Tag: IFC

MDP to sue former President Waheed for defamation, damages over GMR airport deal cancellation

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is preparing to sue former President Dr Mohamed Waheed for defamation and damages over his administration’s unilateral termination of the GMR airport development deal.

The main opposition party announced in a press statement on Thursday (June 19), following a Singapore arbitration tribunal ruling that the agreement was “valid and binding”, that it would pursue legal action against the former president and other responsible parties in both Maldivian and international courts.

“Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik and his coup partners had spread falsehoods concerning the GMR agreement, incited hostility and antagonism towards the MDP among the public, and attempted to defame this party,” the press statement read.

“And [they] plunged the nation into serious strife and discord, paved for the way for a coup, and toppled the first democratically elected government of the Maldives in a coup d’etat.”

The party contended that Dr Waheed’s administration was responsible for the compensation the Maldivian government would likely have to pay GMR – which would be “a financial burden the country cannot bear” – as well as loss of investor confidence, soured bilateral relations, and the damage to the Maldives’ international reputation.

The concession agreement signed with the GMR-led consortium in July 2010 to Ibrahim Nasir International Airport was beneficial to the Maldives, the statement continued, and its abrupt termination was unlawful.

“Void ab initio”

In November 2012, following a campaign spearheaded by Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla calling for the nationalisation of the airport, Dr Waheed’s cabinet declared the concession agreement void ab initio – invalid from the outset – and gave the consortium a seven-day ultimatum to hand over the airport.

On December 7, the government took over the airport and evicted GMR, prompting the Indian infrastructure giant to seek US$1.4 billion in compensation for “wrongful termination” of the contract – an amount that eclipses the country’s annual state budget.

In a letter sent to the Bombay Stock Exchange last week, GMR explained that the arbitration tribunal concluded the Maldivian government and the Maldives Airports Company Ltd (MACL) were “jointly and severally liable in damages to GMIAL for loss caused by wrongful repudiation of the agreement as per the concession agreement.”

The determination of liability – the first of two phases of arbitration – will now be followed by the determining of compensation owed.

In the wake of the arbitration decision, Attorney General Mohamed Anil said that President Abdulla Yameen’s administration would honour the verdict while expressing confidence that the government would not have to pay the US$1.4 billion sought by GMR.

“According to the agreement, [we] mostly have to compensate for the investments made. We said we do not have to pay the amount GMR has claimed. We always said we will have to pay compensation, and that this compensation has to come through the agreement,” Anil told reporters on Thursday.

President Yameen had predicted in April that GMR would only be owed US$300 million in compensation.

False pretext

Meanwhile, addressing supporters in Malé at an MDP maahefun (traditional celebratory feast ahead of Ramadan) Thursday night, former President Mohamed Nasheed argued that opposition parties misled the public to topple the MDP government in February 2012 with false allegations.

Opposition parties at the time had claimed that privatising the international airport posed a threat to Maldivian independence and sovereignty as well as Islam, Nasheed recalled.

The concession agreement with the GMR-led consortium was characterised as detrimental to the Maldives, he added, which was used as the pretext for the “coup” on February 7.

“Today it is becoming clear to us that the agreement was valid, and that it was terminated in violation of legal principles as well as international norms, in a way that causes serious damage to the Maldivian people,” Nasheed suggested.

Referring to AG Anil’s insistence that the compensation figure would not be too high, Nasheed accused President Yameen’s administration of continuing to mislead the public.

Nasheed stressed that the amount owed to GMR as compensation was not yet clear, noting however that the arbitration tribunal has ordered the government to pay US$4 million to the company to cover its legal expenses.

“The question we are asking now is, who will be paying those dollars? The dollars will be paid from our pockets. Legal action must be taken against those responsible for us having to pay these dollars,” he insisted.

“We have to seek compensation for the damage caused to our government. We know, we can see, that President Yameen’s government will not last. We know that President Yameen’s government does not have the support of the people. They cannot rule over all of the people in this country with the support of just 25 percent of the public.”

Changing the current government was “a duty and an obligation” for the MDP, the former president said, advising supporters not to despair.

