Tag: minivan

Comment: Maldives battle-lines getting redrawn?

With the Jumhoree Party (JP) voting in Parliament unlike the rest of the partners in the government, and President Mohammed Waheed Hassan sacking one more of its Ministers, battle-lines seem to be getting redrawn in the Maldives all over again.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) lost the vote for secret-ballot on no-confidence motions – one is now pending against President Waheed – by 34-39 with two absentees in the 77-member house, including the Speaker, but the JP decision has exposed the chinks in the government’s armour that had remained underneath until now.

In a way, the early JP decision to vote for secret-ballot may have triggered the current political crisis, independent also of the anti-GMR protests that are centered on the Indian developer-concessionaire for the Male international airport. The sacking of JP Transport Minister Ahamed Shamheed the previous week has been followed by that of State Minister for Gender, Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed.

Minister Saeed had appeared with her husband and JP parliamentarian Abdulla Jabir at a weekend news conference, condemning his arrest on charges of alcohol-consumption, and alleged roughing-up, consequent hurt and humiliation at the hands of the police. Jabir was not alone in all this.

Simultaneously, President Waheed seems to have put on hold the JP’s new nominee for Transport Minister. Ameen Ibrahim is a vice-president of the party and chairman of the VTV of the Villa Group, owned in turn by JP founder, Gasim Ibrahim. He was named to succeed Shamheed after President Waheed stood his ground on not restoring the latter. Simultaneously, however, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza, one of the recent entrants, quit the JP, protesting against the party’s vote on the secret-ballot.

What make the current developments interesting is the presidential aspirations of JP’s Gasim Ibrahim. He was among the first serious contenders for the presidency to announce his candidature in the elections that are due in 2013. Having bagged over 15 per cent of the popular-vote in the first-ever multi-party, direct elections to the presidency in 2008, Ibrahim is believed to command a ‘committed vote-bank’, which he transferred to MDP’s Nasheed in the second run-off round, thus contributing to the latter’s victory. With the nation purportedly poised for an equally keen contest the next time too, the current political developments have the potential to advance the presidential poll date, as desired and demanded by the MDP, ever since President Nasheed quit office on February 7.

Avoidable embarrassment

Despite winning the vote against secret-ballot on anticipated lines, the government faced avoidable embarrassment in Parliament when a member charged President Waheed and his aides with influencing him to “vote in a particular way” on the issue of secret-ballot. Ali Azim is one of the two MPs against whom the civil court had cancelled summons earlier in the day on Monday, for non-payment of dues to the state-run Bank of Maldives (BoM). Under the Maldivian law, proclaimed debtors cannot continue as MPs until they had cleared their dues – and at times have to get re-elected after their seats are declared vacant.

The government has promptly and predictably denied Azim’s charge. It is unclear if the MP intends moving a breach of privilege motion against all those whom he had named inside the house as influencing him to vote in a ‘particular way’ on the secret-ballot.

Media reports on his parliamentary expose, if one, did not mention any substantial evidence to prove his point. For now, the charge lends credence to the opposition MDP’s charge that the government was using all means to influence and/or intimidate MPs. If there are more on the treasury benches, as claimed, they are yet to speak up – or, act otherwise on issues of concern to the government.

‘Anti-GMR, not anti-India’

On a parallel track, which may have been side-lined to an extent by the more immediate political developments inside and outside Parliament, a junior Minister claimed that the on-going anti-GMR protests should not be construed as anti-India protests. In a pointed reference to the Indian concerns expressed by the Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi recently, State Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, Ahmed Shameem, claimed that the issue related to a company owned by ‘some Indians’ but was registered in another country and did not pay taxes to India.

The issue thus did not relate to India or the Indian Government, the Minister said.

“No demonstrations have been held in Maldives against India. No anti-India sentiments were expressed in any of the demonstrations held… India should not, therefore, be worried over a non-existent matter.”

Elaborating, Minister Shameem said, “We have no issues with India. We have no issues with any Indian citizens in Maldives, and likewise we have no issues with any of the employees of GMR. The issue is with the agreement made by the former Government (of President Nasheed) with GMR. All we want is to annul that agreement.”

