Audit & Assurance · Internal & Operational Audits
Management Audit
A management audit steps back from the transaction-level testing of a standard internal audit and asks a harder question: is management actually running this business well, against the objectives the board or owners set for it?
Chartered Accountants · Dubai · Since 1986
Management audit is a systematic, independent evaluation of an organisation's management processes, decision-making quality, and administrative efficiency — assessing whether managers at each level are planning, organising, directing, and controlling the business effectively against its stated objectives. It differs fundamentally from statutory audit, which opines on whether financial statements are true and fair, and from internal audit, which tests whether internal controls and risk management processes are designed and operating correctly. Management audit instead asks whether management itself — the people, the structure, the decisions, the information they act on — is delivering the performance the business needs, and where it is falling short of what comparable, well-run organisations achieve.
In the UAE, there is no statutory requirement to commission a management audit; it is a voluntary, board- or owner-driven engagement, most commonly triggered by a change in ownership, a succession event in a family business, disappointing performance against budget or plan despite apparently sound financial controls, a private equity or institutional investor wanting an independent view of management quality before or after investment, or a board that suspects the gap between the company's potential and its actual results sits in how decisions are made rather than in the numbers themselves. It sits comfortably alongside the internal audit and statutory audit functions many UAE groups already run, but answers a different question: internal audit tells you whether the controls work, statutory audit tells you whether the financial statements are fairly stated, and management audit tells you whether the people running the business are making good decisions with the information and authority they have.
A well-scoped management audit in the UAE typically examines organisational structure and reporting lines (is authority genuinely delegated to the level decisions need to be made, or bottlenecked at the top), the quality and timeliness of management information (does the MIS actually support decisions, or is it a rear-view mirror produced too late to act on), planning and budgeting discipline (are budgets realistic, owned by the people accountable for them, and actively used to manage the business rather than filed and forgotten), resource allocation (headcount, capital, and working capital deployed against the areas of genuine strategic priority), and the effectiveness of specific functional management — sales, operations, procurement, HR — against sector benchmarks and the company's own stated objectives. Where relevant, the review also considers whether management structures and reporting have kept pace with obligations introduced under Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 on Corporate Tax and Federal Decree-Law No. 8 of 2017 on VAT, since a management team that cannot produce reliable, timely numbers for the board is equally unlikely to be producing reliable numbers for the Federal Tax Authority.
Management audit is fundamentally a diagnostic and advisory exercise rather than a compliance one — the output is not a pass/fail opinion but a structured assessment of management effectiveness across the areas reviewed, benchmarked where possible against comparable businesses, with specific, actionable recommendations. It is judgement-based work, which means the credibility of the exercise rests entirely on the reviewer's actual operating and industry experience — a management audit performed by someone who has never had to run a P&L or manage a functional team produces generic, textbook recommendations rather than insight a board can act on. PNPC's management audit teams are led by practitioners with direct exposure to UAE business operations, not solely audit-trained staff applying a checklist to a function they have never managed themselves.
The deliverable is a candid, evidence-based report to the owners or board — an assessment of management effectiveness by function or area, specific findings on where decision-making, structure, or information quality is falling short, and prioritised, practical recommendations for closing the gap. Because the subject matter is management itself rather than a discrete control or transaction, the engagement often involves structured interviews with management and, sometimes, selected staff below management level, alongside document and MIS review — and the findings are more interpretive than a control test's binary pass/fail, which is precisely why independence and genuine operating credibility matter so much in who performs the review. Fee and timeline are confirmed in the engagement letter once the scope, organisational size, and the specific functions under review are agreed — the range between a focused single-function review and a full organisation-wide management audit is too wide for a meaningful generic figure.
