- A constitutional case at the Supreme Court seeks to halt the government's Ras Malé waterfront agreement with UAE-based Eagle Hills.
- The full agreement remains undisclosed, raising questions about the developer's rights over 500 hectares of reclaimed state land and 99-year leases.
- Lawyer Ali Hussain alleges the deal breaches constitutional articles governing state property and foreign leases, seeking to invalidate and suspend it.
The proposed Ras Malé waterfront development has become a dispute over how much control a foreign developer can hold over state land, and on what legal basis. A constitutional case filed at the Supreme Court now seeks to halt the government’s agreement with UAE-based Eagle Hills while those questions are examined.
The government and Eagle Hills signed a commercial terms agreement on 21 September for the Maldives Waterfront and Marina project. Eagle Hills says the document sets out the project’s main commercial terms, with further details to be developed. The full agreement has not been made public, leaving its precise provisions open to scrutiny.
The development is planned across about 500 hectares of reclaimed land in Ras Malé. Eagle Hills proposes a mix of hotels, resorts, residences, a marina, shops, restaurants and public facilities. Its chairman, Mohamed Alabbar, has presented it as a place where visitors could stay for longer than a conventional resort holiday. The company says properties would be offered through leases of up to 99 years, with transfers and inheritance subject to government approval and registration.
The government maintains that the land itself will remain state property. That addresses the question of outright ownership, which the Constitution prohibits granting to a foreign party. The debate now centres on the rights Eagle Hills would receive over the land and the rights it could subsequently grant to property buyers.
Lawyer and former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain filed the constitutional challenge on Monday. Based on information available to him, he alleges that Eagle Hills would receive rights over more than 500 hectares for 99 years without paying an acquisition cost or rent, and could create leasehold interests for third parties. Those claims about the agreement’s terms cannot be established independently without the full document.
Ali argues that the arrangement breaches Article 250 of the Constitution, which requires transactions involving state property to be carried out in accordance with law. He also asks the court to consider Article 251, which bars foreign ownership of Maldivian territory and limits leases to foreign parties to 99 years. The 99-year limit is therefore central to the case, but the challenge goes further: it questions the legal authority for this particular arrangement and the effect of rights granted to later buyers.
Ali has asked the Supreme Court to declare the agreement invalid and to suspend its implementation while the case is heard. Filing the case does not itself establish that the agreement is unlawful or stop the project; that would depend on an order from the court.
The project has also been promoted as a source of substantial foreign investment, jobs and tourism activity. Those remain projections at this stage. The immediate questions are what the commercial terms commit each party to, how the state would earn revenue from the land, and what rights could be transferred to others. Publication of the agreement would allow those claims, and the government’s assurances about state ownership, to be assessed against its actual terms.