Miadhu quoted Minister Shameem as also saying that they had clarified the position even in the Friday night’s rally of the National Alliance. He recalled that religion-centric Adhalathth Party leader “Sheikh Imran and others stated this very clearly. They clarified that there is no threat to any Indian citizen in Maldives”. As may be recalled, the protestors have resorted to a combination of religion and patriotism to target GMR, continuing from where they had left the ‘December 23 Movement’ after the February 7 resignation of President Nasheed.

Tirade against envoy continues

Minister Shameem went on to claim that the Indian government had been misinformed of the reality of the situation by people in the Maldives. He urged the Indian government to seek authentic information about the situation in the Maldives directly without contacting any third party.

Minister Shameem belongs to President Waheed’s Gaumee Itthihaad Party (GIP), and it is unclear why the response to the Indian MEA’s statement should come from someone not attached to the Maldivian Foreign Ministry.

Almost simultaneously, Minvian News confirmed that President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza stood by his controversial statement that Indian High Commissioner Dyaneshwar Mulay was a “traitor to Maldives, and corrupt”.

The opposition MDP had earlier taken the issue to parliament, with members claiming that the comments were against diplomatic protocol and could affect bilateral relations with India. MDP parliamentarian Eva Abdulla alleged that the remarks made by Riza were not those of his own but were rather made under “direct orders” of President Waheed, as Minivan News reported.

Riza got not-so-unexpected support from Abdul Azeez Jamaal Aboobakr, MP belonging to the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), founded by former President Maumoon Abdul the the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), founded by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The PPM is the single largest political group supporting the Waheed government in parliament, and Aboobakr said that a person’s freedom cannot be limited because of his employment. He told parliament that Riza too had his freedom of speech – and recalled that the latter had prefaced his public utterances on High Commissioner Mulay as his personal views.

According to Minivan News, the majority of PPM members in parliament attempted to defend Riza, and tried to switch the focus onto the Indian envoy. However, in an apparent contradiction to its comments in parliament, the PPM on November 12 issued a statement dissociating the party from the ‘slanderous’ allegations made against High Commissioner Mulay, Minivan News said further. Earlier, the President’s Office too had distanced himself from Riza’s statement.

In the past, PPM leaders had spoken about the need for re-negotiating the GMR agreement, not ousting them from the airport construction-cum-concession contract. The party’s position on the issue is unclear. So is the current position of the Dhivehi Raayathunge Party (DRP), another of the Government parties originally founded by President Gayoom, and from which he is estranged now.

Over the previous weeks, DRP leader Thasmeen Ali and other leaders have spoken against the moves to oust GMR, but have not been heard of since. On the crucial secret-ballot issue the DRP, like the PPM, voted with the government and against the MDP amendment.

‘India need not be concerned…’

At the same time, in what read like a loaded statement, Minivan News quoted President Waheed’s interview to the news agency, Press Trust of India (PTI), that New Delhi “need not be concerned with affairs in the Maldives”. He claimed further that “this is not a problem that we have with GMR, but with a bad agreement… We have to pay GMR US$1.5 million per month under the current arrangement of the agreement in operation, and that is beyond our capacity”.

The reference was to the erstwhile MDP-led government of President Nasheed offering to compensate GMR for the loss of revenue, after a local court struck off the original provision for levying $25 entry fee for Maldivians using the Male airport. Ironically most government parties today, barring President Waheed’s GIP, were in the opposition at the time the GMR contract was signed – and had opposed it through political, legislative and legal means.

Otherwise too, President Waheed may have a point, when he says the government is strapped for cash to pay GMR every month. Tourism had sustained economic development up to a point, but for growing with the growth, the nation needs large investments in the infrastructure sector in particular. The skewed governmental revenue-model from the resort-centric tourism industry is incapable of sustaining the economy. This is also the crux of the fiscal problem that the Nasheed government inherited and left behind – after attempting to address wide-ranging economic reforms, which came with the IMF-driven austerity measures, affecting the common man as much as the large pool of public servants.

