Tag: maldives

Immigration Department denies vital components missing from replacement border system

The Department of Immigration and Emigration has rejected accusations that a replacement border control system provided by US authorities will not be fit for purpose without “enhancements” currently being made to the technology.

An immigration source speaking on condition of anonymity last week told Minivan News that the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES) – provided free of charge by the US government – was not an adequate replacement for the previous system provided by Malaysia-based Nexbis.

The PISCES system would only provide one of several functions afforded by the “total solution” installed by Nexbis under an agreement recently scrapped by the government, alleged a local source experienced in working with both border control systems.

“Nexbis provided a total solution that not only allowed for checking of biometric data, but would also be used to process visas and work permits,” the source claimed at the time.

Enhancements underway

Chief Superintendent of Immigration Zubair Muhammad today confirmed that enhancements were continuing to be made to the functionality of the PISCES since its installation as a direct replacement for the Nexbis system earlier this month.

Asked for more details on the nature of changes being made to PISCES, Zubair responded that a press conference had been scheduled for Sunday (September 1) at which representatives from the Ministry of Defence, the National Centre for Information Technology (NCIT) and immigration officials would discuss the ongoing work.

He also declined to provide details on whether any Immigration Department systems would have been affected by the changeover from the dismissed Nexbis technology at the present time.

Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali meanwhile declined to comment on the PISCES technology when contacted today, and Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim had not responded at the time of press.

Nazim earlier this month claimed that both US and local authorities were continuing to develop PISCES since its introduction at Ibrahim Nasir International airport (INIA) to ensure it could meet the technical criteria required by immigration officials in the country.

“During training [to use the system], we realised that we needed to do enhancements,” he said at the time.

Asked if the country’s border controls could be open to abuse while these enhancements were being implemented, Nazim had responded that several amendments were expected to have been completed over the last week.

Immigration Department Spokesperson Ibrahim Ashraf at the time said that the country’s border controls had been transferred from Nexbis’ technology to Pisces without many issues.

He added that PISCES was nonetheless reliant on data from the Nexbis system, with technical staff from the Malaysian firm and the immigration working on transferring the necessary information.

Nexbis agreement

Nexbis’ border control system, used at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) since September 2012, was replaced on August 20 following the government’s decision to terminate its concession agreement for the use and management of the system.

Nexbis has rubbished the Maldivian government’s reasons for terminating their agreement to build and operate a new border control system, accusing human traffickers – fearful of a more comprehensive system – of being behind the decision.

In June, the Maldives was placed on the US State Department’s Tier Two Watch List for Human Trafficking for the fourth consecutive year.

The PISCES system, designed by US tech firm Booz Allen Hamilton, has already been implemented in numerous other countries around the world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Thailand.

Nexbis’s statement also took issue with Defence Minister Nazim’s claims that the installation of its system was causing “major losses” to the state – this claim was reported in local media on August 6 when the Malaysian company was informed it had 14 days to vacate the country.

The company argued that its system was also installed and operated free of charge, and that the US$2.8million it had billed the government was the amount due for the arrival and departure of foreigners as per the original agreement.

The Nexbis deal has been dogged by allegations of corruption since it was agreed under the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed in 2010.

The failure of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to conclusively prove foul play in this respect has exonerated Nexbis from such charges, the company has claimed.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The Maldives – a case study in contemporary diplomacy

This article was originally published on UAE Diplomacy. Republished with permission.

The Maldives is normally known for beautiful beaches and breath-taking blue sea. But these days it also brings up for a highly interesting case study in diplomatic law and contemporary diplomacy. A friend drew my attention to a recent court ruling on a case in which the Indian High Commission in Maldives failed to comply with its contractual duties as per the rent of its mission premises. According to a local newspaper article, the private landlord took the issue to the civil court which, in the first instance, rejected the claim due to a lack of jurisdiction. While this is not surprising, the court’s reasoning is. The Maldivian Civil Court ruled that it could not look into the matter because the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) included immunity for diplomatic missions and diplomatic agents.

