 spokesperson at the time.

Airport Development Charge

Highlighting the Airport Development Charge (ADC) that the former government intended to charge – prompting criticism from the opposition parties who are now currently in government of President Waheed – Adheeb said that the former administration proceeded to taking ADC without legislation.

“The way they intended to charge ADC was not a mechanism established in anywhere in the world. ADC is taken through a proper legislation and should be flexible and adjustable in parallel with the inflation rate,” he contended.

On November last year, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government’s Transport Minister Adil Saleem announced that GMR will begin charging international passengers a US$25 (MVR 385.5) ADC at the departure check-in counters of INIA for all flights scheduled after 12:00am on January 1, 2012.

Saleem stated at the time that the fee had been previously approved by the government as part of its contract with GMR.

The matter was soon taken to Civil Court by then opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – led by current Special Advisor of President Waheed, Dr Hassan Saeed. The DQP claimed that a pre-existing Airport Service Charge (ASC) of US$18 (MVR 277.56) invalidated the ADC.

The Civil Court in December 2011 invalidated the ADC charge, ruling that the clause in the concession agreement with GMR violated the Airport Service Charges Act of 1978, which was amended in 2009 to raise the charge to US$18 for foreign passengers and US$12 for Maldivians above two years of age.

The current government, after ascension to power, claimed in a “cabinet-committee report” that it was “not in the best interest of the country” to appeal the Civil Court decision to High Court, and thereby ignored the decision.

The former government had honoured the concession agreement following the civil court ruling, and,  under instruction from a letter sent by MACL, had been deducting ADC revenue from concession fees due the government.

Following the ousting of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-led government on February 7, the new government – which included the DQP – inherited the crippled concession revenues, under which it was effectively obliged to pay GMR to develop the airport.

The new government received a succession of bills from the airport developer throughout 2012. In the first quarter of 2012 the government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Combined with the third quarter payment due, the government owed the airport developer US$3.7 million (MVR 57.05 million).

On May 8, GMR offered to exempt Maldivian nationals from paying the contentious ADC in a bid to end a legal and contractual stalemate that had given rise to MACL going bankrupt and the deprivation of the majority of all airport revenue that the government was to generate through the agreement.

However, despite attempts to renegotiate the issue, the government decided to terminate the agreement at risk of compensation. The ADC case is still pending in the Singapore Arbitration Court.

Adheeb stressed that such major projects that is pivotal to the country’s economy should not be taken without thorough research and proper consultation and analysis. The current government, he said, would address these issues “with patience and with a proper plan.”

He also added that the current government of President Waheed would seek towards a “balanced economic and foreign policy” that would be in the best interest of the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: India’s inconsistent commitment to Maldivian democracy cost the GMR deal

The Maldives and India have always shared strong bilateral relations in terms of strategic, economical and military cooperation. The diplomatic bond has remained firm despite the vast difference between the two states in size, population and economy. India remains a major destination for many Maldivians who travel abroad for education, medical and business purposes.

A significant number of Maldivians reside in Indian cities such as Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Mysore and several others. Similarly, a large portion of the Maldives’ expatriate workforce including teachers, doctors, engineers and other technical expertise are Indians, who have contributed to the country’s economy.

If not for the timely decision by the Indian government to intervene, the 1988 terrorist attack on the Maldives’ national defense force base by the mercenaries of the Sri Lanka-based terrorist organisation People’s Liberation of Tamil Elam (PLOTE), would have cost the Maldivian people their civilian government.

19 Maldivians lost their lives, but if not for the successful ‘Operation Cactus’ led by the Indian armed forces, the death toll could have been more, and a possible military junta could have taken control over the affairs of the state. Neither the Maldives nor its history will forget this brotherly act by India that symbolised the strong bilateral bond between the two states.

However, India’s decision to recognise the regime that took charge of the country after it toppled the Maldives’ first democratically elected government on February 7 shocked many. Of course, it would have been completely irrational to expect another ‘Operation Cactus’, but on diplomatic grounds India could have done better.