Against this background, the Waheed government may not have any answers to the question of much larger repayments that may become necessary if the GMR agreement were to be annulled, as being sought by street-protestors in Maldives, and the international arbitrators in Singapore, whom GMR has approached under the agreement for redress, rule in its favour. Of equal concern should be the unwillingness of other overseas investors to put their money in Maldives, a nation until now known for easy repatriation procedures that had attracted funding for the resort industry in the first place.

The alternative could be that Maldives has already identified an external underwriter, now lurking in the side-lines, to either pay-off or buy-out GMR, or have other weapons in its arsenal to avoid/minimise those payments.

The Adhaalath Party, which had set a November 15 deadline for the government to take-over the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from GMR has extended the same till the month-end.

For its part, GMR has reiterated its willingness to re-negotiate the position under the existing agreement. Yet, it is unclear if the Maldivian government is willing to re-negotiate the deal as ruling combine leaders used to say from time to time, or would have the time, energy and inclination to do so, and that domestic political developments of the kind flagged by the JP vote on the secret-ballot and allied issues would not overtake the same.

To the extent, the GMR issue and the political crisis could overlap in more ways than one, and more often than anticipated, with consequences for the nation and its near-exclusive import-driven economy.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

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)

Civil Court orders DRP MPs Azim and Nashiz to hand over mortgaged property as payment for BML loans

The Civil Court has ruled on Thursday that the properties mortgaged in relation to the Funaddoo Tuna Products unpaid loans are to be handed over to the Bank of Maldives (BML) within a period of 15 days.

The ruling permits BML to then sell the property in order to settle the payments. The mortgaged properties are Madivaru Yacht, Reethi Beach Resort and Funaddoo.

BML said in court today that as a result of delaying payment, the due amount has now risen from MVR 117 million (US$7,587,549) to MVR 206 million (US$13,359,274) , once the loan interest is added.

Representatives of the bank said in court today that the accounts of the individual guarantors have been frozen, according to local media. The guarantors are Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MPs Ali Azim and Mohamed Nashiz, and Ahmed Rasheed of Rafeeguge.

The bank also said that the passports of the DRP MPs have now been held, preventing them from departing the country.

BML declined from commenting on the issue at time of press as the matter is an ongoing case.

Voted against Waheed’s wishes, court summons again: MP Azim

DRP MP Ali Azim has stood by his earlier allegation that the case being carried through now is politically motivated.

The police were given an order to present MPs Nashiz and Azim to court under detention, while the hearing was scheduled for the same time as the taking of votes in parliament to approve secret balloting for impeachment votes.

The court order was first cancelled a few hours after it was issued. Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Haneef had at the time said that the reason provided by the court was that the presiding judge had been abroad, and other cases had been scheduled.

Azim stated in parliament that he had received calls from President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, President’s Political Advisor Ahmed Thaufeeg and Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza, asking him to cast the vote on secret balloting in a way they preferred. He alleged that they had offered to stop the summons if he voted in line with them.

Azim had said in parliament then that he was “not the least bit surprised” that Waheed had called, adding that Waheed had called previously for similar matters, including the Football Association of Maldives (FAM) elections.

However, the MP subsequently voted in favour of secret balloting.

The Civil Court then summoned the MPs to court again, and the hearing was held Thursday.

“We were summoned to court, and then there was the attempt to intimidate me. When I voted against his wishes, the court immediately summons me back again. I believe this is politically motivated,” Azim said today after the hearing.

DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, MP Mohamed Nashiz and Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Difficult” to believe arrests of MPs “not politically motivated”: IPU

The circumstances behind the arrests of Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor for their alleged possession of alcohol have been labelled “very worrying” by delegates from the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).

Findings compiled by the three-person delegation raised further concerns over the failure to punish police officers who used excessive force on MPs earlier in the year.

At a press conference held today (November 22), the delegation revealed their findings following a three-day mission to the Maldives over alleged human rights abuses of MPs.

The delegation consisted of Philippine Senator Francis Pangilinan from IPU’s Committee on Human Rights of Parliamentarians, South African Parliamentary expert Peter Lilienfeld and Head of the Human Rights programme, Rogier Huizenga.

Pangilinan said that the circumstances surrounding the arrests of Jabir and Ghafoor earlier this month were “very worrying” and that the delegation found it “difficult” to believe it was not politically-motivated.

