Driver receives minor injuries after driving off airport runway

A Maldivian national received minor injuries today after losing control of a vehicle on the runway of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) that crashed into the site’s surrounding waters, local media has reported.

Police confirmed that only one person was in the vehicle during the time of the incident, which occurred at about 11:30am today.  Officials at the airport said the driver, who was taken to Hulhumale’ Hospital for treatment, had not been seriously injured, according to local newspaper Haveeru.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police issued with arrest warrant for Nasheed

Additional reporting by Mariyath Mohamed

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has issued an order to the Maldives Police Service for the arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed, asking them to bring him to a court hearing at 4:00PM on Tuesday.

Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef confirmed that the new warrant gives the police powers of arrest after a previous warrant allowed them only to present the defendant in court with his consent.

The order has been issued in relation to the case of Nasheed’s arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed last year.

Punishment for a person guilty of this offence is imprisonment or banishment for three years, or a fine of MVR 2,000 (US$129.70).

Nasheed was initially summoned to the court on October 1. After he failed to attend this hearing, instead heading to the southern atolls to campaign, the court ordered police to present him at the next hearing, scheduled for Sunday October 7.

Nasheed then sent a request to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Friday asking for the hearing to be rescheduled. The court rejected the appeal, saying that campaigning was not listed as a reason for absence in the legislation regarding summons.

He had planned to return to Male’ on Saturday October 13. No spokesman from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was able to respond to calls at the time of press.

Earlier today, the high court rejected former Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and its summoning of him in connection with this case.

Former MP and President of MDP Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail has also cast doubt on the validity of the Hulhumale court’s rulings.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” said Ibra on his personal blog.

Last week, the MDP vowed to ignore all rulings made by the courts until judicial reforms were introduced.

Nasheed did not return to Male’ for today’s hearing, following which the court issued the current arrest warrant.

The high court has ruled that the order to arrest Nasheed and present him in court on Tuesday cannot be appealed.

An arrest warrant was issued for Nasheed – for unspecified charges –  shortly after his resignation in February although he was never detained by police.

Nasheed was arrested more than twenty times under the regime of 30-year president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Since leaving the President’s Office, Nasheed has maintained that figures loyal to the former regime were behind his ousting, although the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI) final report in August found otherwise.

Nasheed is also currently facing civil court proceedings related to the defamation – labelling as traitors – the current minister of defence and police commissioner, both installed immediately following his resignation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Islamic Ministry denies religious pressure on murdered Afrasheem, while police seek foreign help with case

Police have revealed that they are seeking international expertise in solving the case of the murder of moderate scholar and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

Police declined to provide any further details about the international help they are seeking, saying instead that they would provide information once the international actors arrived in the country.

Police also confirmed that they had arrested an additional suspect in relation to the murder case, once again declining to identify the arrested “due to the nature of the case”.

Four people have already been arrested in relation to the case, one of whom is female. The criminal court has extended the detention of all four detainees by 15 days.

Although the police have not yet identified any of the arrested individuals, lawyers representing “front-line activists” of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have confirmed that Mariyam Naifa and Ali Hashim were arrested in relation to the murder case.

The party has alleged that the arrests are politically motivated.

Afrasheem “not forced to apologise”: Islamic Minister

Prior to his murder on Monday October 1, Afrasheem had made his last public appearance on a live talkshow on TVM titled “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Living).

In his last words, Afrasheem said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed was quoted in local media as saying that the Islamic Ministry had not forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything in his last television appearance.

Shaheem went on to say that Afrasheem had been given the opportunity to appear on the show following a series of requests by the murdered scholar. He said that Afrasheem had asked for the opportunity on Monday’s program, and so the previously arranged guests had been replaced with him.

Shaheem also said that Afrasheem had visited the Ministry of Islamic Affairs on Monday afternoon, requesting a discussion on the topics to be covered in the talk show.