Having had a diplomatic office established in the Maldives and the rebellion broadcast live on television, the decision showed India’s failure in grasping the local political environment of the country, despite it being a base to large Indian investments worth millions. This failure did not only bring dismay to the local populace, but to international spectators as well.

For instance, Indian journalist Sumon K Chakrabarti in his article in the South Asia Monitor described the misstep as India losing “the mango as well as the sack”.

“With lost credibility and a history of dumping friends – from Burma to Bangladesh and now Maldives, the reality is stark – India has, as the saying goes, lost the mango as well as the sack in the Maldives,” he wrote.

Another journalist, B Raman for the Eurasia Review, put it as “badly damaging” to India’s “traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes”.

He writes – “the government of India’s traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes in the Maldives has been badly damaged and a number of international actors from the UK, the US, the European Union and the United Nations have rushed to the Maldives to try their hand in internal peace-making, thereby marginalising the traditional role of India. Only China and Pakistan have not yet entered the political fray in the Maldives. If they do, that will be ultimate humiliation for Indian diplomacy at its southern door-step.”

For a regime installed through illegitimate means, an assent from the region’s major player would obviously be the perfect gift. A gift that took the country back three years  in terms democratic progress it achieved following the transition from a remorseless dictatorship. A gift that brought back the culture of state-sponsored torture, intimidation and harassment.

The accession of Vice-president Waheed Hassan resulted in a rudderless, clueless and mandate-less regime which neither entertained the popular support of the people nor had a contemplated plan to run the affairs of the state.

The unprecedented alteration to the dynamics of local politics saw the return of elements of past dictatorship back to power, which had previously been voted out in the country’s first free and fair presidential election in 2008.

Cabinet portfolios were divided among political parties with diverse political thinking, each of which had its own ambitions to come to power. Most of them do not carry any political weight or have any representation in parliament, including those with an religious element such as the Adhaalath Party.

Similarly ex-president Gayoom had his daughter and son appointed as state-minister level positions in the regime, much to the disappointment of those who had voted him out in 2008. But in Waheed’s words this was a “national unity government”.

A national unity government, whose elements while in opposition had made their antagonism towards Indian investments public, especially against infrastructure giant GMR, which was awarded a concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) but was declared an economic enslaver.

India should have foreseen the consequences its investments would later face in endorsing a regime consisting of elements that had previously shown its disapproval towards major Indian investments. India should have taken its time to assess the political situation of the country and should have confirmed the legitimacy of the controversial regime before accepting it.

However, failure to do so resulted in the scrapping of its single largest investment by the very government it had recognised.

India’s concerns over the Maldives should have come earlier. Not when senior officials of the regime it give assent to nine months previously mocked, insulted and even accused its High Commissioner of indulging in bribery. Not when its largest investment in the country was evicted. None of which would have taken place had India taken a ‘prevention than cure’ approach towards the Maldives.

One must hesitantly agree to the point raised by the very ambitious Special Advisor to Waheed, Dr Hassan Saeed in his ‘candid’ letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

He observes: “The Indian Foreign Secretary’s visit to our country in February [2012] failed to resolve the political crisis largely because India is no longer seen as a friendly and fair neighbour who could broker an honest and fair deal.”

Hailed as the world’s largest democracy, India’s inconsistency in its commitment towards democracy in the Maldives not only cost the eviction of its single largest investment in the country, but also gave rise to noisy anti-India rhetoric led by religious fundamentalists and politicians sided with the current regime.

In nine months time, the Maldives will hold its second multi-party presidential elections. Perhaps it these will be the country’s last chance in the near future to overcome what it lost in terms of democracy. It might also be a golden opportunity for India to reassure its commitment towards the democratic process of the country, by pressuring Waheed’s regime towards a free and fair ballot.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)