Jurisdiction is always a tricky notion as the term itself is not always clear. Sometimes it refers to territory (custody) only, however, most of the time it can be likened to power exercised by a state over persons, property or events. So, when a Court rejects the power of jurisdiction, it is probably that it does not consider itself the correct authority to legislate in respect to the issue of the person, property and event. Referring to the current case, it will mean that the Civil Court has decided that it is not in a position to make a judgement on the President of India, who was acting on behalf of the Republic of India. Generally-speaking, diplomatic missions and personnel enjoy certain privileges and immunities to carry out their duties or for the representation of their government. While diplomatic privileges and immunities have a long tradition, they were codified in 1961 by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).

The VCDR regulates diplomatic privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions and its agents but has little to say on civil proceedings and matters with private subjects of international law. It primarily regulates aspects of state to state relations but not the relations with international organizations, let alone private entities or individuals. The VCDR touches, for instance, in Article 21 on the obligation of the receiving state to assist in obtaining suitable accommodation (being bought or leased). In Article 23 it states that the head of mission is exempt from dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission and through Article 31 the diplomatic agent receives immunity from execution (measures concerning his/her personal inviolability). Interestingly enough, subparagraph 31.4 says that the immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving state does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.  In other words, and this is the only connection to the Civil Court’s ruling, without a waiver of immunity, civil proceedings against a  diplomat can only be taken in his home country.

Unsatisfied with the Civil Court’s ruling, the private landlord appealed –with quite considerable success. On 21 August, 2013 the High Court ruled in favour of the private, Maldivian landlord. In its judgment the High Court found that ‘Maldivians are not required to follow the VCDR as there is no national legislation enforcing the regulations of the convention’ (see linked newspaper article). This decision is based on the Maldivian Constitution, which stipulates in Article 93 that citizens shall only be required to act in compliance with treaties ratified by the state AND provided for in laws enacted by the parliament.

Now, there are several ways international law can be aligned with domestic law. One way is for the constitution to comment about it in a general way. For instance, the German Constitution provides a hierarchy of law, putting constitutional law first, then provisions of international treaties and then other national or federal regulations. Sometimes, when there exists international conventional law, this can interfere with national laws. As a result, states are required to legislate, meaning that they adapt to international standards or, if the terms of the international convention are not acceptable, the country in question will not ratify the convention (approval by the parliament or any other appropriate legislative body in the country).

In the current case, the Constitution of the Maldives refers a mere 12 times to international law without establishing any kind of hierarchy nor giving any specific hint as to how international law needs to be integrated in relation to national law. The closest it comes to is in Article 93 which states that ‘Maldivian citizens shall only be required to act in compliance with treaties ratified by the state and provided for in laws […].’ In this case, there appears to be an absence of clear national legislation in reference to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which the Maldives ratified back in 2007. Looking at other Commonwealth Nations such as the United Kingdom, we will find the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act of 1964 (the year the VCDR came into effect). This Act regulates the application of the VCDR, going into detail about potential extensions or interpretations of the articles.

While there is obviously a need for national legislation in the Maldives to clarify its position on the provisions of the VCDR, it is arguable whether this convention is relevant, at all, to the current problem. The case we have here is a situation in which a private, Maldivian individual is filing a law suit against the President of India, who was acting in the rental agreement on behalf of the Indian people. However, as stated in its preamble, the VCDR is a convention between states. Therefore, it falls into the category of public international law but has little relevance to private international law. Meanwhile, cases in which private individuals file a law suit against states do occur every now and then, these cases fall into a certain category which is internationally codified, inter alia, under the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. While this convention was negotiated in 2004, it still has not achieved the necessary minimum number of ratifications in order to come into force. Most developed states have domestic laws regulating state immunities. For example, in the US such a law is called ‘Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’. It stipulates that foreign governments are immune from suit in the US (state and federal courts) unless the claim falls within certain exceptions. Such exceptions include when a statesperson acts in a private capacity or is engaged in private business activities.