Shaheem furthermore said that in this meeting, Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Gubadh AbuBakr, Afrasheem and himself had spoken about how religious disagreements had led to rifts between close friends, and said that he wanted to “escape from all of this”.

“[Afrasheem] said that he wanted everyone to know what his viewpoints were. And [he] wanted to share this on a channel watched by the largest audience, “ said Shaheem, sharing his discussion with Afrasheem in their last meeting together.

“I think this is a highly esteemed position that Allah has granted [Afrasheem] in timing this program in the midst of all that happened that night. It is fate that the show was arranged for the very night,” Shaheem said.

“Looking at the attack as a whole, it must have been planned for days and days. There’s no other way it could have been carried out under such secrecy,” Shaheem commented.

Shaheem said that he had no knowledge of anyone bringing about a situation where Afrasheem might have been forced to offer a public apology for his views.

Contradicting views on religious matters

Afrasheem’s moderate positions on subjects such as listening to music had previously attracted criticism from more conservative religious elements, who dubbed him “Dr Ibilees” (“Dr Satan”).

In 2008, the scholar was kicked and chased outside a mosque after Friday prayers, while more recently in May 2012, the religious Adhaalath Party released a statement condemning Afrasheem for allegedly “mocking the Sunnah”.

“After speaking to everyone, Afrasheem himself said that he was willing to apologise if the problem was in his statements. That he wanted to make clear what his stands were if he were to speak at any forum or place. That he does not call for wrong beliefs or things,” Shaheem explained.

Regarding the contradicting views on religious matters that had led to criticism of Afrasheem by other local scholars, Shaheem said that Afrasheem had approached him to find a solution.

“(Afrasheem) himself came to me and said Usthaz (scholar) Shaheem, you are the one person who can do this. So help me become one with everyone else. And so, it was under his request that the scholar’s dialogue was organised,” Shaheem was quoted as saying in local media on Sunday.

Although Shaheem said that at the end of the meeting the scholars were “happy with Afrasheem”, local media reported last month that the meeting had ended without reaching a general agreement.

At the time, Shaheem had said that the main focus of the meeting were the disagreements between Afrasheem and other local scholars on certain religious issues.

He had also stated then that the scholars involved had been unable to reach a consensus at the end of the meeting, and that he hoped Afrasheem would align his views with that of the other scholars.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Politicians and businessmen funding gangs to attack opponents: Asia Foundation

Politicians and businessmen are paying gangs in the Maldives tens of thousands of rufiya to assault rivals, damage property, and in some cases have them killed, according to a report into the country’s gang culture by the Asia Foundation.

“Political and business elites exploit gangs to carry out a range of illegal activities that serve their political or business interests in exchange for financing the gangs,” stated the report, which collected data through 20 focus groups and 24 in-depth interviews with gang members.

“This has worrying implications for support for democracy among the young generation as they witness first hand corruption on the part of their political representatives,” the report states.

The research was conducted primarily in the capital Male’, which it describes as having 20-30 gangs, ranging in size from 50-400 members.

Gangs are described as including mainly males aged under-25 years. Of those involved in the focus groups, 63 percent were unemployed, and 54 percent admitted to being drug users – both prominent issues highlighted in the report.

Poisoned politics

The report cited anecdotal evidence suggesting that the root of gangs in the Maldives was linked to the introduction of heroin to the country in the early 90s.

“Gang members report that in the early 1990s, foreigners (purportedly Indians) gave away free packets of heroin (locally called brown sugar) that contained directions for use,” read the report.

“Subsequently drug users, through involvement in gangs, supported their drug habits by the sale of drugs and other criminal activities,” it continued.

The report also draws strong links between the introduction of political parties during the last decade’s democratic reforms, and the escalation of gang activity.

“Democracy is not working… people do not know what democracy is… even politicians do not know what it really is… there is too much freedom… people do not know how to use this freedom,” the researchers were told by one gang member.

Politicians are described as being involved in symbiotic relationships with gangs, who depend on the gangs to suppress opponents and carry out tasks to help maintain their popularity or to divert media attention from political issues.

