Nasheed Urges Government to Submit Eagle Hills Agreement to Parliament

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has called on the government to submit its agreement with Abu Dhabi-based developer Eagle Hills to the People’s Majlis, saying the contract should be made available for parliamentary scrutiny.

In a post on X, Nasheed said opening the Maldives to a residency programme was positive in principle, but raised concerns over the lack of public disclosure of the agreement for the proposed USD 20 billion Rasmalé waterfront development.

Usoolee gothun residency program akah Raajje hulhuvaalumakee rangalhu kameh. Namaves Eagle Hills ge contract adhi eh nufeney, haama eh nukurey. Mihaathanah ivunu vaahakathakun alhugandah othee 2 massalaeh; 1. Advance faisaa nulibun. 2. Male’ sarahadhugai e than hadhaakan.…

— Mohamed Nasheed (@MohamedNasheed) September 29, 2026

Nasheed highlighted two issues based on information publicly available so far: the absence of an advance payment to the state and the decision to locate the development within the Greater Malé region.

Nasheed said the government should present the agreement to Parliament as soon as possible and use its parliamentary majority to establish the legal framework required for the project.

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.

Government officials have previously said the project will be governed by a forthcoming Real Estate Act, which is currently being drafted. Officials have also said binding agreements will follow further negotiations and the establishment of the relevant legal framework.

The government has described Rasmalé as a major development project that is expected to include residential, commercial, tourism and marina facilities.

Nasheed’s comments come amid wider public and political debate over the terms of the agreement, particularly the duration of the proposed lease, the legal framework governing the transfer of state land and the extent of parliamentary oversight.