Team size: 4

Jurisdictions your role covers: My role covers Dhaman’s 21 Arab member states across the MENA region, as well as other relevant jurisdictions where insured transactions, reinsurance arrangements, or enforcement actions take place. This includes cross-border matters involving Europe, China, and select Sub-Saharan African countries, depending on counterparty exposure.

What are the major cases or transactions you have been involved in recently?

As Director of Legal Affairs and Compliance at the Arab Investment & Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (Dhaman), I have led and overseen a number of complex, high-value, cross-border transactions that reflect Dhaman’s growing role in regional credit enhancement and risk mitigation.

One of the most significant transactions in recent years was Dhaman’s issuance of a Non-Honoring of Sovereign Financial Obligation (NHSO) insurance policy covering a $500m, seven-year international commercial loan to the Arab Republic of Egypt. The transaction is the first of its kind in the international loan markets involving a multilateral credit-enhancement mechanism for Egypt and was concluded in the context of the 27th UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh.

The loan was equally provided by Deutsche Bank AG and Arab Banking Corporation (ABC), Bahrain, and the proceeds are allocated to social development projects within Egypt’s Sustainable Financing Framework, particularly in the health and education sectors, aligned with UN SDGs 3 and 4.

The NHSO insurance covered up to 95% of principal and interest, and Dhaman’s A+ rating by S&P helped lower Egypt’s borrowing cost relative to Eurobond alternatives — demonstrating the tangible development value of credit-enhanced sovereign finance. I also coordinated closely with the consulting entity (Rothschild & Co) and reinsurance partners to align legal documentation with international standards for blended finance and multilateral participation.

I was directly responsible for drafting and negotiating the NHSO insurance policy, including the development of bespoke terms aligned with Dhaman’s multilateral status and the requirements of both lenders and reinsurers. This included structuring the policy’s sovereign event definitions, payment trigger mechanisms, and claims process in line with international best practices and SDG-aligned financing goals.

In addition, I led negotiations with international reinsurers, coordinating the legal aspects of the back-to-back facultative reinsurance agreements. I ensured these contracts mirrored the risk profile and legal obligations of the primary NHSO policy while preserving Dhaman’s rights and immunities. I also worked closely with external counsel in the UK, Egypt, and Kuwait, as well as the transaction advisor Rothschild & Co., to finalise all legal deliverables within a compressed timeline.

This landmark transaction not only helped Egypt secure more favourable pricing than Eurobond markets, but also reflected Dhaman’s strategic pivot toward blended finance and ESG-linked sovereign support.

In parallel, I played a lead role in structuring and executing Dhaman’s $100m trade finance insurance facility for Trafigura, backed by SMBC and Standard Chartered. This transaction supports the export of goods from Dhaman’s 21 Arab member states and the import of strategic commodities, over a three-year facility. I oversaw the legal structuring of the policy wording, ensuring alignment with Dhaman’s new trade finance insurance product line and compliance with international risk transfer standards. I also reviewed the bank loan documentation to ensure full back-to-back alignment and enforceability of Dhaman’s risk coverage.

This product launch represented a core component of Dhaman’s 2022 – 2026 strategic plan to expand its footprint in short-term structured trade finance, and required close legal coordination across underwriting, reinsurance, and compliance functions.

Separately, I continue to lead legal reviews of Dhaman’s political and commercial risk insurance portfolio, as well as ongoing litigation and enforcement actions, including a complex recovery effort in China and other countries.

Lastly, I am supervising the modernisation of Dhaman’s internal governance framework, including a full overhaul of its policies and procedures, with legal updates reflecting best practices in compliance, ethics, and dispute resolution — tailored to the institution’s status as a treaty-based multilateral entity.

How do you approach managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crises, and how does your legal strategy align with the broader business strategy to ensure the organisation’s resilience?

Periods of instability, whether economic, geopolitical, or operational, require a legal function that is both protective and enabling. My approach is grounded in three pillars: anticipatory structuring, institutional agility, and alignment with mission delivery.

I begin by embedding legal resilience into contract design. This includes pre-negotiated fallback clauses for force majeure, flexible dispute resolution frameworks, and enforceable sovereign obligation provisions. These mechanisms ensure that legal protections remain intact even under stress. For example, in recent transactions involving sovereign risk or multi-jurisdictional lenders, I ensured legal enforceability across differing legal systems – without hindering the pace or purpose of the deal.

To support rapid decision-making during uncertain periods, I develop streamlined governance processes and maintain ready-to-deploy legal templates. This enables our business teams to act decisively, backed by legally sound structures. During periods of regional tension or liquidity pressure, these legal tools allow us to adapt our instruments without compromising on compliance or risk appetite.

Beyond transactions, I focus on strengthening the institution’s legal infrastructure. This includes ongoing reforms to our internal policies, such as revising Dhaman’s internal functions policies and procedures to ensure operational continuity, internal accountability, and clear delegation frameworks in times of disruption.

