Maldives Post Limited has disclosed a series of alleged irregularities and financial mismanagement under its previous leadership, citing improper hiring practices, questionable contracts, and policy violations.

In a statement issued on Saturday, Maldives Post stated that the former management had recruited 49 individuals without adhering to merit-based selection procedures. The hires were made without job announcements or interviews, with some appointed to senior positions and receiving salaries exceeding those of top executives. The company noted that such employment decisions were beyond the authority of the Managing Director and should have been regulated by the Privatisation and Corporatisation Board. It clarified that amendments to the Human Resource (HR) policy were introduced by the current management, not the previous administration.

The statement also highlighted an agreement signed by the previous management to supply goods to a post office shop at Velana International Airport through Jamaat-e-Tahfeez-ul-Quran-ul-Karim, a religious institution that is not a commercial supplier. The current management has since terminated the agreement.

Additionally, Maldives Post alleged that the previous management had violated a directive from the President’s Office, which prohibited compensating political appointees for unrecorded working hours. It stated that payments were made to political staff by manipulating attendance records. The current administration affirmed that it is now in full compliance with presidential directives.

Concerns were also raised regarding a single-source contract awarded to a foreign company for air conditioning maintenance at an inflated cost. The statement confirmed that this agreement has been terminated, with future procurement now being carried out through a competitive bidding process.

Maldives Post further denied allegations that the current leadership was engaging in favouritism, dismissing claims that unqualified personnel were being promoted and that the Managing Director was receiving excessive compensation. It also refuted reports that a whistleblower had been dismissed for exposing internal corruption.