The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has concluded its investigation into allegations that Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) had acquired a landing craft against procedures, and has forwarded the case for prosecution.
MPL is accused of acquiring a landing craft against procedures, “to provide undue benefits to certain individuals.”
It is seeking charges against the individual in charge of MPL’s procurement department at the time of the transaction, under Articles 12 (a) and 13 (a) of Act 2/2000 of the Prevention and Prohibition of Corruption Act.
- Article 12 (a) – It is an offence for an employee of government or a government venture to use position or influence from position, to gain or confer an undue advantage pertaining to a task or connected to a task being carried out by the agency or place of his employment.
- Article 13 (a) – It is an offence for any government employee to act in a manner that precludes the public or state from attaining advantage of anything the public or state could have benefited from, or to act in a manner that diminishes the benefits that could have been attained, or diverts the benefits or a part of the benefits to the employee or the employee’s wife or husband
The Commission’s report notes that its investigation shows that the head of MPL’s procurement department was tasked with conducting an inspection prior to the purchase. Following this, the head of procurement department is to have traveled to Samarinda in Indonesia, along with the company’s head of engineering.
It noted that this individual was not informed that the landing craft must meet the requirements mentioned in the proforma invoice, and that the 350-tonne landing craft they had inspected was not the one mentioned in the invoice.
Furthermore, the ACC said that MPL had proceeded to sign an agreement to purchase the landing craft, despite it being clear that it was not the same brand mentioned in the invoice. The agreement was signed by the head of the procurement department.
ACC’s investigation also shows that this individual had requested MPL’s finance department to pay an advance of MVR 3,646,500 to a local agent.
While the Commission had obtained this request memo, it shows that the request was made before the agreement was signed.
It further highlighted that the agreement did not include a number of conditions noted in MPL’s procurement policy, such as performance guarantee, performance security, variation, liquidated damages and warranty.
ACC noted that the actions of the head of the procurement department was damaging to the company.
An inspection carried out by the company’s engineering department, after the landing craft was brought to Maldives, shows that the vessel “was not in good condition” and that its features were different to the one mentioned in the proforma invoice.