When a management audit adds real value
The business is consistently missing budget or plan despite financial controls and statutory/internal audit reports coming back clean — suggesting the gap sits in management decision-making rather than financial control
A new majority shareholder, private equity investor, or acquirer wants an independent assessment of the existing management team's capability and structure before or shortly after taking control
A family business is preparing for succession and the outgoing generation or the board wants an honest, independent view of whether current management structure and bench strength can carry the business forward
Rapid growth has left the organisational structure unchanged from a much smaller company — reporting lines, spans of control, and decision rights have not kept pace with headcount or revenue
The board suspects management information reaching it is late, incomplete, or simply not the right information to make good decisions, but cannot pinpoint exactly where the breakdown occurs
A merger, acquisition, or major restructuring has combined two management teams or structures and the board wants an independent view on where duplication, gaps, or conflicting decision authority remain
Investors or lenders have raised concerns about management depth or succession risk as part of due diligence, and the board wants to address the concern proactively with independent evidence
A functional area — sales, operations, procurement, or HR — is persistently underperforming against sector norms and the board wants to understand whether the root cause is management capability, structure, resourcing, or something else entirely
The company is preparing for a bank facility renewal, investor round, or exit process where management quality will be scrutinised, and the board wants to identify and close gaps ahead of external diligence
When a management audit is not the right engagement
You need assurance that your financial statements are true and fair for filing with your licensing authority or bank — that is statutory (external) audit, an entirely separate engagement from management audit
You need testing of specific internal controls, risk management, and governance processes against a control framework — that is internal audit, which tests process and control design/operation rather than management judgement and effectiveness
You are investigating a specific, already-identified fraud or irregularity with a view to litigation or disciplinary action — that calls for a dedicated forensic investigation with a different evidentiary standard, not a management effectiveness review
You need day-to-day bookkeeping, VAT or Corporate Tax compliance, or monthly management accounts prepared — a management audit reviews whether existing management information is fit for purpose, it does not replace the accounting function that produces it
The board or owner is not genuinely open to hearing that the issue may sit with management performance or structure itself, and wants a report that confirms existing decisions were correct — a management audit only has value where the sponsor is prepared to act on honest findings, including uncomfortable ones about specific individuals
You are a very early-stage or owner-operated business with one or two decision-makers and no meaningful management layer between the owner and staff — there is limited management structure yet to audit, and the review would add little beyond what the owner already knows
You want a due diligence-style report produced quickly to satisfy a lender or investor checkbox without genuine engagement from current management in interviews and document review — a rushed, non-collaborative review produces a shallow, low-confidence assessment
The organisation has very recently completed a major restructuring or leadership change and has not yet had time to operate under the new structure — a management audit is more useful once the new arrangement has had a reasonable period to bed in and produce evidence of how it is actually working
Management audit vs related assurance and advisory engagements in the UAE
| Feature | Management Audit | Internal Audit | Statutory (External) Audit | Organisational/HR Consulting Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Assess management effectiveness, decision quality, and organisational fitness against business objectives | Independent assurance on risk management, internal controls, and governance processes | Opinion on true and fair view of financial statements | Design or redesign organisational structure, roles, and HR processes |
| Who it reports to | Owners / board — often confidentially, given the sensitivity of findings about named individuals | Audit committee / board | Shareholders (via signed audit report) | Sponsoring executive or HR leadership, sometimes the board |
| Mandatory under UAE law | No — entirely voluntary, board- or owner-driven | Not generally mandatory; often required for DIFC/ADGM regulated firms and bank covenants | Yes — annual filing typically required by DED/free zone authority licence conditions | No — voluntary |
| Scope | Organisational structure, decision-making quality, planning/budgeting discipline, management information, functional effectiveness | Broad — financial, operational, compliance, IT, fraud-risk controls | Financial statements and supporting records | Structure, job design, HR policy and process, sometimes reward |
| Evidence basis | Structured interviews, document/MIS review, benchmarking against comparable businesses, some transaction sampling where relevant | Process walkthroughs, control testing on transaction samples, data analytics | Substantive and controls-based testing of financial records and balances | Interviews, org-design frameworks, market benchmarking |
| Nature of output | Judgement-based assessment with prioritised, practical recommendations — interpretive, not binary pass/fail | Findings report with risk ratings, root cause, and management action plan | Signed audit opinion and financial statements | Recommended structure, role definitions, and implementation roadmap |
| Typical trigger | Underperformance despite clean financial/internal audit results, ownership change, succession planning | Board decision, investor/lender condition, regulatory expectation | Annual licence renewal condition | Growth, restructuring, new leadership |
These engagement types are complementary, not interchangeable, and PNPC frequently recommends a management audit alongside, rather than instead of, an internal audit and statutory audit programme — each answers a different question about the business. A scoping conversation with a PNPC partner is the right way to confirm which combination fits your specific situation.