“God willing, our courage will not flag. We will not be afraid and we will not back down either,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AG slams former government over foreign investment “damage” from alleged lack of financial research

Attorney General Azima Shukoor has accused the previous government of failing to conduct sufficient research before signing several major foreign investment projects, that had now been terminated by the present administration.

Azima was quoted by private broadcaster Villa Televison (VTV) (Dhivehi) as claiming that unspecified “economic damage” currently faced by the state had resulted from a lack of economic and legal research by the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

She was quoted in local media arguing that “damages” to the state had resulted from a number of foreign investment projects signed by Nasheed’s administration, including the US$511 million concession agreement signed with GMR to build and manage a new terminal at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport. Azima also raised over another deal with Malaysia-based Nexbis to manage and operate a border control system in the country.

Both agreements have since been terminated by the administration of President Dr Mohamed Waheed, with the Maldives facing a US$1.4 billion compensation claim from GMR after its contract was suddenly declared void in November. The company was then given a seven day notice period to leave before being evicted by authorities.

Nexbis was last week given 14 days to vacate by the government, which likewise terminated its concession agreement with the company.

However immigration officials last week questioned whether  replacement technology was ready to be implemented, in place of the Nexbis system.

Former government response

Responding today to the attorney general’s criticisms, Mahmood Razee, former economic development minister during the Nasheed administration, stressed that the former government had engaged with the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) before moving ahead with the airport privatisation program.

As such, he rejected accusations that no research had been conducted before undertaking such a high profile project.

“Clearly this was not a stab in the dark,” Razee said of the deal. “[The World Bank engagement] determined how best to proceed with the airport development for the benefit of the government and the people. After looking at the revenue streams, it was concluded that it was best to move forward with the public private partnership.”

He claimed that aside from potential financial benefits of agreeing the deal, the consortium consisting of GMR and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhard (MAHB) had been picked based on the companies’ experience in managing other airport projects.

With the deal now terminated, Razee added that it remained critical to secure development at the airport as soon as possible, claiming the current facilities at INIA did not meet the required standards.

Waheed’s government last year accused the IFC itself of negligence during the bidding process for the development of INIA, charges the World Bank rejected at the time.

By June this year, the Maldives’ Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) ruled out corruptionin the awarding of a concession agreement in June 2010 to the GMR/MAHB consortium. The government meanwhile continues to insist the sudden termination of the contract was in the national interest.

“Cause and effect”

Former Economic Development Minister Razee said the Maldives would remain reliant on development funding for future development projects, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars out of reach of the government.

With the country now lacking sufficient rating to obtain credit commercially, Razee argued that development funds remained the only means for a country like the Maldives to secure sizeable finance.

The present government’s decision to cancel two major foreign investments would have a “cause and effect”, he suggested.

Should the MDP be elected to power in the presidential election scheduled for next month, the party would have to consider returning to negotiations with GMR in a bid to avoid huge financial fallout from arbitration proceedings now being conducted in Singapore.

He claimed that the cooperation of international bodies such as the World Bank in securing the GMR deal would likely to be sought in other high-profile investment projects sought under an MDP government.

Economic problems

The Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) meanwhile last month accused senior politicians under successive governments of trivialising the severity of the country’s economic problems.

MNCCI Vice President Ishmael Asif claimed parties were addressing financial concerns and issues impacting foreign investment with negative slogans rather than actual policies in the run up to September’s election.

While accepting the present “bad shape” of the Maldives economy, the chamber of commerce was particularly critical of what it called negative economic campaigning by senior figures in the last two governments – arguing they had done little to address an ongoing shortage of US dollars and a lack of investment banking opportunities and arbitration legislation in the country.

Asif’s comments were made in response to claims by the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) that foreign investors were now turning away from the Maldives due to concerns about political stability and safety in the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC defends report on airport privatisation deal as Sheikh Imran insinuates bribery from GMR

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has issued a press statement defending its investigative report of the airport privatisation deal signed by the previous government, harshly condemning “false and misleading” remarks by politicians of government-aligned parties.

