Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has concluded investigation of a case addressed in the 17th SAARC Summit Special Audit Report 2013 (Audit Report No: SPE-2013-07), claiming that 6 safaris hired for the 17th SAARC summit held in Addu City were against the Public Finance Regulation.
Upon Investigation, it was found that 6 safaris which were hired to be used in the 17th SAARC summit were procured without any announcement, while Article 8.15 of Public Finance Regulation states that an announcement should be made prior to procurement of any item. However, 6 safaris were hired at the last minute due to sudden increase in number of guests who came from different countries to the summit. Moreover, 2 resorts were booked earlier to provide accommodation for the foreign delegations and due to last minute increase in number of guests there was not enough accommodation which can be arranged in 2 resorts booked. ACC’s investigation also found that, SAARC Task Force decided to hire safaris to provide accommodation for the extra guests under a special permission considering countries reputation. Also the contract to hire the safaris verifies that there was not enough time to make an announcement, while safaris were hired when only one week was left for the summit.
Out of 6 safaris 5 were procured against Article 8.23 of Public Finance regulation. Contract made to hire the safaris states that 50% of advance money should be paid to the safari owners before the service is being provided. While prior to the agreement at the negotiation stage, safari owners have demanded to get 100% price of the service before the service is being provided, otherwise not to provide the service. ACC’s investigation also found that the permission given to hire the safaris were made after the discussions between former Foreign Minister and SAARC task force regarding the payment. Nonetheless, the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove the accused offence of corruption, and also did not reveal any contraventions with the law number 2/2000 (Prevention and Prohibition of Corruption Act), in hiring the safaris. Hence, the case was concluded under section 25 (a)(1) of law number 13/2008 (Anti-Corruption Commission Act), as there was no offence of corruption in the case.