Author: Zaheena Rasheed

Ex-president’s wife continues high-profile campaign in Europe

Former president Mohamed Nasheed’s wife, Laila Ali, is continuing a high-profile campaign in Europe to free her husband.

The former first lady met with the president of the European Union parliament Martin Schulz in Strasbourg, France, on Tuesday and met the UN high commissioner on human rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein in Geneva, Switzerland, on Wednesday.

Nasheed’s trial on terrorism charges was widely criticized for apparent lack of due process.

The UK prime minister David Cameron, the European Parliament, and US Senators John McCain and Jack Reed have called for his immediate release.

The opposition leader was transferred to house arrest in late June amidst mounting diplomatic pressure.

“We are hopeful, but cautious,” said Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, the spokesperson of the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

“President Nasheed is not free, he could be returned to house arrest any minute. There are some 1400 opposition supporters and politicians facing charges. So we must continue our campaign.”

Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years in jail over the military detention a judge during his tenure.

The MDP and the government recently commenced talks, but a third meeting was cancelled tonight as some ministers are out of the country. The opposition has also backed a constitutional amendment that would allow President Abdulla Yameen to replace his deputy as a confidence building measure.

An aide who had accompanied Laila on her Europe trip said she had discussed Nasheed’s imprisonment and the human rights situation in the Maldives during her visits. She met with EU MEPs in Brussels on Monday before calling on Schulz and Al-Hussein.

“The government needs to demonstrate its sincerity by freeing all political prisoners, including Nasheed, and ensuring they can fully return to public life,” the aide said.

In April, the EU parliament adopted a resolution calling for Nasheed’s freedom, and requested member countries to warn travelers on the human rights situation in the Maldives.

Shortly after Nasheed was sentenced, Zeid said the trial was rushed and “appears to contravene the Maldives’ own laws and practices and international fair trial standards in a number of respects.”

Heavyweight international human rights lawyers including Amal Clooney, the wife of Hollywood actor George Clooney, have taken up Nasheed’s case at the UN working group on arbitrary detention.

A ruling is expected in September or October. The government has hired a law firm chaired by Cherie Blair, the wife of UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair, to respond to the petition.

Meanwhile, Cameron has called for political dialogue in the Maldives and Nasheed’s release following a meeting with Laila on June 25. The former first lady had also met UK MPs and Hugo Swire, the minister of state, foreign and commonwealth office in her visit to London in late-June.

US Senators McCain and Reed, who chair the Senate Armed Forces Committee, on June 2 urged the US government to press for the opposition leader’s release and warned that the Maldives’ decisions are “having serious adverse consequences on its relationships abroad.”

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New bill sets jail term up to 20 years for ‘Jihad’

The Attorney General’s Office has overhauled a first draft of a draconian anti-terrorism bill and specified some 14 offences as acts of terror, including joining or attempting to leave the Maldives to join a war in a foreign country.

The new draft, submitted to the People’s Majlis on Monday, proposes a jail term of 17-20 years for joining a foreign war. Any individual caught attempting to leave the Maldives with the same intent could be jailed for 10-15 years.

The bill also permits extensive surveillance of terror suspects.

More than a hundred Maldivians are thought to have left the Maldives to fight with Islamic State and Jabhat Al-Nusra in Syria and Iraq. The two groups are designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S.

The government has been struggling to stop the steady outflow of Maldivians joining Jihad.

A previous draft of the bill, obtained by Minivan News, granted the president the exclusive authority to declare groups as terrorist organisations. Acts of terror were previously loosely defined. Inciting violence at demonstrations, threatening the country’s independence and sovereignty, and promoting a particular political or religious ideology were considered terrorism.

The new bill, however, defines some 14 offences committed with the intent of unduly influencing the government, creating fear, or promoting ‘unlawful’ political and religious ideologies as terrorism.

These offences include murder, causing bodily harm, disappearances, kidnapping, damaging property, hijacking vehicles, endangering public health or security, damaging public infrastructure and suspending public services.

The president must consult with the national security council in designating groups as terror organisations. The list must be publicised within 15 days of the ratification of the law.

Using explosives, bullets or other weapons to cause harm, even if committed without the three motivations of terrorism, is an act of terror. This means gang violence will be considered terrorism. More than 30 people have died in gang violence over the past seven years.