| # | Stage & What PNPC Does | What Generic Providers Miss | Typical Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confidential Scoping Discussion with the Sponsoring Owner/Board | We establish upfront who the report goes to and how confidentially named-individual findings will be handled — a management audit that leaks details of a functional head's performance before the board sees them destroys trust in the process. Generic providers often skip this conversation and assume standard reporting norms apply. | Agreed scope, confidentiality protocol, and reporting line |
| 2 | Define the Functions and Objectives Against Which Management Will Be Assessed | A credible management audit measures management against the business's own stated objectives and realistic sector benchmarks, not a generic textbook standard of 'good management' divorced from what the company is actually trying to achieve. | Agreed evaluation framework and functional scope |
| 3 | Document and Management Information Review | We review organisation charts, job descriptions, delegation of authority, board/management meeting minutes, budgets versus actuals, and the actual MIS packs circulated to management and the board over recent reporting periods — looking specifically at whether the MIS drives decisions or is produced and filed unread. | Baseline picture of structure, planning discipline, and information quality |
| 4 | Structured Management Interviews | Interviews are structured around specific decision scenarios and recent events, not open-ended conversation — we ask how a specific pricing, hiring, or capital allocation decision was actually made, by whom, and with what information, rather than accepting a general description of process. | Evidence of actual decision-making practice versus documented process |
| 5 | Functional Effectiveness Assessment | Each in-scope function (sales, operations, procurement, finance, HR) is assessed against its stated objectives, resourcing, and comparable sector performance where benchmarking data is available — not treated uniformly regardless of the function's actual complexity or maturity. | Function-by-function effectiveness rating with supporting evidence |
| 6 | Organisational Structure & Decision-Rights Analysis | We map where decisions are actually made versus where the org chart says they should be made — bottlenecks at the top, unclear ownership between overlapping roles, and spans of control that have grown beyond what one manager can genuinely oversee are common, under-diagnosed issues. | Structural gap analysis and decision-rights map |
| 7 | Draft Findings Discussion with the Sponsor | Because findings can involve named individuals, we discuss draft conclusions privately with the sponsoring owner or board chair before finalising, to confirm factual accuracy and agree how sensitive findings will be communicated — not to soften the substance. | Validated draft findings |
| 8 | Final Report & Presentation to the Board or Owners | The final report is a candid, evidence-based assessment with prioritised, practical recommendations — not a diplomatic summary designed to avoid discomfort. We present this directly, in person or via video, to the audience that commissioned the review. | Final management audit report with prioritised recommendations |
| 9 | Recommendation Prioritisation & Implementation Support (Optional) | Where requested, PNPC supports implementation of specific recommendations — a revised organisation structure, a redesigned management reporting pack, or a governance/decision-rights framework — as a distinct, separately scoped follow-on engagement. | Agreed implementation roadmap (where commissioned) |
| 10 | Follow-Up Review | A follow-up review some months later assesses whether agreed changes to structure, process, or information flow have actually taken hold, rather than treating the initial report as the end of the engagement. | Follow-up assessment of adoption and impact |
A focused management audit covering two to three functions typically runs several weeks from scoping to final report; a full organisation-wide review across all functional areas takes longer, scaling with the number of interviews and the depth of benchmarking required. Timelines are confirmed at scoping once the functional scope and organisational size are known.