From the above we can draw a number of conclusions. First, the VCDR has little relevance to the case in question. It does not deal with private international law but mainly deals with matters between states and the granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities to its permanent diplomatic missions and personnel. Second, both court rulings are based on interesting justifications due to a lack of national legislation in the field of diplomatic privileges and immunities, as well as regarding the area of state immunity.  Building up to this, I would like to take up the cudgels for the Maldivian Courts. While the underlying case shows that the VCDR is partly incomplete and in some detailed aspects antiquated at best, it begs the question, are the courts of a relatively inexperienced and small country such as the Maldives to know about these details? Both courts probably had no independent experts at hand nor would the argued amount of money (US$200,000) justify a very detailed background research. Hence, the lack of clarity of the situation (why the Indian High Commission ended the rental agreement prematurely), and the fact that the High Commission would enjoy diplomatic immunities (inviolability of mission premises, immunity of diplomatic personnel) would have made investigations difficult and tedious. The take away message is that the Maldives might want to look into some vital legislative actions in order to incorporate and align international law with domestic law. This would lead to more transparency and clarity for future rulings.

Kai Bruns is an Associate Professor at the American University in the Emirates. He holds a PhD in the field of Diplomatic Studies – his doctoral thesis focused on the negotiating process leading to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).

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)

Senior PPM official files Supreme Court case against Elections Commission

The Supreme Court is to hold the first hearing into a case against the Elections Commission (EC) filed by a senior member of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

PPM Appeal Committee member Ahmed Zaneen Adam filed a case against the EC with the Supreme Court on Monday (August 26), requesting the court order an independent audit of the commission’s IT systems to “ensure they are credible”, and to order state security forces to “ensure the election does not face any undue influence”.

Adam claimed the case was filed in his “personal capacity” and not on behalf of his party – who have denied knowledge of the case.  The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has disputed this claim.

Adam’s submission also requested the court determine whether the voter re-registration process had been conducted fairly, and asked the court to order the EC to place a copy of the original electoral register – signed by all presidential candidates – in all polling stations.

The Supreme Court has accepted the case and scheduled the first hearing at 2:00pm on Thursday (August 29).

“I have not been informed whether the party has submitted a case to the Supreme Court concerning the competency of the Elections Commission’s work,” PPM MP and Spokesperson Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News today.

Nihan claimed that the party was cautious of backing any action that could compromise the election scheduled for September 7.

“I certainly believe that we do not want to take any action that would halt the election. We have to be very careful going forward,” he said. “We will have to wait to see if anything is submitted.”

The Supreme Court hearing follows a series of recent complaints against the EC issued by both the PPM and Jumhoree Party (JP).  The PPM claimed last week their concerns had gone “unaddressed” and they would seek a legal resolution against the Commission.

PPM vice presidential candidate and former Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed is heading the party’s legal team concerning the issues it has raised against the EC.

PPM trying to delay elections: MDP

“The PPM wants to delay elections or have the Supreme Court intervene to do so,” said MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy.

“I haven’t seen PPM conducting nationwide campaigning. They just started conducting door to door campaigning two weeks ago,” Fahmy continued. “They are delayed or not ready for elections at all.”

Fahmy alleged that the PPM would have known Adam was filing a case against the EC and that Adam would not have acted without the party’s consent, given his leadership role.

“As a member of PPM’s Appeals Committee, he would not have taken action without the PPM’s consent and approval,” he said.

“If Adam were a member of an MDP committee and wanted to take legal action in a personal capacity, the party would not allow that,” he added.

Fahmy said be believed the PPM would not succeed in delaying the presidential election considering the EC was constitutionally established as an independent commission and had successfully carried out every democratic election in the country since its inception.