On June 17, the ACC released a 61-page investigative report concluding that there was no corruption in the awarding of a concession agreement to a consortium of Indian infrastructure giant GMR and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) to develop and manage the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

The report was met with strong criticism and bribery allegations from parties in the government coalition.

Insisting that the government’s stand would not change as a result of the ACC findings, President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad told the Press Trust of India (PTI) that “if there is a reasonable cause of doubt, this report can be contested by some parties.’’

“Many people say here that the ACC Board is not an unbiased organisation. They say it is politically motivated,” he was quoted as saying.

Religious conservative Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran meanwhile described the report as “a slap in the people’s face” while President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Inthihaad Party (GIP) Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza accused ACC members of corruption.

In an appearance on pro-government private broadcaster DhiTV last night (June 23), Imran insinuated that ACC members accepted bribes from GMR offered through former Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay.

The ACC report was “a highly unprofessional, semi-technical and procedural review” that did not amount to either a proper investigation or an audit, Imran said, calling for “a full-fledged investigation.”

In November 2012, the current administration abruptly terminated the US$500 million contract with the GMR-led consortium, declared the concession agreement ‘void ab initio’ (invalid from the outset), and gave GMR seven days’ notice to leave the country.

The decision followed weeks of protest by a self-titled “National Movement” spearheaded by Sheikh Imran and senior government officials – born out of the unofficial December 23 coalition of eight political parties and an alliance of NGOs that rallied at a mass gathering to “defend Islam” in late 2011 – calling on the government to “reclaim” and nationalise the airport.

Last Friday, GMR filed a claim for US$1.4 billion in compensation from the Maldives at ongoing arbitration proceedings in Singapore over “wrongful termination” of the contract.

Meanwhile, former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, who headed the cabinet committee that advised termination of the contract, contended on DhiTV last week that the ACC report was “incomplete” as the commission had overlooked several key factors.

“Did they omit the factors deliberately or unknowingly or simply just overlooked them? But a lot of factors have been overlooked and omitted from the report. The state will suffer great losses because of it. Especially when the country is tied up in a judicial case,” she was quoted as saying by newspaper Haveeru.

ACC response

ACCIn its press release on Thursday (June 19), the ACC stated that its investigation was “not based on what politicians say at podiums and in the media.”

“Instead, the case was investigated based on relevant information collected for the investigation, documents and statements taken after questioning those involved in the case,” the ACC said, denying the allegations of undue influence on its members or staff.

The ACC statement added that the commission in concluding investigations adhered to article 25 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act of 2008, and did not reach its conclusions “after considering the wishes of a particular politician.”

The commission noted that it had not responded to any political rhetoric targeting the ACC in the past, adding that all corruption investigations followed criminal justice procedures, the ACC Act and regulations under the law.

The statement explained that article 25(a)(2) of the Act required the commission to submit cases for prosecution if sufficient evidence to secure a conviction was gathered.

In the absence of evidence to prove corrupt dealings, article 25(a)(1) of the Act stipulates that the commission must declare that the case does not involve corruption.

The report made public last week contained information collected for the investigation, observations and the reasoning for reaching the conclusion “without any omissions or additions,” the ACC added.

“This is the first time that an investigative report of a case investigated by the commission has been made public like this,” the statement continued. “It was released that way to provide details of the case to the public as transparently as possible.”

The ACC further noted that in December 2012 the commission submitted a case to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) requesting criminal prosecution over the previous government’s decision to deduct a court-blocked Airport Development Charge (ADC) from concession fees owed to the state.

The ACC asked the PGO to seek reimbursement of MVR 353.8 million (US$22.9 million) from former MACL Chair Ibrahim ‘Bandhu’ Saleem and former Finance Minister Mohamed Shihab over the alleged misuse of authority the commission contended had led to significant financial losses for the state.

Bribery allegations

Responding to remarks in local media last week by an unnamed ACC member alleging that Imran attempted to influence the outcome of the investigation, the Adhaalath Party President admitted on DhiTV last night that he met commission members while the “National Movement” protests were ongoing.

Imran said he met ACC members after learning of efforts by GMR to bribe politicians through the former Indian High Commissioner Mulay.

