Point-counterpoint: war of words over social housing dispute
A compilation of allegations exchanged between the government and opposition.
Artwork: Dosain
18 Mar, 4:30 PM
In the two weeks since the exclusion of hundreds of applicants chosen for flats under the previous administration’s social housing scheme, the government and the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party have exchanged a dizzying array of allegations, blaming each other for the fiasco.
Following a year-long verification process, the MDP government’s list of recipients was reduced from nearly 5,000 to just over 1,800 applicants who were deemed eligible. Hundreds of long-term residents of Malé were disqualified over gaps in their documentation to prove uninterrupted residency in the capital.
Disqualified applicants have until March 31 to submit complaints. Both the MDP and the Democrats as well as the Malé City Council have been assisting with the registration of complaints. More than 1,000 complaints were submitted in less than a week.
The following is a compilation of the claims and counter-claims from the housing ministry and their predecessors from the MDP.
Documentation and verification
Government Claim: The verification process was thorough. It flagged numerous irregularities in the previous evaluation process. Some applicants were awarded more points than their submitted documents justified.
Some applicants were considered eligible despite the submission of a single document such as one side of a national identity card or a marriage certificate. In some cases, applicants who did not submit any supporting documents were deemed eligible and selected among the recipients.
MDP Response: The onus to prove uninterrupted residency was not on the applicant. It was the responsibility of the government. The submission of any particular type of document was not mandatory.
The online portal included instructions with examples of documents that could be submitted. But the MDP government believed that such requirements would have been unfair due to the diverse living circumstances (students, employed or unemployed people, freelancers, married couples, and caregivers).
The Gedhoruverin portal was integrated with the databases of state institutions such as the pension office, education ministry, trade ministry, the Department of National Registration, the family court, the National Social Protection Agency and the Civil Service Commission. This allowed access to a wide-ranging set of information for applicants using their eFaas digital identity.
Therefore, eligibility could be determined solely from official information available on the portal without any extra documentation. Some applications were approved through a combination of submitted documents and pre-existing information on the portal. Some applicants did not have any portal information but submitted documents to prove their eligibility.
Proof of residency
Government Claims: The MDP government wrongly evaluated applications by accepting documents that were insufficient to prove residency for the required 15-year period. These included:
Self-written documents containing the address in Malé and claiming uninterrupted residency
School leaving certificates showing only two years
A single document from the owner of a house in Malé claiming the applicant resided there
An official letter issued by the police to a civilian claiming that the applicant lived in a senior police officer’s home.
MDP Response: Supporting documents submitted by applicants were treated as secondary information. The Integrated information in the portal was the primary source used to count towards determining the residency period.
Government Counter-Claim: The MDP government’s guideline stated that residency in Malé should be determined after checking information provided by the main applicant and that “marks will be given based on information provided by the main applicant to the portal”.
The only documents acceptable as proof of residency in the MDP’s guideline were:
employment letters
education documents
pension information
registered residency information
There were no public announcements or amendments that specified additional types of documents would be accepted.
Government Claim: Councils issued suspicious letters. The Malé City Council lacks the means to verify residency. But these documents were used to determine eligibility and award marks.
MDP Response: A council letter is not by itself grounds for disqualification. Such letters were not the sole consideration in determining eligibility in the first place. Letters from councils were considered only if there was no contradiction with information available from the portal.
If an applicant or their family member resided on another island according to portal information but a council letter claimed otherwise, the application had been disqualified.
In the case of people who went to school and lived in Malé for a long period and submitted council letters as supporting documents, the letter should not be the sole reason for disqualification. Official information from the portal should have been considered for verification.
All such documents submitted by applicants were secondary. The primary information was from the associated databases of state institutions linked to the portal.
Most of the Malé City Council letters were issued when President Dr Mohamed Muizzu was the mayor.
Government Counter-Claim: Problematic letters were also issued by other island and city councils. The Malé City Council did not issue such documents when President Muizzu was the mayor.
Government Claim: Some job reference letters claiming employment in Malé predated the registration date of the companies. An applicant claimed to have worked in a company since 2007 but the company had been formed in 2017.
Questionable employment references were also accepted. A construction company gave a reference letter to a yellowfin tuna fishing boat captain.
MDP Stance: The previous validation process was legitimate. It treated documents as secondary to primary information from integrated databases.
MDP Claim: The government did not have the mandate or legal authority to re-evaluate the finalised list under a different policy or guideline. The only acceptable verification would have been checking the validity of documents and disqualifying based on false information or forgeries.
Government Response: The verification process followed the exact same policies and guidelines formulated by the previous administration.
The verification process reviewed applications that had scored 73 points and above in the two-bedroom category and all applicants who scored 75 points and above in the three-bedroom category, including those who scored 75 but were not selected in the lottery draw. The verification did not check any applications below these thresholds. No new policies were formulated for this process.
Process and administration
Government Claim: Former government officials accessed the portal after President Muizzu assumed office on November 17, 2023.
A lot of unverified Gmail accounts were used to conduct the evaluation process.
MDP Response: The current administration does not understand the portal or the application and evaluation process.
Contrary to the 2018 transition, the MDP government fully cooperated during the transition period and handed over all details regarding the scheme.
In contrast, Muizzu did not cooperate when he was the housing minister before 2018. The incoming MDP government’s transition committee was not able to enter the housing ministry, which refused to share details of applicants who had been awarded Hiya flats. The portal and database of flats awarded in Hulhumalé were destroyed, causing irretrievable data loss.
Government Claim: Shortly before the change of government, almost all shortlisted applicants were handed a signed one-page agreement within two days after the final list was published.
MDP Response: The current administration has no right to violate the legally binding agreement and deprive selected recipients of their right to housing.
Political motivation
MDP Claim: The verification process was carried out with the “intent to exclude” selected applicants so that it would free up flats.
The government promised apartments for campaign workers under their first housing scheme. But since it has been unable to award any social housing construction project, the government is trying to fulfil pledges made to ruling party activists.
The refusal to accept new documents with complaints is proof of the intention to exclude.
Government Response and Counter-Claim: Applicants will have ample opportunity to contest the verification and establish if there were mistakes in grading information. But no additional documents can be submitted because the current administration verified a finalised list. The MDP government had already allowed the submission of new documents during the complaints process before finalisation.
Following the current complaint period, if there are flats left over from the 4,000 nearing completion in Hulhumalé, they will be reassigned through the same verification process. The applicants with the highest scores will be chosen. No decision will be made before addressing all complaints.
There are no grounds to claim that the government has left flats unassigned in order to hand it out to specific people.
MDP Counter-Claim: Applicants who were deemed eligible and included in the first provisional list in 2023 would not have submitted complaints. Only the applicants disqualified during the first stage submitted complaints at the time. Those who were newly disqualified should have the opportunity to submit new supporting documents.
Government assurances:
Married couples will not be awarded two flats
The new list will not include any applicant who was not on on the list on November 15, 2023.
Disqualified applicants will not need to apply for any future schemes as President Muizzu will provide housing for everyone during his five-year term.
Discussion
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
No comments yet. Be the first to join the conversation!
Join the Conversation
Sign in to share your thoughts under an alias and take part in the discussion. Independent journalism thrives on open, respectful debate — your voice matters.
