Kinbigasdhoshuge Registry reveals the property to be private and not bandaara

Kinbigasdhoshuge, the private property of former President Maumoon Abdul Qayyoom which the Malé City Council decided yesterday to compulsorily acquire has been revealed to be a private property belonging to Maumoon himself. Although the Council decision made yesterday said that the property was a bandaara property, and Council member and Malé Deputy Mayor Ahmed Samaah claimed so, it has been affirmed that the property is in fact not bandaara but private.

According to Maldivian laws, a land tenure given to a citizen by the state can take either of two forms: bandaara and private. In the first case, the property is a freehold estate given to a person and inheritable by the person’s heirs to the end of days, but the ownership nominally rests with the state, while in case of the latter, the rules are exactly the same except that the title-holder is said to hold the property ownership in his name. In effect, a bandaara property is the same as a private property, and as per the principles of law, the state has no more right to confiscate or compulsorily acquire a bandaara property than it has to do that with a private property. In both cases, it should be done in accordance with the laws, the most important of which is Article 40 of the Constitution.

According to information uncovered by Sun, Kinbigasdhoshuge is a private property whose title is with Maumoon, transferred to him by his late father al-Sheikh Abdul Qayyoom Ibrahim as a hibah, which is, as per the principles of Islamic shari’ah a freely given gift from someone to another. In accord with the principles related to the concept of hibah in Islamic shari’ah the transaction in which Kinbigasdhoshuge was given in hibah to Maumoon by his father was perfectly valid. Sun has had a copy of the Registry of the Property, which identifies Kinbigasdhoshuge as a private property, contrary to the claims of Malé City Council that it was a bandaara property. We have also received information which asserts that the property used to be an endowment property (a legal concept applied in the country until many decades ago), which meant that the property was given to a family as an inheritable one until the end of time. During the presidency of Ibrahim Nasir, who presided over the country before Maumoon took over in an election in 1978, there was an effort to change all endowment property into either bandaara or private. Apparently, the case of Kinbigasdhoshuge was not decided then.

Sun has also come to know that a legal case in relation to the title of the property was heard at the then Court Number 4, during the year 1990. The case was decided by Judge Ahmed Salih Ibrahim, now in retirement. When contacted today, he said that the state filed a case to declare the property as bandaara, even though the claim was rejected and the property was declared as private, in the ownership of Maumoon Abdul Qayyoom, as all the documentary evidence submitted to the Court during the case stated so. “Those documents included the record of the hibah transaction by which Maumoon’s father transferred his ownership title to his son too”, said Salih.

While Malé City Council has construed legal provisions as giving them the full authority to make the decision to confiscate Maumoon’s private property and implement the decision in 30 days’ time, various legal experts have spoken against the Council decision. Husn al-Su’ood, former judge of the Civil Court, and former Attorney General, wrote on his Facebook status window that people’s property were inviolable, and that he denounced Malé City Council’s decision to confiscate Maumoon’s private property.

The Statement issued by the Council embodying its decision to compulsorily acquire Kinbigasdhoshuge said that the decision had been made under the authority conferred upon it by Article 41(L) of the Decentralisation Act. According to the said statutory provision, a property (both immovable, which can be either bandaara or private, and movable) belonging to any individual can be compulsorily acquired only where it is necessary for public interest and public good, and that it can only be done in accordance with the law, and after paying just and appropriate compensation.

Speaking to Sun from Singapore over the phone, Husn al-Su’ood said that while Malé City Council claimed to have made the decision to confiscate Kinbigasdhoshuge under the authority given to the body under Article 41(L) of Decentralisation Act, for the purpose of public good, the circumstances and place of the Council meeting in which the decision was made rendered it perfectly clear what kind of decision it was, and what motivated it.

The Council decided to confiscate Kinbigasdhoshuge yesterday, in an impromptu meeting conducted on the street outside the People’s Majlis, amid protests by the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters against disruption of parliament sessions by the Z Faction of the opposition Divehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP). The Z Faction is a break-away group of dissenters within DRP, consisting of senior leaders who have rallied behind former President Maumoon who founded DRP, in opposing the leadership and policies of current party leader Ahmed Tasmin Ali, who has been accused by the Z Faction of secretly conniving with MDP. The City Council meeting, in which 8 Councilors belonging to MDP sat and the remaining 2 members who belonged to DRP were absent, made the decision, in the opinion of many, in an effort to attack Maumoon and threaten Z DRP into compliance.

Husn al-Su’ood also said that if Kinbigasdhoshuge could be confiscated for the reasons and in the manner that the Council has decided, there were many more such properties all over the country that should be confiscated. He also said that if the Council should act in accordance with their decision, they should do the same with those properties too, as equal treatment of citizens was a constitutional requirement.

When asked about the issue, Attorney General (AG) Abdullah Muizz said that there was no doubt as to the applicability of Article 40 of the Constitution in this case. According to the Constitutional provision referred to by the AG, “private property shall be inviolable, and may only be compulsorily acquired by the State for the public good, as expressly prescribed by law, and as authorized by order of the court. Fair and adequate compensation shall be paid in all cases, as determined by the court”.

AG Muizz, who responded to Sun while abroad via SMS, said that he did not have the details of the decision taken by Malé City Council.