Current organisation chart(s) for each entity/function in scope, including any informal reporting relationships that differ from the formal chart
Job descriptions and delegation of authority matrix for management-level roles under review
Board and management meeting minutes for the past 12–24 months, including any strategy or planning session materials
Trade licence(s) and group structure chart for context on the entities and jurisdictions covered by the review
Current-year budget/business plan and the most recent 2–3 years of budget-versus-actual performance
Strategic plan or business plan document, where one exists, and evidence of how progress against it is tracked
KPI dashboards or scorecards used by management and the board, with a sample of recent reporting periods
Prior performance review or appraisal records for management-level staff, where relevant to the scope
Sample monthly/quarterly MIS packs circulated to management and the board over the past 6–12 months
Description of the systems (ERP, accounting software, spreadsheets) used to produce management information
Evidence of how variances against budget or plan are investigated and acted upon, if at all
Any prior internal audit, statutory audit management letter, or external advisory reports referencing management or organisational matters
Headcount and organisational cost data by function, to support resource allocation analysis
Sales pipeline, procurement, or operational performance data relevant to the specific functions under review
HR records relevant to management capability — tenure, turnover, and any prior capability or succession assessments
Sector or peer benchmarking data, where the client already holds any, to supplement PNPC's own benchmarking
Signed engagement letter defining scope, functions in scope, confidentiality protocol, fee, and timeline
List of management and, where agreed, selected staff to be interviewed, with scheduling contact
Confirmation of the sponsoring owner or board contact who will receive the final report
Agreed protocol for how findings involving named individuals will be communicated and to whom
| Phase | Triggered By | PNPC Management Audit Approach | Risk If Ignored |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoping & Confidentiality Protocol | Board or owner decision to commission a review | Agree functional scope, evaluation framework, and — critically — how findings involving named individuals will be handled and communicated before any interviews begin. | Without an agreed confidentiality protocol upfront, sensitive findings risk leaking informally before the board sees them, undermining trust in the whole process. |
| Evidence Gathering | Scope agreed | Document and MIS review, structured management interviews, functional effectiveness assessment, and organisational structure/decision-rights mapping. | Interviews conducted without a structured framework produce impressions rather than evidence, weakening the credibility of subsequent findings. |
| Findings & Recommendations | Evidence gathering complete | Draft findings discussed privately with the sponsor to confirm factual accuracy, then finalised as a candid, evidence-based report with prioritised, practical recommendations. | A diplomatically softened report that avoids naming the real issue for fear of discomfort fails to deliver the value the board actually commissioned the review for. |
| Board/Owner Presentation | Final report ready | Present directly to the sponsoring audience, walking through evidence and reasoning behind each recommendation, not just delivering a written document. | A report delivered without discussion is more easily set aside or misread than one presented and debated directly with the board. |
| Implementation Support (Optional) | Board decides to act on recommendations | Where commissioned, support implementation of structural, process, or reporting changes as a distinct follow-on engagement with its own scope and fee. | Recommendations left entirely to management to implement without support sometimes stall, especially where the recommendation concerns the very structure or individuals responsible for driving the change. |
| Follow-Up Review | Agreed interval after implementation begins, typically several months | Reassess whether structural, process, or information changes have genuinely taken hold and are producing the intended improvement in decision quality. | Without follow-up, a management audit risks becoming a one-off report that sits in a drawer rather than a catalyst for lasting change. |
| Periodic Refresh | Significant change in leadership, ownership, or business scale since the last review | Where the business has materially changed — new majority shareholder, significant growth, restructuring — a fresh management audit reassesses fit-for-purpose structure and capability against the business as it now stands. | A management structure last assessed years earlier, before major growth or a change of ownership, is unlikely to still be the right fit without a fresh, independent look. |
What exactly is a management audit, and how is it different from a financial or internal audit?
A management audit is an independent assessment of how effectively management is running the business — organisational structure, decision-making quality, planning and budgeting discipline, and the quality of information management relies on — rather than a test of financial statement accuracy (statutory audit) or internal control design and operation (internal audit). It is judgement-based and diagnostic, evaluating management performance against the business's own objectives and realistic sector benchmarks, and produces prioritised recommendations rather than a pass/fail opinion.
Is a management audit mandatory for UAE companies?
No. There is no statutory or regulatory requirement to commission a management audit for mainland, free zone, DIFC, or ADGM entities. It is an entirely voluntary, board- or owner-commissioned engagement, most commonly triggered by underperformance despite clean financial controls, a change of ownership, succession planning, or investor/lender concerns about management depth.
Who typically commissions a management audit — the board, the CEO, or an outside investor?
Most commonly the board or the ultimate owner(s), sometimes prompted by an incoming investor's due diligence concerns or a lender's covenant conversation, but the engagement itself is always sponsored by the ownership/governance level of the business rather than by the management team being assessed. That distinction matters for independence — a CEO commissioning a review of their own management team, without board sponsorship, risks the exercise being shaped to avoid uncomfortable conclusions.
What areas does a typical UAE management audit cover?
Common areas include organisational structure and whether decision rights are genuinely delegated to the appropriate level, the timeliness and usefulness of management information and board reporting, planning and budgeting discipline (are budgets realistic, owned, and actively used), resource allocation across functions, and the effectiveness of specific functions — sales, operations, procurement, HR — against the company's own objectives and sector norms.