Punishments range from 20-25 years for perpetrators. Planning an act of terror is punishable by 17-20 years in jail. Encouraging terrorism with direct or indirect statements is punishable by 10-15 years in jail.

Training to commit acts of terror, including learning how to use weapons or joining training camps, is punishable by 12-15 years in jail.

“We condemn terrorism. The government aims to mete out the harshest punishments for those who commit such crimes,” the AG office said in a statement.

The bill also criminalises possession of dangerous weapons, distributing publications of a terrorist organisation, and forming gangs or groups to commit acts of terror.

Fundamental rights, including the right to remain silent and access to a lawyer, can be restricted for terror suspects. Between 6-12 hours is provided to appoint a lawyer before interrogation. Meanwhile, any communications between a suspect and a lawyer for the first 96 hours after arrest must take place in the presence of a police officer.

The bill authorises the home minister to apply for a monitoring and control or ‘monicon’ order from the appellate High Court in order to tag, intercept communications and conduct surveillance on suspects.

Unlike the first draft, the new bill provides measures that the High Court must consider in issuing a monicon order and establishes some safeguards.

Judges must determine if there is sufficient evidence in a police’s intelligence report against a terror suspect and must determine if the monicon action desired is proportionate to the evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, the court must refrain from issuing the order, the bill states.

The minister does not have to inform the suspect and the court is not obliged to summon the suspect before issuing the order. However, the order must be presented to the suspect before it can be enforced.

The bill grants a suspect a 90-day period to appeal the monicon order at the High Court. The court is obliged to accept appeals of monicon orders and hold hearings.

Monicon orders last for a year and can be extended every year. Orders can be issued against minors.

The government can restrict a suspect’s place of residence, freedom of movement and monitor bank account transactions and order a suspect to undergo a rehabilitation programme under a monicon order.

If a suspect violates a monicon order, a court can jail or place them under house arrest for 18 months.

If the law is passed, the Anti- Terrorism Act of 1990 will be dissolved.

Former president Mohamed Nasheed and ex-defence minister Tholhath Ibrahim were charged under the terrorism law over the military’s detention of a judge and sentenced to 13 years and 10 years in prison, respectively, in March.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Progress in talks raises hope of end to crisis

Representatives of the government and the opposition remain optimistic of a resolution to a six-month long political crisis with home minister stating that the government is open to exploring avenues to release jailed politicians and withdraw charges against opposition supporters.

The main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) submitted tonight a list with some 1493 people, who are either in jail, facing charges or under investigation for political activities.

At a second meeting with the government on Sunday night, MDP also requested a two-week timeline to come to agreements on President Abdulla Yameen’s agenda of political reconciliation, constitutional and judicial reform, and participatory development.

The government has, meanwhile, conceded to all-party talks at a later stage and agreed to allow parties to decide on who will represent them at the talks.

The Maldives has been gripped by turmoil since the arrest and imprisonment of several politicians, including ex-president Mohamed Nasheed. In the ensuing crisis, hundreds were arrested and three leaders were charged with terrorism.

Diplomatic pressure has been mounting on President Yameen to release all political prisoners.

A third meeting will be held on Wednesday. The government will answer MDP’s demands and make demands of its own in return.

Striking a conciliatory and at times jovial tone, home minister Umar Naseer said: “The government’s aim is not to get a quick fix, but to build sustainable relationships between the PPM and MDP. These talks are aimed not just to address the current turmoil, but aimed at coming to a long-term agreement or understanding.”

MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Ibu’ Mohamed Solih said: “The meeting proceeded in a very friendly atmosphere. The two parties worked constructively with the aim of bringing results.”

Fisheries minister Mohamed Shainee and president’s office minister Abdulla Ameen also participated in tonight’s meeting.

At the first meeting on July 1, the MDP had proposed five rules to proceed with talks, including joint talks, and conducting talks in three stages.

Naseer and Ibu tonight said that the two parties will discuss measures for political reconciliation at the first stage, and will invite the Jumhooree Party and religious conservative Adhaalath Party to discussions on constitutional and judicial reform, and participatory development at the second and third stages of talks.

Separate teams of ministers are in discussions with the JP and the Adhaalath Party.

Although the government tonight withdrew a veto on Nasheed representing the MDP at talks, it is not clear if he will be physically present at the meetings. The opposition leader was transferred to house arrest in late June after the opposition backed a constitutional change that would allow President Yameen to replace his deputy.