Both Jabir and Ghafoor – along with eight others – were arrested on the island of Hodaidhoo in Haa Dhaal Atoll for the alleged possession of alcohol and drugs.

The arrests were made days prior to a vote on whether or not a no confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed could be voted with a secret ballot.

Following Jabir’s subsequent release by the Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court, the State has asked the High Court for an order to re-arrest Jabir.

State Prosecutor Hana Waheed requested High Court cancel the Kulhudhuffushi Court ruling, which stated that that there were no grounds to arrest Jabir.

Section 202.D of Parliament’s rules of procedure states that MPs cannot be arrested while there is a no-confidence motion before parliament to impeach the president or remove a cabinet minister, judge or member of an independent commission from his or her post.

However according to Hana, Article 202 of Parliament Standing Orders is against the constitution, and she requested the court to cancel the article and issue an order to arrest Jabir.

At a press conference this morning, Pangilinan from the IPU delegation said: “The circumstances of the arrest are very worrying. An impressive team of unidentified police and an army of officers allegedly carried out the arrests, reportedly without a warrant and ill-treated the MPs.

“We are well aware that the consumption of alcohol and drugs is forbidden in the Maldives, but we find it difficult to believe in light of the circumstances and timing of the arrests that the parliamentarians were not targeted for political reasons.”

The delegation further expressed their concern over the failure to punish the police officers who used “excessive force” against MPs earlier this year.

In March, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentary group submitted cases alleging police brutality against the former ruling party’s MPs to the IPU’s human rights committee at the 126th Assembly held at Kampala, Uganda.

The cases targeted police brutality against MDP MPs on February 7 and 8, in particular on the latter date during a heavy-handed police crackdown on an MDP protest march that left scores injured and hospitalised, including former MDP parliamentary group leader and Hulhu-Henveiru MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik and Maafanu South MP Ibrahim Rasheed ‘Bonda’.

“The delegation is deeply concerned that the police officers who used excessive force against the members of parliament earlier this year have not yet been punished, and that Members of Parliament appear to remain subject to intimidation.

“The delegation points out that in several of the cases in the use of excessive police force, there is clear video evidence available which should have enabled the authorities to take effective and swift action. The delegation therefore calls on authorities to do everything possible to expedite their efforts to a successful conclusion,” Pangilinan said.

Findings from the mission also revealed a lack of trust in the government from the general public and called for parliament to rectify this perception.

“The parliament does not help itself when it is perceived by the public as largely helping itself rather than the ordinary citizens,” Pangilinan added.

The delegation stressed that the issues raised were an internal matter, and that the IPU could only monitor and communicate with the necessary authorities in the hope that a resolution will come “sooner or later”.

“The outside world is not going to resolve these issues. Instead Maldivians sitting down, ultimately talking to each other to solve the issues of controversy is the only way,” said Peter Lilienfeld.

The murder of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem was also mentioned, noting that the delegates were happy to hear the authorities are close to completing the investigation, and that justice can “soon be recognised”.

The three-day mission saw the delegates meet with all relevant judicial executive and parliamentary authorities including the Police Commission, the Minister of Home Affairs and the President.

According to Pangilinan, the findings from the mission will be compiled into a report within one month, before being submitted to the IPU committee where it will be reviewed in January.

“We have informed the offices concerned with our findings that should there be any developments between now and January, that we would welcome any information on such developments so we can incorporate it when we meet in January and tackle the Maldives case,” Pangilinan added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government issues ‘last chance’ rent payment notices to resorts owned by political opponents

The Ministry of Tourism on has issued notices to five resorts warning that their lease agreements could potentially be terminated if the rent owed to the state is not paid.

Minister of Tourism Ahmed Adheeb told local newspaper Haveeru that rents paid by resorts constituted a large portion of national income, and said that only a few of the country’s 104 resorts were paying rent inconsistently.

This inconsistency, Adheeb said, was reflected in the national income and that therefore his ministry was giving these resorts one month to pay their dues or face being shut down by the government.

The resorts include Filitheyo Island Resort and Medhufushi Island Resort, both owned by AAA Hotels and Resorts, a family business owned by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MP Ahmed Hamza.