“Politicians have asked us to cut the TVM cable for MVR 25,000 (US$1620), to light up a bus for MVR 10,000 (US$650). Also in the recent political riots we were involved in things like burning the garbage collection area,” said one gang member.

“We were given some amount of money, two of us and the 10 people who accompanied us were paid some amount, we had to set fire and run from the spot and be seen in another area. We got paid to do this by a political group. Sometimes in return for the work we do, we also get to party in their safari boats with girls and alcohol,” they added.

In other cases, gang members were paid MVR 20,000 (US$1230) to destroy shop windows.

Interviewees also stated that being offered immunity from prosecution was normally part of this deal.

Leaders, who deal directly with the politicians, were reported as earning up to MVR 1 million (US$65,000) a month via such activities.

One member even described instances where murder contracts were handed out.

“We may be given a file with all the information about the person and be told and told we may be paid in millions to carry out the killing,” explained one member.

Stabbings are commonplace and knives have become increasingly prevalent. Gun crime remains negligible, however one of the researchers was told by a gang member: “It is my fantasy to possess a gun, I had once saw a small pistol, I had it under my bike seat, it was planted but I returned it (I knew who it belonged to), that day when I saw the pistol I was so scared, but now I want a gun and I frequently fantasise of going on a killing spree, I have in my mind all those whom I will kill.”

Based on the interviews conducted, the report said that there was no evidence linking gangs to religious groups. Instead, gang members were contemptuous of the country’s religious leaders.

“We have lost respect for them (religious leaders)… their thinking is obsolete… some are even seen in videos indulging in activities prohibited in religion and the next day they are preaching… they do not act what they preach,” said one gang member.

Vicious cycle

A lack of jobs was cited as one of the major reasons for young people to join gangs.

The report highlighted problems with the legal process, which produces a criminal record – which cannot be cleared for five years –even for minor offences.

“Due to police record, we can’t get a government job,” said one interviewee. “When government does this, the private sector usually does the same.”

“Hence it’s hard to get a job if a person has a police record…so join a gang to earn money,” they said.

Whilst the minimum wage in the Maldives is MVR 2,600 (US$170), the report states that a gang member can receive up seven times this amount for illegal activities such as breaking a shop window.

Young people who opt to leave school at 16 are also described as particularly vulnerable to gang association as they are not seriously considered for employment until they turn 18.

The report did find some evidence that some gangs do attempt to find legitimate work for their members.

“We try and help the younger generation… Show them the right path… we are very proud of this… some members have respectable posts in government and some run their own business,” one gang member said.

This strong group ethic was mentioned in the report of one of the primary reason for gang membership, with the group providing a surrogate for social welfare and dysfunctional families.

Gangs were also described as providing a strong sense of identity for its members. This status is also closely linked to violence, which large gangs can then provide members with protection from.

In conclusion, the report recommended that changes be made to the way minor offences are recorded as criminal complaints.

It also argued that better re-integration programs for convicts, as well as more drug rehabilitation and vocational training programs, might help alleviate the country’s gang problem.

The report also said that greater empowerment for young people would help to generate alternative opportunities for work and that better family counselling might help potential gang members cope with death and divorce.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High court rejects Nasheed’s appeal challenging legitimacy of Hulhumale’ magistrate court

The High Court has rejected former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and its summoning of him in connection to the detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

The former President’s legal team appealed the  court’s summoning order issued to police to summon him to a rescheduled hearing to be held on Sunday at 4:00pm.

Nasheed and his lawyers did not appear at the court hearing, and police made no attempt to arrest the former President.

The trial, which has been described by present Home Minister and former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel on twitter as a “historic criminal trial” has escalated political tensions in the country.

Nasheed’s legal team earlier on Sunday challenged the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, claiming that the court was formed in contradiction to the provisions stated in the Maldivian constitution.

Speaking to local media , member of Nasheed’s legal team and the former Minister of Human Resources Hassan Latheef said the Hulhumale court had “no legal capacity” to issue an order to police to summon Nasheed.