Naseer also blocked a question whether the government plans to repeal a law that had stripped Nasheed of the MDP presidency.

When asked if he is authorized to make decisions on behalf of the government, the home minister said: “I brief the president on the proceedings at the talks, the MDP’s proposals, and ask if there is any points he’d like to decide on and we proceed according to his decisions. There are no difficulties.”

The MDP’s demands for political reconciliation are:

  • To make concessions on “politically motivated sentencing” of politicians, including Nasheed, Nazim, ex-defence minister Tholhath Ibrahim and MP Ahmed Nazim
  • Withdraw “politically motivated charges” against protestors, including Sheikh Imran
  • Withdraw economic sanctions against businessmen, including JP leader Gasim Ibrahim, ex MP Abdulla Jabir’s Yacht Tours, and MDP deputy chairperson’s AAA company
  • Job security for councilors, civil servants and employees of state owned companies
  • Independent inquiry into the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali and the disappearance of Minivan News journalist Ahmed Rilwan
  • Independent investigation of the death threats sent via text messages to politicians and journalists

The MDP has also called for a constitutional change to a parliamentary system, contending that the presidential system of government has failed in the Maldives.

The tax authority last week removed a freeze on Gasim’s Villa Group accounts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Drastic changes planned for new penal code

The judiciary is planning to submit drastic changes this week to the new penal code due to come into force on July 16, Minivan News has learned.

A reliable source told Minivan News that the proposed changes are modelled on South Sudan’s penal code and will undo a decade’s work of modernising the Maldives’ criminal justice system.

“The new penal code is very modern, drafted over 10 years with the participation of several sectors. The planned changes will set us back by 50 years,” the source said.

The existing penal code was adopted in 1968 and has been criticised as draconian, outdated and not in line with the Maldives’ obligations under international human rights conventions.

The new penal code was hailed as a landmark law that would usher in major reforms to the Maldivian criminal justice system.

Legal experts have said that with the new law, the Maldives will become the first Islamic country to adopt a criminal law compatible with both Islamic Shariah and international human rights standards.

A second credible source told Minivan News that only five percent of the new penal code will remain with the new changes. The changes were based on the penal codes of countries such as Egypt, Libya, and Qatar.

The source said that the pro-government majority in parliament is planning to delay the enactment of the new penal code by a further 90 days before July 16.

The 1966 penal code will remain in place for three months and the new penal code will be annulled, the source said. Afterwards a new law will be passed with the changes proposed by the judiciary.

The changes were drafted by the judiciary in a process led by the Supreme Court, Minivan News understands.

“The Supreme Court or judges should not be involved in writing laws. This is exactly how laws must not be written,” another lawyer familiar with the matter said.

The Maldivian judiciary has been widely criticised over “politicisation” and the lack of academic qualification of sitting judges. The new penal code would have minimised the discretion of judges in meting out punishments.

The new code also brings together provisions in some 90 laws that specify criminal offences under one law.

Its first draft was prepared in 2006 at the request of then-Attorney General Hassan Saeed by Professor Paul H. Robison, a legal expert at the University of Pennsylvania.

The legislation was stalled at the 16th People’s Majlis with no progress. The bill was resubmitted in late 2009 after the election of the 17th Majlis, where it remained with a committee until December 2013.

In a first vote, the law was rejected 36-34 and returned to a parliamentary committee.

It finally passed in April 2014 with 48 votes in favour and a one-year period for preparation.

Although the law was due to come into force in April 2015, the parliament delayed its enactment by three months, claiming more time was needed to raise awareness among the public and address concerns of religious scholars.

However, both the attorney general and prosecutor general have said there is no reason to delay the penal code’s enforcement. The government has trained some 1,100 individuals including state prosecutors, police officers, customs staff, lawyers and journalists on the new law.

The Supreme Court, however, barred judges and magistrates from attending training sessions.

Former deputy prosecutor general Hussain Shameem, who conducted training on the new penal code, said the legal resource centre set up by the attorney general and the UNDP had invited all judges and magistrates, but “none of them attended the trainings.”

Shameem says the legal resource centre could train all of the 186 judges and magistrates in the country within two weeks.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leaders commit to reconciliation, prepare to begin talks

Representatives of the government and the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) made an unprecedented show of commitment to resolving a six-month long political crisis tonight following a preliminary meeting ahead of talks.