“The Commission has already set the date for elections, all the preparations have been made, the voter registry list has been completed, and political parties – especially the MDP – are ready for elections,” he noted.

“The Supreme Court should reject the PPM case because it is not within their mandate to stop elections, they should not intervene,” Fahmy continued.

“People all over the Maldives are ready for the election. If something unexpected happens it will be a really big issue that people will not accept at all. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take that action,” he added.

MDP to enter the fray

The MDP today submitted a petition to the Supreme Court to join the case as a third party. However, the court rejected this application due to a “technical problem”, Fahmy stated.

He explained that the court had asked for more details in the paperwork, despite the documents submitted by the PPM not being provided.

The MDP’s legal team plans to re-submit the appropriate paperwork tomorrow morning in a process one party lawyer said can be completed in minutes.

“We will submit our application to join the case as a third party tomorrow morning. MDP not only has an interest in the case, but a jurisdictional right to join the case,” he continued.

“There are no grounds for the PPM to question [the EC’s work] by submitting a case against them. They have conducted their work and dispersed information very transparently,” he added.

Elections Commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice Chair Ahmed Fayaz, and PPM vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed had not responded to requests for information at time of press.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Arbitration tribunal in GMR hearing agrees separate assessment of liability

The GMR-Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (GMR-MAHB) consortium has won an early legal skirmish in the Singapore-based arbitration hearings into its US$1.4 billion compensation claim for early termination of its contract by the Maldivian government.

GMR-MAHB won a concession agreement to manage and upgrade Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) under the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) administration, which was ousted from power on 7 February 2012 amid protests and a police mutiny.

The new government, comprising a coalition of former opposition parties under current President Mohamed Waheed, declared in late 2012 that GMR-MAHB’s agreement was ‘void ab initio’ (invalid from the outset) and gave the developer seven days’ notice to leave the country.

The US$511 million agreement was at the time the country’s single largest foreign investment. According to the government’s own engineering assessment, the development was 25 percent complete at the time GMR-MAHB was evicted.

The consortium has since lodged a US$1.4 billion claim with the Singapore Court of Arbitration, an amount eclipsing the Maldives’ annual state budget. The government is being represented by a Singapore National University Professor M. Sonarajam, while GMR-MAHB is being represented by former Chief Justice of the UK, Lord Nicholas Edison Phillips. The arbitrator is retired senior UK Judge, Lord Leonard Hubert Hoffman.

Latest hearings

During the second round of procedural hearings earlier this month, the tribunal acceded to GMR-MAHB’s request to split the proceedings into firstly determining liability, before quantifying the amount of compensation to be paid separately.

Minivan News understands that the tribunal agreed this would simplify examination and quantification of what was effectively three claims being made in the hearing: GMR-MAHB’s claim for compensation as per the termination clause of its concession agreement, its parallel claim for loss of profits over the lifespan of the agreement due to its termination, and the government’s counter-claim for restitution should the tribunal decide in its favour.

According to a source familiar with the matter, the government’s legal team opposed splitting the proceedings in such a fashion as they had not had access to GMR-MAHB’s documentation, and would therefore be unable to assess the scope of the claim at stake.

Minivan News understands that the tribunal rejected the government’s position on the grounds that it would be quicker, fairer and less costly to resolve the case by first determining liability for each of the claims, and then quantifying these.

Separate development paths

Local media has meanwhile reported that Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL), which took over management of the airport following the government’s eviction of the foreign investor, has sought a US$150 million loan from Thailand’s Exim Bank for the construction of a new runway.

Sun Online reported MACL Managing Director Bandhu Saleem as stating that MACL’s three-year development project, involving reclamation of land for the runway and development of a new terminal, would cost a total of US$380 million.

“The terminal is being designed. The funding will be available in the next six months or so. We are planning to start the construction of the terminal as soon as the runway is completed,” Saleem reportedly told Sun.

