MVR 174M from Dheebaja settlement going into Alhan’s law firm

Alhan Fahmy pictured during a parliamentary election campaign event in Male' City on March 16, 2019. (File Photo/Sun/Ahmed Awshan Ilyas)

It has been revealed that MVR 174 million from the MVR 348.10 million settlement due to Dheebaja Investment Private Limited from the State under court order is going into King’s Attorneys and Consultants – a law firm co-owned by politician Alham Fahmy.

The State was ordered to pay MVR 348.10 million in damages to Dheebaja for the unlawful termination of a contract to establish ferry services in the northern province of Maldives during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration by the Civil Court in 2014.

The Civil Court verdict was overruled by the High Court upon appeal, but the original verdict was upheld and the High Court verdict squashed by the Supreme Court on April 17.

The final appeal bid at the Supreme Court was filed on behalf of Dheebaja by King’s Attorneys and Consultants.

The agreement made between Dheebaja and King’s Attorneys and Consultants for the case recently leaked over social media.

The agreement reads that the law firm, if it is successful in winning the appeal in favor of Dheebaja, must be paid 50 percent of the MVR 348 million settlement (MVR 174 million), and an additional 50 percent of any money awarded which falls above the asked settlement amount.

Alhan has confirmed the authenticity of the agreement leaked over the social media to ‘Sun’.

The contract with Dheebaja to establish ferry services in the northern province of Maldives has signed in 2010, but terminated in 2013 – during former President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s administration.

The company had asked for MVR 2.4 billion in damages in its original civil lawsuit against the State.

The Civil Court ruling in the case was not appealed during Dr. Waheed’s administration, but appealed later, during former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom’s administration.

The Supreme Court annulled the High Court’s ruling and upheld the original Civil Court ruling in the case based on the technicality that the State filed the appeal with the High Court after the window for appeal had already closed.

High Court regulations dictates that appeals filed after the due date passes can only be registered at the court if presented with evidence of circumstances beyond control which prevented the appeal from being filed within the required duration.

The Supreme Court found no legal or judicial basis to rule the reasons provided by Attorney General's Office for the delay fit the criteria for circumstances beyond control as required under High Court regulation.