“I believe this is the time for a major reconciliation by finding a consensus through talks. The government, to show its sincerity, will make all the concessions we can,” Home minister Umar Naseer told the press.

Naseer and the MDP’s parliamentary group leader Ibrahim ‘Ibu’ Mohamed Solih met at the President’s Office at 11:00pm on Wednesday night, and discussed the agenda and structure for the long-awaited negotiations.

“We believe the government is ready to come to a resolution. That is why we are sitting down. I have high hope that we will find a solution,” Ibu said.

The Maldives has been gripped by political turmoil since the arrest and imprisonment of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed and ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim.

Hundreds were arrested in protests and key figures were charged with terrorism. Diplomatic pressure has been mounting on President Abdulla Yameen’s government to release all political prisoners, including Nasheed.

“We have not spoken on the substance of the talks tonight, meaning on what it is that we will agree on, or what we cannot agree on. We spoke on the design of the talks, and how we will proceed,” Naseer said.

A second meeting will be held on Sunday (July 5) at 10:30pm.

“We noted even tonight that there is common ground. Our two parties are very mature. Both have ruled, and both have been in opposition. Both parties have experienced all there is to experience in the political sphere,” Naseer said.

“This might take some time, but both parties we are starting off with sincerity, with the hope of success.”

The two parties, in their role as opposition, had made mistakes, Naseer said. “In light of those experiences, with the awareness that either of us may be in power, or in opposition in the future, we believe this is the beginning of a very important process to shape the Maldives’ political future.”

Nasheed was transferred to house arrest for eight weeks in June, after the opposition backed a constitutional amendment to allow President Yameen to replace his vice president.

Agenda

The government’s agenda, proposed in mid-May, includes three aspects – political reconciliation, constitutional and judicial reform, and political party participation in development.

MDP has requested tonight that the government agree on five basic rules and a timeline for the talks. The proposed rules include:

  • Agreement to talks between all parties, including ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), the MDP, the Jumhooree Party and the Adhaalath Party.
  • Each party must be able to determine their representatives
  • Talks should proceed in three stages
  • Agreement on a measure to determine success

The MDP also presented Naseer with papers on the government’s agenda points.

The party has requested that the government, in order to establish an environment conducive for talks and to reach political reconciliation, agree to the following:

  • To make concessions on “politically motivated sentencing” of politicians, including Nasheed, Nazim, ex-defence minister Tholhath Ibrahim and MP Ahmed Nazim
  • Withdraw “politically motivated charges” against some 400 protestors
  • Withdraw economic sanctions against businessmen, namely JP leader Gasim Ibrahim
  • Job security for councilors, civil servants and employees of state owned companies
  • Independent inquiry into the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali and the disappearance of Minivan News journalist Ahmed Rilwan
  • Independent investigation of the death threats sent via text messages to politicians and journalists

After an agreement is reached on political reconciliation, the MDP has proposed that the parties begin discussions on judicial and constitutional reform and development.

The MDP has also proposed a constitutional change to a parliamentary system of government

“Our party has governed within a presidential system, and so has the ruling party. Every time, it is the candidate who wins the second largest number of votes who comes to power, through a coalition. But the coalition falls apart soon afterwards and the government is plunged into turmoil. We have experienced this system and we have not seen good results, so lets change to a parliamentary system,” Ibu said.

The paper on political party participation in development includes some 40 proposals, Ibu said.

President Yameen had first proposed talks on May 14. But there was no progress after the government ruled out negotiations over Nasheed and Nazim’s release and vetoed Nasheed as an MDP representative.

When the opposition leader was transferred to house arrest, the MDP said it will continue with talks without Nasheed.

The government tonight appeared to relent on its veto on Nasheed with Naseer saying: “We have not directly decided who will represent the MDP in talks. MDP will decide that.”

Assuring the public of the government’s commitment to a resolution, Naseer said they stand ready to make any concessions necessary by amending laws.

“We have compromised even when it was really hard for us. We will do so in the future. The MDP represents a large portion of the Maldivian public and is among the largest political parties. It will be much easier for this government to achieve the development, progress that we seek with them, in light of discussions with them,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court, citing lateness, rejects murder acquittal appeal

The High Court has rejected an appeal filed by the state over the criminal court’s acquittal of a man accused of killing his girlfriend, stuffing her body into a suitcase, and dumping it at a construction site in Malé.