Zitahli Resorts and Spa Kuda-Funafaru, Kudarah Island resort and Alidhoo Island resort – owned by Yacht Tours Maldives and J Hotels and Resorts – both companies owned by government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir, were also issued notices.

Jabir – the deputy leader of the JP – this week turned on the government  following his arrest last week while on the inhabited island of Hodaidhoo, along with another fellow MP and senior opposition politicians.

The other arrestees were MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – along with former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant. The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said.

The Tourism Minister meanwhile told Haveeru that the government could “immediately terminate” the lease agreements and take back the resorts if rents and fines for non-payment of rent were not paid, but had instead chose to be lenient on the issue and give the resorts 30 days to pay up.

Adhee added that the government would terminate the lease agreements and reclaim the islands if the rent was not paid during the time period.

“This decision is to those resorts which are currently under operation. Not those that are already being developed. Now we have sent the final notice and the resort owners should decide on paying the rent,” he said.

The Minister claimed the government would terminate the contracts in such a way as to avoid affecting tourists currently staying in the resorts, or the employees working there.

“Politically motivated” – MP Abdulla Jabir

Speaking to Minivan News, Jabir blasted the government claiming the motive behind sudden issuance of the “warning notice” was “purely political” and intending to influence the re-submitted amendment to parliamentary regulations to conduct impeachment votes via secret ballot.

Three days ago a similar amendment initiated by the opposition MDP MP Ahmed Shifaz was defeated in the parliament floor by 34 to 39 votes. However, MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed has again re-submitted the amendment to Parliament’s Privileges Committee.

“I have only heard about this from the media. I have tried contacting the tourism minister since last night but he had been ignoring my calls. Because of the interview he gave to media, now tour operators are cancelling  bookings and the staff are not satisfied to continue working in the resorts,” Jabir said.

Jabir claimed that he had paid a settlement of US$2 million in rent during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, which was “agreed as a settlement” for the rent of two islands.

However, Jabir claimed that the current government had chosen not to honour the agreement which resulted in continued addition of fines for non-payment of rent, that now stood at about US$4 million.

“I know following the recent political developments and due to my new opposition to the current government, [President] Waheed has now ordered the tourism minister to issue the repayment notice so to threaten his political opponents,” declared Jabir.

“This is highly politically motivated. He knew I was the one behind the submitting of the amendment to parliamentary regulations to make the impeachment vote a secret ballot. It was I who in the first place drafted that amendment and gave it to MP Ahmed Amir. They know this but I will still continue to work for that,” he explained.

“Will do everything to inform international investors what the President is doing” : Jabir

Jabir said he had known for a long time that President Waheed had “the desire to operate a resort” and desperately wanted “to give a resort or two to one of his children”.

“Now I have decided to hand over the resorts, and I am trying to do the formalities in front of the media. But how can I even do that if tourism minister does not have the courage to answer his mobile phone?”

The JP MP questioned why it was that resorts belonging to opposition politicians were being “targeted” while there were many other resorts which had failed to pay rent.

“What I am saying is very clear. If you want to take the resorts, fine take them. But I promise that I will make sure that Waheed’s ‘scorched-earth politics’ and his failed economic policy is informed to all international investors. Who would really want to invest in a country ruled by such a government?” Jabir questioned.

“Even in the US where the economy is failing, the government takes steps to help  businesses. But here it is the other way around. Owners and young businessmen are being beaten and forced to eat sand,” he said, referring to his earlier allegations of torture during the arrest in Hodaidhoo island.

Jabir stated that he was planning to sue the government for the “damages” he incurred following the decision.

“This notice has already costed me in millions,” he claimed.

MDP MP Ahmed Hamza was not available for a comment at time of press.

Statistics from the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) suggest that more than eight resorts are failing to pay rent, and the government is owed US$25 million.

According to Haveeru, Alidhoo Island Resort – operated by Yacht Tours Maldives owes the government a sum of US$4.7 million while Medhufushi Island Resort operated by J Hotels and Resorts owes the government US$ 5.9 million.

