The Maldives Civil Court has ruled that the former Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom cannot be held liable for settling the MVR 1.1 million debt owed by the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to the Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC).
The court further ruled that the settlement of the debt can only be ordered once the Elections Commission (EC) formally decides on the status of the now defunct Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).
Earlier in 2010, the court had ordered the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to settle a total of MVR 1,113,587.96 to the Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC). However, the party failed to comply with the court's order, resulting in the examination of its accounts after which only MVR 2,609.33 could be recovered.
When MTCC filed a lawsuit at the court seeking the remaining MVR 1,108,829.63, the party’s founder, Maumoom Abdul Gayoom was addressed as a respondent liable for the debt.
Maumoon has denied any responsibility for settling the payment and said that the Civil Court order cannot be enforced retrospectively as it predates the implementation of the Political Parties Act. He emphasized that during the time when the debt existed, he was no longer the leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), evident from the documents of the Elections Commission (EC).
Maumoon's defense argued that the complainant, MTCC, had failed to communicate the debt to the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), even when the party had publicly announced its dissolution. They claimed that the lack of communication from the complainant absolved the party from any liability for the debt.
MTCC countered the argument by stating that since the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) no longer exists, it cannot be legally tried in court. They further asserted that Maumoon Abdul Gayoom was the leader of DRP at the time when the debt was incurred and therefore should be held liable for the outstanding amount.
Civil Court in its verdict held that the Maldives Supreme Court has earlier held that any legal entity or individual not party to the dispute cannot be held liable once a debt is proven in a court and ordered to be settled. The Supreme Court ruling also set the precedent that any third-party involvement in such a case must come from their own consent, and that Maumoon cannot be held liable for the debt since he has denied its responsibility.
The court in its verdict also noted that monitoring the dissolution of poltical parties or the liquidation of companies did not fall under the purview or jurisdisction of the courts. Civil Court in its verdict further said that its role begins only when a claimant has formally filed a lawsuit with it seeking compensation, and not before that.
The court held that a verdict on settlement cannot be passed until EC make a formal descision about DRP’s dissolution.
Sign In