The appellate court’s registrar rejected the appeal because it was filed after a shortened ten-day appeal period.

The Prosecutor General’s Office has blamed the delay on the criminal court’s failure to provide required court documents on time.

The Supreme Court in January shortened the 90-day appeal period to 10 days by striking down a provision in the Judicature Act.

The PG office says it plans to contest the registrar’s decision.

“We filed the appeal within 10 days of receiving court documents from the criminal court. We hope the High Court will accept this case given its sensitive nature,” said public prosecutor Ahmed Hisham Wajeeh.

The criminal court in May ruled that the state had failed to submit conclusive evidence against Mohamed Najah.

Delivering a verdict five years after the murder trial began, chief judge Abdulla Mohamed said Najah had denied charges and that testimony by the prosecution’s witnesses did not indicate Najah had committed any acts to murder Mariyam Sheereen.

The 30-year-old woman’s body was found hidden under a pile of sandbags in a construction site in January 2010. Najah was accused of taking the suitcase to the vacant building in a taxi.

Police showed CCTV footage of Najah dragging the suitcase and said that the DNA samples from the bag matched Sheereen’s. The driver of the taxi that Najah took also testified at the trial.

The couple were living together in an apartment in Maafannu Kurahage. Witnesses had testified to hearing Najah threaten to kill Sheereen and told the court that she was last seen entering the apartment on the night she went missing.

Prosecutors told the court that Najah had entered and left the apartment several times, locking the door each time, and was later seen leaving with a suitcase.

Judge Abdulla, however, said that the taxi driver had only said he had transported Najah with a heavy suitcase and had said that he had smelled a foul scent only after Najah left the cab.

The three doctors who examined Sheereen’s had not been able to determine the cause of death, he noted.

The chief judge has been accused by the opposition of corruption and bribery. Charges have never been proved. Former President Mohamed Nasheed – who was found guilty of terrorism charges over the military’s detention of judge Abdulla in January 2012 – had said the judge was suspected of involvement in a “contract killing.”

Nasheed’s lawyers say they were unable to file an appeal of his 13-year-jail term because the criminal court had failed to provide court documents on time. The government, however, insists the opposition leader can still appeal.

A High Court official previously told Minivan News that judges can accept late appeals if a reasonable justification is given, such as the lower court’s failure to provide detailed reports.

But Nasheed’s lawyers say there is no legal avenue to file an appeal, because the Supreme Court has removed the High Court’s discretionary powers to accept late appeals in the same ruling that had shortened the 90-day appeal period.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I only fear Allah, not the People’s Majlis,” says vice president

Vice president Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, in the first public response to his party’s attempt to impeach him, said he only fears Allah, and not the People’s Majlis or its MPs.

The no confidence motion submitted to the parliament today by 61 MPs is a motion submitted by MPs of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and their associates, and not by the people, Jameel said in a statement publicized on Twitter.

“It is a violation of the people’s rights when a party or an organization, at their whim, without any legal basis, removes an officer directly elected by them,” he said.

PPM MPs have publicly accused Jameel of incompetence and disloyalty. The ruling party is seeking to replace Jameel with tourism minister Ahmed Adeeb.

Jameel, who has remained silent on the charges against him, today accused PPM MPs of greed. They have arbitrarily amended the constitution for their personal interests, he said.

The parliament last week passed the first amendment to the constitution with overwhelming multi-party consensus to set new age limits of 30 – 65 years for the presidency and vice presidency. Adeeb is now 33. The constitution previously said candidates must be 35 years of age.

The opposition’s backing for the constitutional amendment was widely perceived to be part of a deal made in exchange for jailed ex-president Mohamed Nasheed’s transfer to house arrest.

The parliament yesterday approved changed to its standing orders to fast-track the process of impeaching the vice president. The new rules states the parliament can vote to remove the vice president without an investigation by a select committee.

Below is the full translation of Jameel’s statement:

“The no confidence motion submitted to the People’s Majlis against me today is a no confidence motion submitted by the PPM parliamentary group and their associates. I say this because Article 4 of the Constitution states that all the powers of the state of the Maldives are derived from, and remain with, the citizens. The vice president is elected through a direct vote of the Maldivian public. It is a violation of the people’s rights when a party or an organization, at their whim, without any legal basis, removes an officer directly elected by them.