How does PNPC gather evidence for a management audit, given it's assessing judgement rather than transactions?
Evidence comes from structured interviews built around specific recent decisions rather than open-ended conversation, review of organisation charts, delegation of authority, budgets-versus-actuals, and actual MIS packs circulated over recent periods, and — where useful — sector or peer benchmarking. We look at how a specific pricing, hiring, or capital decision was actually made and by whom, not just the documented process for how it is supposed to be made.
Will a management audit name specific individuals in its findings?
Where a finding genuinely concerns a specific individual's decision-making or role effectiveness, yes — a report that avoids naming the issue for fear of discomfort fails to deliver the value the board commissioned the review for. We agree the confidentiality and communication protocol for such findings with the sponsor upfront, before any interviews begin, so there is no ambiguity about who sees what and how it is handled.
How long does a management audit typically take?
A focused review covering two to three functional areas typically takes several weeks from scoping through to final report; a full organisation-wide review across all functions and a larger management interview programme takes proportionately longer. Timelines are confirmed at scoping once the functional scope, organisational size, and number of interviews are agreed.
Can a management audit be scoped to just one function, like sales or operations?
Yes, a single-function review is common and often a sensible starting point — particularly where the board has a specific concern about one area's underperformance rather than a business-wide question about management effectiveness. The methodology (interviews, document review, benchmarking) is the same, scaled to the narrower scope.
How does a management audit help with succession planning in a family business?
A management audit gives the outgoing generation or the board an independent, evidence-based view of the current management bench — including any family members in operational roles — assessed against the same standard as any other manager, alongside an honest assessment of gaps in structure or capability that succession planning needs to address. This is often more candid than an assessment produced internally, where family or long-standing relationships can make direct feedback difficult to deliver.
Does a management audit review our UAE Corporate Tax or VAT compliance?
Not directly — a management audit is not a tax compliance review. However, where the review identifies that management information and reporting discipline are weak, this is directly relevant to a business's ability to produce reliable numbers for Corporate Tax and VAT filings under Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 and Federal Decree-Law No. 8 of 2017, and we flag this connection explicitly where it is a genuine finding, recommending it feed into a dedicated tax compliance review.
Can PNPC benchmark our management structure against comparable UAE businesses?
Where relevant benchmarking data is available for the sector and business size, we use it to contextualise findings — for example, whether headcount allocation across functions or spans of control fall meaningfully outside what comparable businesses in the sector typically operate with. Benchmarking is used as context to support judgement-based findings, not as the sole basis for a conclusion, since every organisation's context differs.
How does a management audit differ for a group with entities in both the UAE and India?
For cross-border groups, PNPC assesses management structure and decision-making both within each jurisdiction's entity and across the group — including whether intercompany reporting lines, shared services, and cross-border decision authority are clearly defined and working in practice, drawing on our own offices and teams in both the UAE and India rather than a single-country lens.
What's the difference between a management audit and a management consulting or organisational design engagement?
A management audit is primarily diagnostic and evaluative — assessing current management effectiveness and identifying gaps — while organisational design or management consulting is primarily prescriptive, building a new structure, process, or capability model. PNPC's management audit often surfaces the case for a follow-on organisational design engagement, which we scope and deliver as a distinct piece of work once the diagnosis is agreed.
Will PNPC tell us if our management is actually performing well, or is a management audit designed to always find problems?
A genuinely positive assessment — where management structure, decision-making, and information quality are found to be effective — is a legitimate and useful outcome, giving the board real, evidence-based confidence rather than an assumption. We document the interviews, evidence, and reasoning behind every conclusion regardless of outcome, so a positive finding is demonstrably the product of genuine evaluation rather than a lack of scrutiny.
How does PNPC ensure independence when reviewing management, especially if PNPC also provides accounting or tax services to the same client?
Where PNPC provides other services to the same client, we structure the management audit engagement team separately and discuss any potential conflict transparently with the sponsoring board or owner before accepting the engagement — the reviewing team does not assess its own work product from another service line without appropriate safeguards being agreed upfront.
What happens after the final management audit report — does PNPC just hand it over and move on?