Meanwhile Filitheyo Island Resort owes the government a sum of US$ 5.2 million as both land rent and lease while Zithali Resorts and Spa Kuda-Funafaru owes US$395,859.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court of Singapore upholds injunction against MACL, blocking action over ADC in Maldives’ Civil Court

The High Court of Singapore has rejected an attempt by the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) to release an injunction blocking the government from taking action in the Civil Court of Maldives blocking GMR’s offset of the airport development charge (ADC).

MACL is the government party in the concession agreement with Indian infrastructure giant GMR to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport, signed during the Nasheed administration.

Opposition parties at the time the agreement was signed – and are now in government following February 7’s controversial transfer of power – first opposed GMR’s development of the airport on nationalistic grounds, and then levelled numerous allegations against the company ranging from corruption to concerns that the deal would allow Israeli bombers to refuel en route to bombing Arab countries.

The opposition had some success in disrupting the agreement in late 2011, after the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) won a case in the Civil Court blocking GMR from levying an airport development charge (ADC) as stipulated in its concession agreement.

MACL in a letter sent on January 5, 2012, instructed GMR to deduct the ADC revenues from the concession fees due the government, while it sought to appeal the Civil Court ruling. However the Nasheed government fell a month later and the opposition inherited the problem, receiving 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 now owes the airport developer US$3.7 million.

“The net result of this is that the Maldivian government now has to pay GMR for running the airport. On this basis it is likely that the Maldivian government will end up paying about MVR 8 billion (US$519 million) to GMR for the duration of the contract,” wrote Dr Hassan Saeed, President Mohamed Waheed’s Special Advisor, in a recent appeal to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calling on him to cancel the Maldives’ agreement with GMR.

Saeed is the leader of the DQP, the party that filed the case against the ADC while in opposition, and has strongly opposed GMR’s involvement in the airport development.

As per the concession agreement, the ADC matter was referred to the Singapore Court of Arbitration.

The High Court of Singapore on July 23 granted an injunction in favor of GMR, restraining MACL from taking any step in the Civil Courts of the Maldives preventing the company “from adjustment/set-off of the Airport Development Charge and insurance surcharge, as per MACL’s 5th January 2012 letter, which is now referred to arbitration,” according to the airport operator.

MACL approached the High Court of Singapore in October 2012 seeking to have the injunction lifted. However the court dismissed the application on November 19.

MACL has challenged the validity of the July 5 letter instructing GMR to deduct the ADC from its concession revenues, claiming that it was signed by the former MACL Chairman ‘Bandhu’ Ibrahim Saleem without approval from the company’s board, and noted that he had been subsequently replaced under the new administration.

“The dispute raised by MACL on the validity of the 5th January 2012 letter will be decided in the arbitration proceedings to be held in Singapore,” GMR noted in a statement.

Attorney General (AG) Aishath Azima Shakoor claimed in local newspaper Haveeru on Monday that the Singaporean court had permitted MACL to try the matter in a Maldivian court, and allow the company to sue Saleem for the loss of revenue caused by the July 5 letter.

“But in accordance with the agreement whether MACL had the right to ignore or comply with the letter would be decided by arbitration. Even if a Maldivian Court rules the letter as null and void it would not binding for the arbitration,” Azima was reported as telling the paper.

There was, she said, no impediment to the government terminating the GMR agreement altogether, although this would be subject to compensation payable to GMR to be decided through arbitration.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Yameen proposes Parliament look into EC Member sexual harassment allegations

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Abdulla Yameen has proposed that the Committee on Independent Institutions investigate allegations of sexual harassment against a member of the Elections Commission (EC).

Following a staff protest at the EC in March, a complaint was lodged with the oversight committee that some members were acting in breach of existing laws and regulations. A female employee of the EC who had attended a related committee meeting in June stated then that a member would take hold of her hand while she was serving drinks.

Chair of the committee Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed shared details of the issue. He stated that Yameen was referring to a matter where a female employee had stated that when she served coffee to a particular EC member, he would “take hold of [her] wrist and do something.”

Stating that the accused member had been summoned and questioned on the matter previously, Nasheed clarified that the issue was not an actual complaint filed by any staff member of EC.

Nasheed stated that after reviewing the responses the committee had at the time decided that it was not an issue that needed further attention.