Future development of the airport and fallout from the arbitration proceedings is likely to be affected by the upcoming election.

Of the four presidential candidates contesting the presidential election on September 7, both resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim and incumbent President Mohamed Waheed have taken strongly nationalistic positions on MACL retaining full control (and responsibility for financing) the airport’s development.

Gasim’s running mate, Dr Hassan Saeed, was an early and emphatic proponent of GMR-MAHB’s eviction, previously issued a pamphlet calling for the cancellation of the agreement and likening it to “taking bitter medicine to cure a disease” or “amputating an organ to stop the spread of cancer.”

The Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), a major opponent of the MDP’s government’s signing of the concession agreement, has in recent months appeared to have taken a more conciliatory position, blaming the fallout of the agreement’s sudden cancellation on President Waheed.

“We told the next President Mr Waheed that he should hold discussions with the GMR Group and the Indian government to arrive at an acceptable solution, after which the government was free to act on its own,” PPM head and former Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom told Indian media in June. “Unfortunately, this was not done and suddenly there was this unhappy ending.”

The MDP has meanwhile signalled that if elected, it intends to negotiate the return of the developer. Construction of the new terminal was originally pegged for completion by 2014.

“The coup government nullified the agreement, and we will see how best to rectify it,” former Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razee told Minivan News.

“If need be we will go to the Majlis. Our objective is to get work restarted as quickly as possible,” he said.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Thinadhoo Regional Hospital renamed to honour late foreign minister

The name of Thinadhoo Regional Hospital has been changed to Dr Samad Memorial Hospital, President Mohamed Waheed announced yesterday (August 28), reports local media.

Waheed was advised by his cabinet members to change the hospital’s name to “create a long lasting tribute” to the late Foreign Minister Dr Abdul Samad Abdulla.

A special remembrance meeting will be held in tribute to Samad’s “distinguished services” – a scholarship has already been announced in his memory.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police hold election operation briefing

An ‘Operation Blue Waves’ briefing was held for commissioned police officers who will lead internal security in the greater Male’ area today, reports the Maldives Police Service (MPS).

The head of Central Operations Command and the head of Operation Blue Waves conducted the briefing, held last night (August 27).

Information on the operational plan for the Male’ area and the different operational phases were discussed, while police officers were assigned to specific areas and given various operational tasks.

Other briefing attendees included the Divisional Operation Command Head and Deputy Head, Assistant Police Commissioner Farhadh Fikry, as well as the Commander of Operation Blue Waves for Male’ area, Chief Inspector of Police Abdulla Shareef.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police ask PG to charge Sri Lankan woman and Maldivian man for fornication

Police have concluded the investigation into a case where a Maldivian man and a Sri Lankan woman are alleged to have had sex in Hulhumale’, and have sent the case to the Prosecutor General’s Office for prosecution.

In a statement issued the police identified the two as Mohamed Didi, 41, of Male and Dhamika Siriyala, 41, from Sri Lanka.

Police said on May 13, 2013, they were caught inside a room in Hulhumale’ rented on a daily basis.

The investigation into the case was concluded on August 25 and sent to PG the same day.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives economy “seriously damaged and destroyed”: former President Gayoom

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has expressed concern that the Maldivian economy has been “seriously damaged and destroyed”.

Speaking during a campaign rally on the island of Kudahuvadhoo in Dhaalu Atoll, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Leader Gayoom was quoted by Sun Online expressing concern at the “serious economic problems” presently facing the country.

Gayoom argued that PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen was the most capable person to save the country’s economy based on his previous government experience.

The PPM, which has the second highest number of MPs behind the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), is part of the current coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed that came to power after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012.

The former President’s concerns were raised as the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) this month criticised current levels of government expenditure as being “beyond appropriate”.

However, Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad responded at the time that efforts had been successful over the last twelve months to curb recurrent government expenditure, while state borrowing had remained consistent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jumhoree Party rejects accusations of campaign bribery

The Jumhoree Party (JP) has rejected accusations of directly giving money or any other incentive to the public during campaigning for the upcoming presidential election, after several rivals raised concerns.