Those who amended the constitution, in recent days, said the amendment was brought with the best of intentions and for the good of the nation. Their intent and motivation is now clear to the Maldivian people. The constitution, by the will of the people, dictates all the legal principles and the laws by which the Maldivian state must be governed. But, it is now very clear that all these principles, and the checks on power are being changed for a particular individual or in the interests of a certain group.

The premeditated manner and the motivation behind the undermining of the powers of the people and the changes to the governing structure are now apparent, the deception is clear. Although all the powers of the state are derived from the citizens, it is now clear to the Maldivian people that an individual or an organization will use their powers to abrogate a decision made through the direct vote of the people. There is no reason to think they will not do so again.

In this holy month of Ramadan, the Maldivian people and the nation are witnessing the greed of a few. The leaders of this attempt to undermine the people’s powers must remind themselves of the powers of the almighty and omnipotent Allah. I seek strength from Him. I only fear Him, not the People’s Majlis or the Members of Parliament.

I would like to remind the Maldivian people and myself of Verse 46 of Surah Al-Baqarah: “And seek help through patience and prayer, and indeed, it is difficult except for the humbly submissive [to Allah].”

The constitution states that the vice president must be given a 14-day notice and the right to answer the charges before the resolution is put to a vote.

Minivan News was unable to contact Jameel at the time of going to press.

Jameel left to Sri Lanka after President Abdulla Yameen authorized a medical leave. A senior PPM MP told Minivan News yesterday that Jameel was due to return three days ago, but instead departed for the UK without informing the president’s office.

The MP said President Abdulla Yameen has asked the vice president to return to the Maldives and answer to the party’s parliamentary group about his impeachment.

“We have tried contacting him repeatedly to ask him to meet with the parliamentary group. But he has not responded. We are trying to bring our problems to him and trying to find a mutual solution,” said the PPM MP.

Some opposition politicians claim President Abdulla Yameen is fatally ill and wants a more loyal deputy ahead of a life threatening surgery. The government has denied rumours of the president’s health.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM to file no-confidence motion in vice-president

MPs of the ruling coalition have officially endorsed a petition seeking a no-confidence vote in vice-president Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The motion has already gained 47 signatures and will be submitted to the People’s Majlis today, said the parliamentary group leader of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Ahmed Nihan.

The motion will require a two-third majority or 57 votes to pass.

The PPM and its ally the Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) control 48 seats in the 85-member house, and will need the backing of the opposition.

Jameel was not responding to calls at the time of going to press. He is reportedly abroad. The President’s Office on Thursday said President Abdulla Yameen had authorized a medical leave for his deputy.

Ruling coalition MPs have publicly accused Jameel of incompetence and disloyalty.

Some opposition politicians have claimed President Yameen is fatally ill and wants a more loyal deputy ahead of a life-threatening surgery. The PPM is seeking to replace Jameel with tourism minister Ahmed Adeeb.

But Nihan dismissed rumors over the president’s health. “He is very fit. There is no truth to these rumors.”

He said MPs are unhappy with Jameel over his alleged failure to defend the government during an opposition demonstration in Malé on May 1. Nearly 200 people were arrested from the historic 20,000-strong march.

“The opposition was making gross accusations against the government. But Jameel did not make any move to defend President Yameen, he did not say a word, but instead left Malé on that day,” Nihan alleged.

Opposition supporters had been protesting against the imprisonment of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed and other politicians.

Nihan said that he had attempted to reach Jameel by telephone on Thursday night, when a ruling party MP first started collecting signatures for the no-confidence petition. But the vice-president had not responded by the next day, he said.

MPs of the ruling coalition held a meeting at 10:30pm on Friday to officially endorse the petition. Some 33 MPs had unanimously voted in favor, he said.

Translation: “PPM and MDA members vote unanimously to submit a no-confidence motion in VP Jameel.”

For the parliament to consider the removal of the president or the vice-president, a resolution with the signatures of one-third of MPs is required.

The parliament can then set up a committee to investigate the claims laid out in the motion. The Constitution states that at least 14 days notice must be given to the president or vice-president before the debate.

He or she is also granted the right to defend themselves, both orally or in writing.