Most importantly, my legal strategy is always integrated with Dhaman’s broader objectives: promoting Arab trade and investment. Legal risk management is not just about shielding the institution: it’s about enabling it to deliver on its mandate reliably, even in volatile markets. That means designing legal solutions that support blended finance, intra-regional trade flows, and strategic partnerships while ensuring enforceability, credibility, and compliance.

In short, I view the legal function as both a guardian of institutional integrity and a partner in strategic delivery, with a clear role in reinforcing organisational resilience.

What factors influence your team’s decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate their performance?

At Dhaman, we maintain a strong in-house legal capacity that is deeply familiar with the institution’s unique legal framework, operational mandate, and multilateral nature. As such, most legal matters — from contract drafting and insurance policy structuring to internal governance and compliance — are handled directly by our legal team.

That said, we engage external legal counsel selectively and strategically. The decision to do so depends primarily on the jurisdiction, complexity, and risk profile of the matter at hand.

We typically bring in external counsel in a select few scenarios.

The first is for jurisdictional coverage. Where matters arise under foreign law – especially in enforcement proceedings, sovereign finance agreements governed by local statutes, or transactions involving unfamiliar legal systems – we rely on local counsel to ensure that our positions are enforceable and appropriately structured for the legal environment in question.

For large-scale, high-value or sensitive transactions, particularly those involving sovereign counterparties or blended finance structures, we may seek external legal input to validate structuring, review risk allocation, or align with lender requirements. While our team remains closely involved, external counsel adds an additional layer of assurance.

In arbitration or litigation, especially in jurisdictions where we do not have legal presence or prior experience, we engage external firms to handle proceedings always under close coordination from our side.

Occasionally, we require input on specialised legal matters such as international sanctions, reinsurance law, or regulatory developments in non-core areas. In those cases, turning to subject-matter experts is simply more efficient and prudent.

As for evaluating external counsel, we apply both objective and practical criteria. First and foremost, technical ability and understanding of our sector are critical. We work in a fairly specialised space — political and credit risk insurance, often involving sovereign parties — and it’s important that the firms we engage understand the nuances.

Equally important is responsiveness and clarity of advice. We expect external counsel to be available when needed, provide advice that is both technically sound and practical, and communicate in a way that supports decision-making rather than complicates it.

We also look at cost-effectiveness and efficiency. While we understand the value of quality legal advice, we do expect transparency on fees and a clear scope of work. Where appropriate, we encourage the use of capped fees or blended rates to manage costs.

Finally, we assess whether the firm has shown an ability to work within the framework of a multilateral institution, respecting our internal processes, governance standards, and immunities. That’s not always intuitive to outside counsel, and the ability to adapt to that environment is a key differentiator.

In short, we see external counsel as an extension of our internal team not a substitute. When selected carefully and used appropriately, they play an important role in complementing our capabilities, particularly in cross-border and high-risk matters.

What emerging technologies do you see as having the most significant impact on the legal profession in the near future, and how do you stay updated on these developments?

The legal profession is no longer insulated from the broader wave of digital transformation affecting every industry. In my view, the technologies with the most immediate and practical impact on legal work are artificial intelligence (AI)-powered legal research and drafting tools, contract lifecycle management platforms, and regulatory compliance technologies, particularly in areas like sanctions screening and ESG disclosures.

AI, when properly trained and governed, can significantly enhance legal research, due diligence, and document review. Tools that can rapidly analyse case law, flag contractual inconsistencies, or identify risks across a portfolio of agreements are already changing how legal teams operate, freeing up time for more strategic work. That said, at an institution like Dhaman, we approach these tools with a high degree of caution. Any reliance on AI must be tempered by human legal judgment, especially given the complex cross-border and sovereign contexts in which we operate.

In the realm of transactional work, contract automation and smart templates are starting to gain ground. While we are still far from fully automated negotiations, these tools can help standardise routine agreements, reduce errors, and accelerate internal review processes – something particularly valuable when managing large volumes of insurance contracts or reinsurance treaties across multiple jurisdictions.

In terms of compliance, the evolving landscape of automated regulatory monitoring, particularly for sanctions and anti-money laundering (AML), has real potential. Given the frequency of regulatory changes in our member states and globally, solutions that can flag real-time updates or screen counterparties against multiple databases offer both efficiency and risk mitigation value.

To stay current, I take a practical and curated approach. I follow legal technology developments through industry publications, selective legal tech conferences, and direct engagement with law firms that are piloting or deploying these tools. I also encourage regular dialogue with our external counsel on how they are integrating technology into their service models, particularly in areas like cross-border enforcement and risk analytics.

Importantly, I believe that as in-house counsel, our role is not to chase every new tool but to evaluate technologies through the lens of our institutional risk profile, operating model, and governance structure. In multilateral settings like ours, adopting legal tech isn’t just about efficiency it must also support accountability, confidentiality, and alignment with treaty-based obligations.

In summary, I see technology as an enabler, but not a replacement, for sound legal judgment. The challenge is not just to adopt new tools, but also to ensure they are responsibly implemented, aligned with our values, and adapted to the legal and regulatory realities in which we operate.