However Yameen said that the matter should be reviewed under the clause regarding Personal Relations of Employees. He proposed that the employee who had made the allegation be summoned to committee to clarify more details of the matter.

Yameen raised the issue the day after the President of the Civil Service Commission Mohamed Fahmy was voted out of his post under sexual harassment allegations.

All PPM MPs who participated had voted against the removal of Fahmy.

Speaking at the debate on Fahmy’s removal, PPM MP Shifaq Mufeed said “We might be faced with an unrecoverable loss if we remove Fahmy, as he is a member of both the CSC and the JSC (Judicial Services Commission). If we remove Fahmy, there may come planned false allegations against other members of independent commissions.”

Elections Commission Vice President Ahmed Fayaz said that he had no knowledge of the matter.

“I have never received a complaint as such from any staff member about any EC members. Nor do I have any knowledge of such a complaint being even officially lodged, verbally or written, at either our commission, the police, gender ministry or anywhere else,” he added.

Minivan News tried contacting Yameen at the time of press, but he was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Right to silence bill accepted by parliament

The bill on right to silence has been accepted by parliament and sent to the national security committee for review.

Parliament accepted the bill after a three-day debate concluded with 46 votes in favour and 27 votes against.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliament members debated against accepting the bill, whilst pro-government members spoke out in its defence.

Pro-government members argued that the bill does not undermine any rights ensured by the constitution and that the bill states how and when the constitutional right to silence can and cannot be exercised.

Opposition argued that the bill constricts a right ensured by the constitution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament votes out CSC President Fahmy over sexual harassment allegations

Parliament on Tuesday voted out President of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy on charges of sexual harassment against an employee.

The 70 members who partook in the vote were split 38 for removing Fahmy, 32 against and 2 abstentions.

The parliament debated on the report on the case submitted by the Committee on Independent Institutions prior to the vote.

Chair of the Committee, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, said that in addition Fahmy himself and the employee who had submitted the complaint Aminath Shahma, other members of the CSC and staff members had been questioned by the committee.

Nasheed said that other staff members, including Fahmy’s personal secretary, had made statements which backed Shahma’s allegations, while Fahmy’s defense had nothing to support it. He added that the committee had asked both Fahmy and Shahma if they were willing to repeat their statements under oath, to which Shahma had agreed while Fahmy refused to respond.

After much debate by MPs with opposing views on the parliament floor, Nasheed responded saying the the Committee on Independent Institutions had oversight mandate over the CSC, and that it did not need to conduct a criminal investigation to remove Fahmy from his post.

“What we applied are widely accepted civil standards. Based on our findings, 7 out of the 10 committee members decided that it was more likely that Fahmy had committed this act than that he did not. And that is enough to remove him from his post,” Nasheed said.

He added that this had no relation to Fahmy’s role in the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – of which the CSC president is by default a member. He also clarified that unlike the claims of some MPs who had spoken in Fahmy’s defense, the Prosecutor General’s office had not sent the case back to the police but rather had asked for additional clarifications.

Workplace harassment: a common problem for women

Many MPs, including independent, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs, spoke in favour of removing Fahmy from his post.

DRP MP Rozaina Adam, MDP MPs Eva Abdulla and Mariya Ahmed Didi spoke of workplace harassment being a common issue faced by Maldivian women.

Although MP Visam Ali stated that the matter needed further investigation and submitted an amendment asking for parliament to postpone Fahmy’s dismissal until the authorities looked into the matter more deeply, Rozaina stated that the parliament was not mandated to run a criminal investigation and that it should remove Fahmy as he was believed to have committed an act unacceptable from a man in his position.

“Honour is not something we get just by addressing each other as ‘Honourable MP’, as stipulated by the regulations. We need to prove to our constituents that we work in their interest,” Eva Abdulla said.

“Even the former Auditor General was removed because this parliament through its findings believed him unfit for his post. It was not done after a police investigation.”

“In the JSC, Fahmy actually voted in a way that benefited [the MDP], by voting that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is illegal. The MDP will work with principles and not a political mindset,” Ali Waheed said.