Jameel has been silent on the accusations made against him.

According to Nihan, the 47 signatures on the no-confidence petition include that of MPs of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Jumhooree Party.

The opposition’s backing appears to signal a move towards reconciliation. Former president Nasheed was transferred to house arrest last week.

Two days later, the opposition voted to back the first constitutional amendment, setting new age limits of 30 to 65 years for the presidency and the vice-presidency.

Tourism minister Adeeb, who turned 33 in April, was ineligible for the position as the constitution previously stated that presidential candidates and their deputies must be 35 years of age.

The government then extended Nasheed’s house arrest for eight weeks, but said it was because doctors are concerned over the opposition leader’s health.

The MDP has meanwhile agreed to the government’s demand to exclude Nasheed as a representative in talks. But a party spokesperson said MDP hopes Nasheed will be able to join at a later stage.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Cutting a deal with the devil?

The opposition today backed the first amendment to the Maldives Constitution and set new age-limits of 30-65 years for the presidency. The vote is widely perceived as a deal made in exchange for two months of house arrest for jailed opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed.

The ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) is seeking to replace vice-president Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, who some MPs have accused of incompetence and disloyalty. Tourism minister Ahmed Adeeb is expected to take over the vice-presidency.

The vote has bitterly divided opposition supporters and leaders.

Opposition Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Ali Hussein said:

Critics say the vote is undemocratic and argue the Constitution is not to be toyed with in the interests of a few. But supporters describe the deal as pragmatic, and claim Nasheed’s transfer to house arrest offers hope of an end to a five-month long political crisis.

The great fall

For some, the amendment is a victory for the opposition as it “eliminates” three strongmen from Maldivian politics; vice-president Jameel, former president of 30 years Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who is now in his early 80s, and JP leader Gasim Ibrahim, who contested in both the 2008 and 2013 presidential polls, but will be 66 and ineligible in the 2018 election.

Jameel is particularly unpopular among Nasheed’s supporters. He led a religious-nationalist campaign against Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government. In a 2013 campaign speech, he said: “Even if you [Nasheed] are elected, we will not hand over power. You will always remain in prison.”

Here’s one celebratory tweet:

Meanwhile, Gasim’s forced retirement from politics brings many, a great relief. He was a key figure in the fall of Gayoom’s 30-year-dictatorship. Although he backed Nasheed in the 2008 polls, the tourism tycoon played a key role in Nasheed’s ouster in 2012. He then helped Yameen defeat the MDP in 2013.

In January, he allied with the MDP in an anti-government campaign, but abandoned ship when the government slapped a US$90.4million fine on his tourism businesses. The “kingmaker’s” retirement will level the playing field between the two major parties, the PPM and the MDP.


“At the very least, we have been saved from these two,” said an opposition supporter.

If Adeeb is appointed to the vice-presidency, it will undermine the Gayoom family’s hold on power. The PPM had, in fact, backed the amendment against Gayoom’s wishes. The former president, who also heads the PPM, said last week: “There is no point to a man whose opinions are of no value staying on as PPM president.”

Gayoom’s son, MP Faris Maumoon, was absent from today’s vote.

President Yameen, as Gayoom’s half-brother, was elected on his popularity and Gasim’s backing. But in the past 18 months, he has created his own power base, with hand picked MPs and ministers. His right-hand man is tourism minister Adeeb.

New political actors

Why the sudden drive to replace the vice-president? PPM MPs have said Jameel is incompetent. But the opposition claims Yameen is fatally ill and is seeking a loyal deputy ahead of a major surgery. It is precisely Adeeb’s rise to power that some opposition supporters fear. He has been accused of massive corruption and illicit connections with gangs. Why tamper with the Constitution to bring an unelected minister to power?

Azim Zahir, a political science student at the University of Sydney, said: “This amendment is clearly undemocratic as its objectives are to ultimately negate the democratic impulse behind giving the people a direct say in the election of a vice-president and also negates the electoral wish of a majority in 2013.

“It allows changes to the constitution at the wish and whim of the government of the day, and in this case that wish is to appoint as vice-president, a politician perceived as highly corrupt and suspected in egregious crimes such as torching of TV stations, and abduction of journalists.”

But one opposition MP asked how today’s vote had been undemocratic:

Aishath Velezinee, a whistle-blower and former member of the judicial watchdog, said: “The problem is not the substance of the constitutional amendment, but the manner and purpose of that amendment.”