Both the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have slammed the JP this week, accusing senior campaigners in the party of directly providing money and goods to the public to try and buy votes.

JP Deputy Leader Dr Ibrahim Didi today told Minivan News that “no donations” had been made through the campaign offices of its presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim or his coalition partners ahead of polling, scheduled for September 7.

He insisted that although donations such as scholarships and school equipment had continued to be given through the Villa Foundation – a charity established by Gasim – these were not political gestures.

Didi claimed that, as well as sending some 200 Villa scholars abroad, the foundation – which is run separately from the JP – had for decades been providing vital equipment to schools and health centres across the country independently of the JP.

Gasim will stand in the election as the candidate for a coalition of parties including the JP, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party, and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

“Dumping money”

The PPM, whose presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen will be standing against Gasim next month, has alleged that the JP has been providing donations directly from its campaign office in the build up to September’s vote, effectively “dumping money” in certain parts of the country.

PPM MP Ahmed Nihan claimed that while he respected the work of Gasim’s Villa Foundation in the Maldives, there had been “very clear” attempts by the coalition of parties backing his election to offer voters financial incentives, particularly over the last one and a half months.

“I do not think it is the Villa Foundation that has been providing televisions and refrigerators to households,” Nihan said.

Nihan, who reiterated his respect for Gasim as a fellow parliamentarian and one of the country’s highest profile business figures, said that the level of donations being made by the presidential candidate and his supporters was “questionable” for a democratic system.

“One of Gasim’s main plus points is that he has lots of money. He is definitely using it,” he said.

Nihan accused Gasim of trying to financially influence voting, both for the upcoming election and during the country’s first multi-party democratic vote in 2008, arguing that a growing number of young voters between the ages of 19 and 35 years would be aware of attempts to influence them.

He argued that the PPM’s island council by-election victory against the JP in Nolhivaram in Haa Dhaalu Atoll on Saturday (August 24) had indicated that Gasim’s alleged spending and donations would not translate to polling success.

“We are running a democratic campaign. We don’t have the money to provide televisions and refrigerators like the JP,” he added.

Nihan alleged that the majority of Gasim’s political supporters were only interested in profiting from the tycoon by getting what he claimed was a “quick buck” ahead of voting, and cited his previous unsuccessful campaign to stand for the presidency in 2008.

“[These supporters] will abandon Gasim after the election just like what happened in 2008,” he said.

Gasim unsuccessfully contested in the 2008 presidential elections finishing the race in fourth place, with 15.2 percent of the total vote.

He finished behind candidates including then President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, eventual winner Mohamed Nasheed, and the current JP running mate, Dr Hassan Saeed.

Official complaint

The opposition MDP, represented in the upcoming election by former President Nasheed, has filed a case with the country’s Elections Commission (EC) concerning campaigning by Gasim’s coalition.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor accused the JP of “unashamedly” trying to buy votes for the election.

“They believe this is how it has to be done. You give people things and they will vote for you,” he said. “They are oblivious to the fact that the world has changed. We are hearing that some people might accept money [they are offered by a candidate] and still vote for the candidate they want.”

The MDP also today criticised First Lady Ilham Hussain over reports in local media that she had donated MVR 100,000 (US$6500) to Mulaku School in Meemu Atoll, accusing her of trying to buy votes for President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s campaign.

Abbas Adil Riza, a spokesperson for President Waheed’s Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) was not responding to calls at time of press.

Addressing complaints filed over campaign spending, Elections Commissioner  Fuwad Thowfeek today told newspaper Haveeru that any kind of donations by candidates contesting in next month’s presidential vote could potentially undermine the electoral process.

Thowfeek said that in light of allegations of bribery being raised with the commission, he believed it would be best to halt “social assistance” until voting next month had concluded.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)