Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has concluded a case related to the repair and maintenance work of S. Feydhoo’s mosques carried out in the year 1432, upon which the case was forwarded to prosecution against the former temporary president of Addu City Council’s Feydhoo district board.
Upon investigation, it was found that Addu City Council made an announcement, inviting bids for carrying out repair and maintenance work of S. Feydhoo’s mosques. Following the announcement, the work was awarded to the bidder who offered the lowest price and the shortest duration. Moreover, the investigation revealed that the repair and maintenance work of S. Feydhoo’s “Masjidhul Falah” stated in the agreement was not carried out by the winning bidder, but instead completed by a third party voluntarily and without payment. Despite this, the price of MVR 40,000 allocated for the work of the forenamed mosque was not omitted from the bills. Before making the payments for the bills, Addu City Council forwarded a message to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance to the agreement. With reference to this message, the former temporary president of Addu City Council’s Feydhoo district board signed a document stating that the work has been completed in compliance with the agreement. Nonetheless, ACC’s investigation discovered that this document was signed by the temporary president of the district board while being aware that the work was completed by a third party voluntarily instead of the initial assignee.
Therefore, it is evident that this act was carried out by the temporary president of the district board by misusing his position to provide an undue advantage and consequently, the winning bidder has illicitly gained MVR 40,000 for a work that was completed by another party. Besides, in order to conceal this act and make it appear that MVR 40,000 worth of work was completed by the winning bidder, a memorandum of association was formed between the winning bidder and the Feydhoo Office as an extension to the agreement, with the inclusion of additional duties for the same price. However, this memorandum of association was formed at a later date, post to the completion of the assigned work and the payment of the bills. Thereby, the Commission has concluded that the case warrants prosecution on the grounds that the former temporary president of S. Feydhoo’s district board had acted in a manner that provided an undue advantage to a third party. Thus, the case has been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office to be prosecuted under Article 12 (a) of Law number: 2/2000 (Prevention & Prohibition of Corruption Act) and to recompense the government loss of MVR 40,0000.