“In the appeal, we also intend to raise the question of legitimacy surrounding Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.  We also hope that the High Court will make a decision on the legality of the formation of this court,” explained Latheef.

The team had filed for a temporary court injunction to halt the trial until the appeal case was concluded.

Former MP and President of MDP Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail echoed similar remarks,raising doubts on the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Writing on his personal blog, Ibra claimed that the constitution had very clearly mentioned that trial courts would be defined and created by a law.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Nasheed was initially to appear at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court on last Monday but instead decided to depart on his party MDP’s campaign trip ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (‘Journey of Pledges’) to southern atolls, defying a previous court order that he remain in the capital.

On September 26, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ordered that the former President be confined to Male’, ahead the court case.

The court officials claimed that such a travel ban was the “standard procedure” followed by all courts to “necessitate those accused in a case to obtain permission from the relevant court to leave the country”.

Following Nasheed’s failure to present himself on last Monday’s hearings, Hulhumale Magistrate Court asked the Maldives Police Service to “produce” Nasheed for the rescheduled hearings but was “not to be detained”.

Initially upon reception of the Hulhumale Court’s request, Police Media official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said the authorities would enforce the “court order” to summon Former President Mohamed Nasheed to the court.

However, police on last Saturday said in a statement that, given the phrasing of the request made by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, Nasheed could only be produced to the court with his consent and the request did not mention to detain him.

The statement by the police stated that “producing someone out of his will” would mean to “limit his freedom” and therefore it amounted to an arrest which was not mentioned in the court’s request.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate court initially rejected the case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President, stating that the court did not have the jurisdiction to look into such cases as stated in the Judicature Act.

The state then appealed the decision in High Court and won its case where the Hight Court invalidated the decision.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem, dissenting the decision of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court claimed that the court did have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President.

He contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The High Court ruling stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts have the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

Following the High Court ruling, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court decided to re-accept the case and proceed with the hearings.

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The former Home Minister Hassan Afeef said at the time that military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading to Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7.

Along with Nasheed, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as three other senior military officers are facing charges over the arrest of the judge.

Nasheed has meanwhile vowed to his supporters that his name would appear on the ballot paper of the next presidential election, and that he was “not in the mood to be straitjacketed and put in a dungeon.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Impunity can only be matched with impunity

This article originally appeared on Ibra’s Blog. Republished with permission.

Many of my friends and colleagues, especially my ‘twitter friends’ have been inquiring me of late, about my view of President Nasheed’s decision to disregard a summons by ‘Hulhumale’ Court’.

I myself have been pondering over it as my initial reaction was that President Nasheed should not have done it. However, when I looked at the issue dispassionately and in the context of many anomalies in the Criminal Justice System of the Maldives, the case does not appear to be so simple. In fact it is rather complex, and adds to the myriad of convoluted issues we are being forced to grapple with.

It is so complex that the 140 meagre characters that twitter gives us is barely enough to expound on this particular problem. At best, it is a unique and delightful academic issue to ponder. What I write below is not meant to be a legal discourse, but more an academic and intellectual approach to analyse a social problem.

It is not helpful to consider President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the court summons just by itself to fully understand the phenomenon. One needs to consider a host of other issues to grasp the enormity of the situation.

On the face of it, anyone who is summoned by the courts should willingly do so, and anyone disobeying an order by the court should rightfully be held in contempt of court and punished for it. This is necessary for the upholding of the rule of law.

However, one needs to also consider the basic assumptions underlying these powers of the courts and the reasons for granting the courts such powers.

Among many, the following assumptions are made in relation to the courts:

  • The courts will not act outside the jurisdictions granted to them by law, and any ultra vires orders by courts do not constitute a valid order which falls within the concept of contempt of court
  • The courts will apply same procedures to all, and are bound by law to do so, and will not be selective in the application of law and procedures
  • The courts shall not display any bias in any way towards or against any person, and most importantly will not be seen or perceived to be biased in any way

There are many other such assumptions, but I limit this discussion to the above three assumptions.