Fuwad Thowfeek, the former Elections Commissioner, agreed: “As a matter of principle, I don’t believe that anyone should support a change in any article of our constitution for the personal gain of anyone or any party.”

Supporters of the vote, however, say Adeeb is and will continue to run the show with or without the constitutional amendment. Although there have been no changes to the letter of the Constitution until today, the parliament and the Supreme Court have violated its spirit with the dismissal of the Auditor General, the guidelines for the elections commission and the human rights watchdog, and the dismissal of the Chief Justice.

Honor the deal?

More pressing are the following questions: Will the government honor its promise and keep Nasheed under house arrest? Why didn’t the opposition demand Nasheed’s unconditional release? Was a constitutional amendment worth eight weeks of house arrest?

What kind of precedent are we setting if we allow the government of the day to hold opposition leaders to ransom for votes?

Previous political compromises have not worked out well for the MDP. For instance, in 2010, the MDP reached a compromise on appointments to the Supreme Court and the appointment of unqualified judges to the judiciary. Those same judges sentenced Nasheed and other opposition politicians to jail this year.

In 2013, Nasheed and the MDP accepted the findings of a Commonwealth-backed inquiry that the 2012 transfer of power was constitutional. The lack of accountability for the unlawful transfer of power haunts the Maldives to this day. Isn’t it high time the MDP learnt from its mistakes?

But, opposition supporters say the MDP was forced to compromise then and now due to the political reality of the day. Although the MDP is the largest political party, it continues to face a hostile parliament, judiciary and security forces. Democracy is won through hard compromises and dirty deals.

Supporters say a deal is necessary as President Yameen has refused to back down despite the mounting diplomatic pressure, the daily protests and the historic marches of February 27 and May 1.

“To free a man held by a terrorist organization, you must make a deal. You cannot argue on legal principles,” said Mujthaba Saeed, an MDP member. “I do not trust the government. They might take Nasheed back to jail at any moment. But what we are trying to do is to find a path forward from a slim chance.”

Hope

Many of Nasheed’s supporters say his release alone will energize and reinvigorate the opposition’s campaign. They also hope that the government will compromise further by dropping charges against hundreds of protesters and free jailed leaders.

“We are incapacitated to stand up for ourselves without this one unique single person who inspires us. I selfishly want to see Nasheed free because all hope for freedom of expression and right to assembly are weakening day by day when Nasheed remained in jail. Less and less people turn up to protest. But today, it just seems more alive, people are talking about this, people care, There is hope,” said Ifham Niyaz.

Others have called for soul-searching. “Sell your votes in every election. Stay at home and criticize every move? Have you no shame?” asked one supporter. Another said: “It is Nasheed who must rot in jail. It is Nasheed who must protest on the street. But I, I will stay home and tweet.”

The disappointment has led still others to call for a new political ideology and new political leaders. But who will that be? Azim, the PHD student at Sydney University said: “I don’t know. I’m just saying democratic, utopian energies and hopes have been exhausted. Current times, crises, open up for new possibilities and new people. I just wish there could be such visions and such people and such parties. I suspect many people share these same sentiments, but this may not be sufficient enough for a change within the next five years.”

Transparency

Some opposition supporters have censured critics for the storm of criticism against the MDP for choosing a deal. “Where were all these critics when MDP was alone on the streets?” asked one Twitter user.

“No one had an opinion when the constitution was raped by Gayooms so that they could come back. Even now, the only point they want to discuss is MDP cutting a deal,” said photographer Munshid Mohamed on Facebook. In reply, his friend said: “If Gayoom’s and PPM actions are the standard for our commitment to democracy, then we’ve lost before we even started.”

For many, this is the sticking point. They expect better of MDP. The party in January had urged the public to follow it in a campaign to defend the constitution. But today they voted to amend the same constitution.

“I thought about it, I can’t agree with the MDP. If this is pragmatism – then so is the guy who sells his vote for an Air Conditioning unit,” said blogger Yameen Rasheed.

One thing is clear. The people deserve to know more. If the government and the opposition are making deals, it must be through open and transparent negotiations. MDP stands more to lose than any other party with the current opacity. As a party that stands for democracy, it cannot ask its supporters to blindly trust all of its decisions.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)