Azima Shakoor Warns Maldives Risks Losing Investments Over Political Opposition

Principal Secretary to the President for National Territory and Sovereignty and Former Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor has warned that political opposition to major investments could result in the Maldives losing development opportunities, while calling for policies that provide investors with sufficient time to realise their investments.

In a statement, Azima said national policies and public attitudes should be aligned with the Maldives’ goal of becoming a developed nation by 2040.

She cited Singapore as a country admired by Maldivians for its development, attributing its progress to social ethics, national attitudes focused on development goals and public support for the country’s interests.

Azima identified the Maldives’ transition towards an ageing population as one of the country’s major challenges. She also stressed the importance of creating conditions capable of attracting the investment and skilled human resources needed to turn development plans into reality.

Addressing concerns over long-term land leases and criticism from the opposition, she said the focus should not be solely on whether land is leased for 99 years, but on whether such investments remain subject to the Constitution and laws of the Maldives throughout the lease period. She also highlighted the legal distinction between rights granted through a lease and those derived from land ownership.

The comments follow the signing of a commercial terms agreement between the Maldivian Government and Eagle Hills on 21 September for the development of Rasmalé, including a waterfront and marina destination. Under the terms announced by the government, more than 500 hectares of reclaimed land are to be leased to Eagle Hills for 99 years.

Azima urged Maldivians to view international interest in investing in the country positively, citing competition among countries to attract limited global capital. She cautioned against rejecting investments for political reasons, arguing that such decisions would ultimately affect the public rather than political leaders.

She also referred to investments that she said had previously been diverted elsewhere following political opposition, describing them as evidence of the potential economic cost to the Maldives.

Azima played a pivotal role in the country’s most prominent investment dispute while serving as Attorney General under President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in 2012. 

At the time, she directly advised the government and provided the legal counsel that led to the unilateral cancellation of the concession agreement with India’s GMR Group for the privatisation and operation of Velana International Airport.

 Under her legal guidance, the administration maintained that the contract was void ab initio (invalid from the start) due to financial irregularities and national security concerns.

At the time of the cancellation, Azima maintained that because the concession agreement was void ab initio, the state had no contractual obligation to pay GMR breach-of-contract compensation.

GMR challenged the decision in international arbitration, which ultimately resulted in a tribunal ruling against the Maldives. The tribunal determined the termination was unlawful and ordered the state to pay approximately USD 271 million in damages, interest, and legal costs.

In her latest statement, Azima defended her past counsel, maintaining that the GMR agreement had to be terminated because it posed direct threats to the Maldives’ financial stability, national security, and tourism sector, and that efforts to renegotiate those terms had failed.

She asserted that canceling the agreement ultimately enabled the state to reassert control over critical infrastructure and develop the airport in its current form for the benefit of Maldivians.

Drawing a distinction between that case and current proposals, Azima contrasted the sale of shares in existing state companies with real estate projects on newly created land.

She argued that selling shares in established companies risks transferring control over core national infrastructure and parts of the economy to foreign entities. 

By contrast, she contended that long-term leases on reclaimed land generate new economic value and opportunities on territory created where no natural land previously existed.