Firstly, on the matter of jurisdictions:

  • There is huge contention whether Hulhumale’ Court has been granted powers by the law to try any case whatsoever. The Constitution says very clearly that trial courts will be defined and created by Law. When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no “Hulhumale’ Court” designated as a Magistrates Court.The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the Hulhumale’ Court. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from Law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.
  • The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of that court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to Hulhumale’ Court. JSC does not have that authority by Law.If Hulhumale’ Court is legitimate, and is a Magistrate’s court, it would be the only Magistrate Court in Male’, and per the Judicature Act, would not have any other court to tie up to in order to convene a panel of judges. If it is considered part of Kaafu Atoll, then the panel should be convened from among magistrates assigned to Magistrate Courts operating within Kaafu Atoll, and the Chief Magistrate for Kaafu Atoll should convene the panel. The panel of judges convened now was convened by the JSC, and the panel includes judges from other atolls.
  • The Hulhumale’ court issued a travel ban order to President Nasheed, without ever summoning him to court, and in his absence, before any charges had been presented before him. No court has the power to issue such an order under any law. The court could have issued such a bail condition after the first hearing, if there was reasonable justification to believe President Nasheed might flee the country or he might present a security risk for the community through further criminal activity.

On the basis of the above, there is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an Unlawful Panel of Judges, sitting in an Unlawful Court, which had already issued an Unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires

Secondly, on the matter of selective application of procedure:

  • Deputy Speaker of the Majlis Ahmed Nazim defied 11 summons and only appeared in court for the 12th summons. No action was taken against him.
  • An order for Abdulla Hameed (Gayyoom’s brother who now resides in Sri Lanka) to be brought to court was issued by the Criminal Court a long time ago. However the Court has not provided an English translation of the Court Order to be submitted to Interpol. Nor have the Police contacted Sri Lankan authorities to repatriate him under the bilateral agreement which allows that. It should be noted that Sandhaan Ahmed Didi was repatriated from Sri Lanka airport under the same agreement, without even a court order, or charges being laid against him.
  • There are numerous cases of prominent politicians and business tycoons disobeying court summons, and to date no one has been convicted for contempt of court for this offence. This leads to the argument that not appearing before the court on account of a summons is not an offence for which people are prosecuted even though it is a prosecutable offence. By past practice and hence precedent and customary practice, no one has to appear before the court every time a summons is issued.

Based on the above, there is more than ample grounds for President Nasheed to claim that there is no need for him to appear before the Court at the Court’s convenience and his inconvenience. Further, there is a rightful claim that the court has already exercised bias against him and that it is unlikely that he will receive a fair trial. More importantly, the fundamental principal of equal application of law and procedure has been seriously compromised.

Thirdly, on the matter of bias:

  • Ample demonstration of bias has been made in the above paragraphs to start with
  • One of the three judges on the bench has wrongfully authorised detention of President Nasheed before, and can be considered as biased against him
  • One other judge already has cases of misconduct being investigated against him by the JSC
  • The third judge is reportedly a classmate of Abdulla Mohamed in the Mauhadh Dhiraasaathul Islamiyya
  • Thus there is a widely held perception that President Nasheed will not be accorded a fair trial. One of the Principles of Natural Justice is that not only should justice be done, but it must be seen to be done too
  • When over 2000 cases are waiting to be prosecuted (including murder, rape, child molestation, child abuse and other serious white collar crimes) at the Prosecutor General’s Office, one asks the question why has this case been expedited beyond normal protocol

Thus there are grounds to argue that a panel of judges who issued ultra vires restraining orders on no demonstrated reasonable grounds cannot be expected to give a fair trial or judgment.

Thus, it would appear to be a reasonable decision on the part of President Nasheed that since he is not being summoned by a legitimate court, by legitimate judges through legitimate procedures, he is unlikely to get justice; and that his appearance before the court will simply whitewash a huge injustice to him, and therefore he will not appear before the court and face the consequences and fight it in his own way.