Mulay also requested meetings with Imran himself on numerous occasions “through some of our ministers and even by directly calling our office,” he claimed.

Upon hearing of meetings between Mulay and ACC members, Imran said the leaders of the “National Movement” met commission members to “advise against accepting bribes.”

“[ACC members] said, ‘how can we go near that? we have sworn an oath,'” Imran said.

He claimed the ACC members told him that “the roots go deep” in the GMR deal and that former President Nasheed “completed the deal in Singapore.”

ACC members informed Imran that bribes from GMR was deposited to bank accounts in countries near Singapore, he claimed, while the commission members provided assurances that “everything would be made clear” once the investigative report was made public.

Imran said he would reveal further details of the “National Movement’s” meeting with ACC members if the commission responded to the allegations.

“In any case, we were working to liberate the airport on behalf of religion and the nation,” he said, adding that the government eventually decided to terminate the agreement without waiting for the ACC report.

As a result of pressure from the protests, he continued, the government was convinced it was not in the national interest to persist with the contract.

Imran also insinuated that the ACC would receive a portion of the US$1.4 billion compensation figure claimed by GMR.

State Minister for Home Affairs Abdulla Mohamed, who was part of the protests against GMR, meanwhile argued that the ACC releasing its report a few days before an arbitration hearing could not be “a coincidence.”

“Do we really have to comply with a court order from a Singaporean court?” he asked.

He contended that the Maldivian government would not have to compensate GMR despite a decision in favour of the consortium at the ongoing arbitration proceedings.

“Also, we can appeal such a judgment in Maldivian courts, can’t we? That’s not prohibited by Maldivian law. There’s no obstacle to that. So this is not something that the public should be concerned about at all,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No corruption in GMR airport deal, concludes ACC

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has ruled out corruption in the awarding of a concession agreement in June 2010 to a consortium of Indian infrastructure giant GMR and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhard (MAHB) to develop and manage the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

In a 61-page investigative report (Dhivehi) made public yesterday (June 17), the ACC concluded that the bidding process was conducted fairly by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) and that the GMR-MAHB consortium won the contract by proposing the highest net present value of the concession fee.

The ACC further concluded that the awarding of the contract did not contravene amendments brought to the Public Finance Act requiring parliamentary approval for such agreements.

The amendments were published in the government gazette after the concession agreement was signed, the ACC noted.

The concession agreement was signed on June 28, 2010, while the amendments were gazetted on December 13, 2010, following a Supreme Court ruling. The amendments were voted through for a second time in August 2010 following a presidential veto.

On the previous administration’s decision to replace the board of directors at the 100 percent government-owned Maldives Airports Company Ltd (MACL) – after they refused to sign the concession agreement claiming insufficient information – the ACC observed that there was “no legal obstacle” for the move.

The ACC report also concluded that the government would benefit more from privatising the airport.

“Considering the situation (2008, 2009 and 2010) when the decision was made to privatise the Male’ International Airport,” the ACC’s calculations showed that MACL would make a profit of about US$254 million in 25 years if the airport was operated by the government-owned company.

Conversely, the government would receive about US$534 million in the same period from the GMR consortium if the airport was privatised, the ACC found.

The privatisation of the airport by the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government in June 2010 was strongly condemned by opposition parties on nationalistic grounds.

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Peoples Alliance (PA), Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Jumhooree Party (JP) signed an agreement to work against the privatisation process and launched a media offensive alleging “massive corruption” in the awarding of the contract.

The ACC report this week meanwhile followed a special audit conducted by the Auditor General’s Office with the assistance of a British consultant concerning the airport privatisation deal.

The AG’s report stated that evidence to back allegations of “improper interference” during the technical bidding process “is not conclusive on this point” and deferred the matter to the ACC.

The AG’s report also noted that the IFC’s terms of reference involved “securing the best deal for the government in terms of the concession fee paid to the government and MACL, and did not consider impacts on the Maldivian economy.”