The report is presented directly to the board or owner, not just emailed, and where the board decides to act on recommendations, PNPC can support implementation — restructuring, redesigned reporting, governance changes — as a distinct follow-on engagement. A follow-up review some months later assesses whether the agreed changes have genuinely taken hold.
Is a management audit useful for a mid-sized UAE business, or only larger groups?
It scales to the size and complexity of the business — a mid-sized UAE company that has grown quickly, where organisational structure and management information have not kept pace with revenue or headcount growth, is often exactly the profile where a management audit adds the most value, well before the company reaches the scale where larger corporates typically commission this kind of review.
Why should we engage PNPC for a management audit rather than a generic management consultancy?
PNPC's management audit teams are led by practitioners with direct UAE and India operating and advisory experience across multiple sectors, not solely consultants applying a generic organisational-design framework without genuine exposure to running or advising an actual P&L. Because we also deliver internal audit, statutory audit, and tax advisory work, our management audit findings are grounded in a fuller picture of the business's actual financial and control environment, not assessed in isolation from it.
PNPC Global management audit engagements vs typical alternatives in the UAE market
| Dimension | PNPC Global | Generic Management Consultancy | Big Four / Large Network Firm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation basis | Grounded in your actual financial, control, and MIS evidence alongside structured interviews | Often framework-led with limited grounding in the client's actual financial data | Thorough but standardised methodology, typically priced at a premium |
| Confidentiality of findings involving named individuals | Agreed protocol confirmed with the sponsor before any interviews begin | Varies significantly by provider, often not addressed explicitly upfront | Formal but can be process-heavy and slower to reach the board |
| Partner/senior involvement in interviews | Partner or senior director directly conducts key management interviews | Variable — often delegated to junior consultants | Typically delegated substantially to consultants with partner sign-off only |
| India-UAE cross-border coordination | Single coordinated engagement across both jurisdictions from PNPC's own offices in each | Rarely offered as a genuinely integrated service | Available but often requires separate country practices with handoff friction |
| Follow-up review of implementation | Built into the engagement as standard practice | Frequently offered only as a separately priced add-on | Available but often a distinct, re-scoped engagement |
| Fee structure | Fixed, agreed fee confirmed in writing before work begins | Variable — day-rate consulting models can expand scope and cost unpredictably | Generally premium pricing reflecting brand and global infrastructure |
| Continuity with your existing advisors | Same PNPC team can coordinate management audit findings with existing internal audit, tax, and accounting engagements | Project-based; limited ongoing relationship or context of your broader advisory work | Strong global infrastructure but frequent staff rotation between engagements |
This comparison reflects general market patterns PNPC observes and is not a claim about any specific named competitor. Every provider — including PNPC — should be evaluated on its written scope, fee, and team composition for your specific engagement.
What the PNPC package includes
- 01
Confidential scoping discussion establishing functional scope and a clear protocol for handling findings involving named individuals
- 02
Structured management interviews built around specific, recent decisions rather than open-ended discussion
- 03
Organisational structure and decision-rights mapping identifying bottlenecks and unclear ownership between roles
- 04
Review of planning and budgeting discipline — whether budgets are realistic, owned, and actively used to manage the business
- 05
Management information and MIS quality assessment — whether reporting reaching the board actually drives decisions
- 06
Functional effectiveness assessment for the specific areas in scope, benchmarked against sector norms where data allows
- 07
Candid, evidence-based final report with prioritised, practical recommendations presented directly to the board or owners
- 08
Optional implementation support for agreed structural, process, or reporting changes as a distinct follow-on engagement
- 09
Formal follow-up review assessing whether agreed changes have genuinely taken hold
- 10
Cross-border management audit coordination for groups spanning UAE and India, run from PNPC's own offices in both jurisdictions
- 11
Connection of management information findings to Corporate Tax and VAT filing reliability where genuinely relevant
- 12
Named-owner engagement letter setting written scope, functional coverage, confidentiality protocol, and a fixed fee before any interviews begin
Speak to a PNPC partner before your next board or ownership review — an honest, evidence-based assessment of management effectiveness is often the missing piece when clean financial controls still aren't translating into the results the business should be delivering.
Jurisdiction
Free zone, mainland & offshore
Ready to get started?
Tell us about your requirement — a UAE specialist responds within 24 hours.