Anti-Corruption Commission has concluded investigation of a case addressed in the 17th SAARC Summit Special Audit Report 2013 (Audit Report No: SPE-2013-07) claiming that about MVR 1.4 million was expend on 21 vehicles hired for the 17th SAARC summit held at ‘Addu City’. The claim also alleged that those vehicles were rented unexpectedly at higher rate than the normal business rates, meanwhile the vehicle logs were also not properly maintained. Hence, neither defining the actual expanses nor that the vehicles were indeed used for 17th SAARC summit was also not able to identify.
Upon Investigation, it was found that an announcement was made to obtain proposals for hiring 21 Vehicles to be used in the 17th SAARC summit. Notably, Addu City Council had not set any specific rate for hiring these vehicles even though the claim stated that the vehicles were rented at higher than the usual business rates. ACC’s investigation also verified that due to the increased demand for the vehicles in Addu City during the summit has resulted a shift in higher business rates.
Furthermore, the investigation revealed that though recorded that the advance payments were released with the first payment vouchers prepared to pay for the rented vehicles, the advance payments were actually issued after the summit and written service agreements were made and the payment process was completed according to terms and conditions of the agreements. Nevertheless, noteworthy is the fact that the vehicle logs were not maintained properly thereby, it truly does not verify the amounts billed and paid were flawless. Moreover, Addu City Council has approved the payments without any confirmation which certainly would have being an execution to corruption action.
Nonetheless, the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove the accusation thereby, did not reveal any contraventions with the law number 2/2000 (Prevention and Prohibition of Corruption Act), in issuing the payments for the rented vehicles and in the due process. 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.