Government stance

In November 2012, the current government – made up of a coalition of parties opposed to the MDP government’s privatisation policy – declared the concession agreement with the GMR-led consortium “void ab initio” (invalid from the outset) and abruptly terminated the contract.

In April this year, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed that arbitration proceedings resulting from the contract cancellation would begin by mid-2014.

Responding to the ACC’s findings yesterday, the government insisted that the report would have no impact on its legal position to declare the GMR concession agreement void, contending that President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s decision had nothing to do with corruption allegations levelled by “some people”.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Minivan News that the contract was declared void from the beginning due to the negative impact on state finances in 2012.

“Back before the government took back control of the airport from GMR, the reason we gave was that the deal was bleeding the country’s economy. We were paying GMR to keep them here,” he explained.

Masood said that despite “speculation from some people” concerning corruption by the former administration in signing the deal, the present government was not responsible for filing a case with the ACC.

He added that the government’s concerns over the deal had been in relation to the imposition of a US$25 Airport Development Charge (ADC) by GMR that was blocked by the Civil Court in 2011 after the then-opposition DQP filed a case on the matter.

The DQP, now part of President Waheed’s coalition government, attempted to block payment of the charge on the grounds that it was effectively a tax not approved by parliament.

In response, the MDP government agreed to deduct the ADC from the concession fees payable, while GMR later offered to exempt Maldives nationals from paying the ADC as it moved to appeal the verdict.

However, former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under controversial circumstances on February 7, 2012 amidst a violent mutiny by elements of the police and military before the Civil Court verdict was appealed at the High Court.

Consequently, in the first quarter of 2012, Dr Waheed’s 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.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP favours court resolution to GMR dispute as coalition partners prepare to “take to the streets”

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) will not join its fellow government coalition partners at a gathering in Male’ to oppose an airport privatisation contract with India-based infrastructure group GMR, claiming any resolution to the dispute must be made through the courts.

DRP Spokesperson Ibrahim Shareef has told Minivan News that while the party itself questioned if the GMR deal was in the best interest of the public, “due process” had to be followed through proper legal channels in order to establish if any wrong doing had occurred with the airport contract.

“Right now we do not feel that the best option is to take to the streets on this matter. We do not know what the purpose of this [coalition] gathering is, so we will not be taking part,” he said.

Shareef added that the party’s position remained that the government was bound to the agreement should it fail to prove through due process that the contract to develop and manage Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) was invalid.

The comments were made as key financial figures within the former government maintained this week that the deal was vital to not only modernise and boost efficiency at the airport, but also to address concerns over present state expenditure through a focus on privatisation.

Under the terms of the agreement – a US$511 million deal representing the largest ever case of foreign investment in the Maldives’ history – GMR agreed to a 25 year concession agreement to develop and manage the site, as well as redevelop the existing terminal by the end of this year.

The document was overseen by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on private sector projects in developing countries.

However, the Maldives government earlier this month accused the IFC of negligence during the bidding process for INIA – allegations there were rejected by the organisation amidst continued calls from government-aligned parties to renationalise the airport.

Both the government and GMR are presently involved in an arbitration case in Singapore over the airport development.

Coalition gathering

With the arbitration ongoing, six government-aligned parties are set to hold a gathering from 9:00pm on Thursday night at the Artificial Beach area of Male’ calling for INIA, as the country’s main airport, to be “returned to Maldivians”.

Through a movement called “Maldivians’ airport back to Maldivians”, the coalition – excluding the DRP – told local media this week that the gathering represents the first in a series of activities aimed at regaining management of the airport.

According to local newspaper Haveeru, Sheikh Imran Abdulla of the government-aligned religious Adhaalath Party (AP) said the gathering was aimed at showing the coalition would take a “united stand” on opposing the GMR deal until the airport was “liberated”.

“Our hope is on the night the true feeling of the Maldivian people would be revealed on the airport issue,” he was quoted as saying by Haveeru.

The coalition movement is also expected to detail what it has claimed are losses sustained to the local economy from the awarding of the company to the Indian infrastructure group.

Sheik Imran was not responding to calls at the time of press. However, fellow AP member and Maldives’ Islamic Affairs Minister, Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, said he had “no idea” about any such gathering being held.