“Shahuma stood up and shared this issue with a lot of courage. We cannot turn our backs on this,” he went on, “And this HRCM report – They say they can neither prove whether he has or has not done anything. What have they found? What’s the point of releasing this one day before the vote?”

Removing Fahmy may lead to more allegations

Members of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) mainly spoke in defense of Fahmy, alleging that this could “possibly be a politically-motivated allegation”.

Most of them stated that since a criminal investigation was involved it was better to let the police and courts come to a decision on the matter before the parliament voted on removing him.

PPM MP Shifaq Mufeed said, “Let’s not turn this parliament into an investigative body”, adding that the police were more qualified to run a professional investigation.

“We might be faced with an unrecoverable loss if we remove Fahmy, as he is a member of both the CSC and the JSC. If we remove Fahmy, there may come planned false allegations against other members of independent commission,” he said.

“To Shahuma, I have to say: ‘be patient, madam’. Let the police investigate. We are not going to incriminate Fahmy and take Shahuma’s side, nor are we going to incriminate Shahuma and take Fahmy’s side.”

Adhaalath party member and MP Ibrahim Muthalib also spoke against removing Fahmy in parliament today.

“If we are to make our women nude and exposed, and then send them out to mingle with men, then why speak of protecting them? Honourable Speaker, this cannot be done in this manner. If a man and a woman are in a room alone, Satan will be there as the third person and will encourage sinful activities,” Muthalib said.

“Their place is in their houses, to serve their husbands and look after children. If we give them the opportunity to go out and mingle then we can no longer talk about their dignity and protection. It is people who harass women who are now speaking in their defense here today,” he further added.

Cannot confirm whether or not the harassment happened: HRCM

Meanwhile on Monday, a day ahead of the vote against Fahmy in parliament, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) released a report on the case.

HRCM claimed that they had not received enough evidence to prove whether or not Fahmy had harassed the employee.

The report further said that although Fahmy had sent a text to Shahuma with an apology, it was unclear what the apology had been meant for.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Case alleging corruption in parliament’s chamber automation project forwarded to ACC

A case submitted by the Auditor General alleging corruption in the Parliament Chamber Automation Project has been forwarded to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC).

The audit report of the parliament for 2010 highlighted issues with the MVR 2.1 million (US$136,000) project to install touch screens on every desk inside the parliament chamber.

The case was forwarded to the ACC by parliament after Speaker Abdulla Shahid had informed the parliament secretariat to comply with the request of the Auditor General, a statement by parliament revealed.

The audit report alleges that sufficient assessment was not carried out for the project, despite it being required to have gone through the tender evaluation board.

This resulted in the company awarded the contract to allegedly reap excessive profits due to the oversight.

The project was installed to facilitate viewing documents and to create an almost ‘paperless environment’.

The audit report noted that the project was awarded to a Maldivian company for MVR 1.3 million (US$84,300) on March 25 2010.

Despite being given 37 days to complete the project, the company took a total of 81 days, costing an additional MVR 720,425 (US$46,720) to complete the work.

The report added that additional funds had to be spent on the project because the software requested by the Parliament Secretariat turned out to be incompatible with the hardware used in parliament.

The software, called Thin Client, also turned out to be incompatible with the touch screens and touch keyboards used in the project.

Despite MVR 24,000 (US$1550) being spent on obtaining expert advice, the consultant was not held responsible for the additional money spend on the project.

The mistake led to the 100 Thin Client touch pads being removed and replaced by Nettops.

A company was awarded MVR 830,000 (US$53,617) to provide Nettops after winning a bid to supply the hardware.

MVR 1.3 million (US$84,300) was then paid to the new company for the installation of six servers, eight server switches and 100 touch screens.

The audit report noted that the parliament secretariat had conferred undue advantage to the contractor.

The secretariat did not deduct liquidated damages following the contractor failing to complete the project before the agreed deadline, as required by the Finance Act.

It was instead stated in the contract that the secretariat can decide whether to deduct liquidated damages or not.

Several opinions were included in the report indicating that the project was undertaken without proper studies, and in a manner that was not beneficial to the parliament.

Despite one aim of the project being to create a ‘paperless environment’, the report noted that parliament expenditure on photocopying and toner cartridges had not gone down.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)