Meanwhile Dr Hassan Saeed, head of fellow coalition member the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), referred a query by Minivan News about the gathering to the party’s Secretary General, Abdulla Ameen. Ameen was not returning calls at the time of press.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Yameen meanwhile referred enquiries about the gathering to Secretary General Yumna Maumoon – daughter of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Yumna was not responding to calls at the time of press.

DRP Spokesperson Shareef claimed that even should the validity of the agreement between GMR and the former government be found to be questionable, it remained for the courts to decide on such a matter.  Shareef added that senior members of his party had been penalised for holding such views by political opponents.

“Both [DRP Leader] Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid have been accused of taking bribes on this matter and trying to obstruct efforts to take the airport,” he said.

Shareef claimed the allegations had been devised by a faction formed in the DRP by members loyal to former party head and national President Gayoom, which later branched off to form the PPM party last year.

“Gayoom’s supporters had wished to take the airport back by force,” he said. “I’m not saying the deal is fair, but first we can look to renegotiate terms and get a new agreement. Also the government has the resources to investigate the deal and make the best decision on how to move forward to benefit the Maldivian people.”

Shareef added that the party had therefore decided against “taking to the streets” with other parties in President Waheed’s coalition government.

“We are not saying that the former government were not involved in something improper with the agreement,” he claimed. “But we do not see the previous government as an MDP government, or the current government as a DRP or PPM government, it is always the government of the Maldives, so if an agreement made by the government is found to be valid, than it must be honoured under the law.”

Privatisation pursuit

Speaking yesterday on private broadcaster Raaje TV, former Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razee said the GMR deal reflected a commitment by the former government to pursue privatisation as outlined in the MDP’s manifesto.

“Firstly, if or when anything is run like a business, private people are more skilled and efficient. They are far more competent and they work for profit unlike the government,” he claimed.  “This means it requires less cost for the government, but needs more outside investment or capital. Private people are more skilled and efficient in terms of managing. The end product thus is more beneficial.”

Addressing criticisms from some local politicians that privatisation provided no benefits to the nation, Razee conceded there was an element of truth to the assumption, but stressed it did not reflect longer-term economic benefits.

“Because the investment is huge, the project is big; the first beneficiaries are always the investors. True. The benefits go to the foreigners,” he said. “In foreign countries, they make a consortium, which means the profits are being shared within multiple parties. For example, if a Turkish company is investing here, it doesn’t mean they do everything themselves. If they are developing a property, the construction, or other necessary work is done through local companies.”

Also speaking during the programme was MDP member and former Minister of Finance and Treasury Mohamed Shihab. Shihab claimed that in cases where there was limited national budgets such as in the development of a new airport terminal, then finance should be sought from outside sources.

He added that as within the case of technology and other expertise, and pointed to local resort groups such as Universal Resorts Maldives as examples in the country’s past where foreign partnerships had benefited the country’s economy.

“Resort owners do [private partnerships] because they profit from it. Let’s conduct a survey among resorts. Definitely the salaries and service charges are higher in foreign managed companies. It is a fact that, countries where foreign investment has been made are far more developed.”

Speaking earlier this year, INIA Chief Executive Officer Andrew Harrison claimed that INIA would remain a Maldivian owned enterprise that would be continuously developed by the company for the duration of the tender.

“We are just the caretakers here,” he said.  ”The airport remains and has always been owned by Maldivians.”

Harrison contended that to ensure profitability for its investment in the airport, GMR was itself committed to strengthening the wider Maldivian economy by working with local businesses, industry and contractors.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

IFC and MMA to establish Maldives’ first credit information bureau

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is to work with the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) to establish the country’s first credit information bureau, reports India Infoline.

The creation of a formal mechanism for sharing credit information will improve access to finance for small and medium enterprises, the IFC stated.

“Creating a financial infrastructure that supports informed credit-related decisions and improves access to credit for small and medium enterprises is an important priority for IFC and the Maldives,” said Per Kjellerhaug, IFC Regional Manager. “Establishing a credit information bureau will help the country get closer to achieving this goal.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)