This is just a very summary description of what I think are some relevant issues surrounding the situation.

The legitimacy of courts and their orders and decisions lie in the courts and their actions being within the framework of the law, which is applied equally to all. An ultra vires decision of the court is no different from a decision by an individual to disobey the decision of the court itself.

Hence my tweet : Impunity can only be matched with impunity.

When legal systems break down to the level we are seeing, laws are not worth the paper they are written on. Anarchy rules, which comes from a very primitive instinct within human beings : survive any which way one can.

We enact laws and try to uphold the rule of law to move away from this and live in a civilised fashion. For rule of law to be upheld, all public institutions and officials have to abide by it.

It is extremely fragile. If just one disregards the rule of law and the issue is not rectified quickly, it spreads rapidly like a cancer and destroys the whole system, paving the way for anarchy. I think we are fast approaching that point. The final signs, that of treating human life with impunity on account of difference of opinion is already here. The rest is likely to follow soon.

The outlook is appears to be rather bleak. But from a systems theory perspective, this had to happen. All vestiges which held the faulty system had to break before reformation could take place. There will be chaos. There already is. It may worsen. And then, if we are lucky, out of chaos will emerge order. But what kind of order it will be depends on which paradigm wins. At this point in time, I would tentatively suggest it may be religious extremism.

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail of the former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, responsible for drafting the 2008 constitution

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Contradictory findings in PIC’s report on February 8 crackdown

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released the second of its three pending reports regarding police action around the contentious transfer of power in February.

The PIC states that it initiated the investigation due to allegations of police brutality when breaking up the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstration on February 8, following the controversial resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed the previous day.

The PIC report on the events in Male’ on February 8 states that the investigation was carried out with a committee inclusive of all five members of the commission.

However, the report has two contradicting accounts, with President of the PIC Shahinda Ismail including her own findings in contrast to those of the other commission members.

The report states that the PIC looked into three main areas: whether police used disproportionate force in breaking up the MDP demonstration, whether individual police officers committed inhumane acts and acts of violence against citizens after breaking up the protest, and whether there were any police actions of the day which senior police officers must take responsibility for.

The investigation was carried out based on interviews, phone records, photos and video evidence.

Police acts within the law

PIC report contends that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of law and regulations.

It says that police acted in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 6(8) of the Police Act and as protection from any danger that may ensue from the MDP demonstrations.

The investigation justified police action by stating that demonstrators had caused damage to property on their way to the MMA area, and that as there were large numbers of demonstrators, it may have led to unrest had the police not broken up the protest when they did.

The report further states that although sufficient warning had not been issued before breaking up the demonstration, police acted in line with Article 24 of the Freedom of Assembly Act as there was a small number of police officers controlling the demonstration which had a large number of participants, and any delays in breaking it up may have led to danger.

The PIC also stated that there were no incidents on February 8 that senior police needed to take responsibility for. It stated as reasons that there had been no prior knowledge of the protest being planned, that the intelligence department was not functioning at its best due to changes in management after February 7, and that after former President Nasheed’s statement in his resignation speech that his continuing to stay in power may cause harm to the citizens, there was no reason for police to expect his party to orchestrate such a demonstration against the new government.

Individual acts of brutality

The report however went on to say that individuals in the police force had committed acts of violence, inhumane acts, and used verbal abuse against demonstrators on February 8, acting against Article 54 of the Constitution of the Maldives, Article 7(a.11) of the Police Act, Articles 16(a), 16(d.2), 16(d.3), 16(d.5) of the Regulations for handling and use of weapons.

The report highlights 12 specific incidents, including video evidence and interviews proving inhumane acts of police against former President Nasheed, police brutality against MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik and member of parliament Mariya Ahmed Didi and video evidence of police beating 14 individuals with batons.

The commission states here its intention to further investigate these acts, and take legal action against the officers who were involved.

Contradicting viewpoints

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she sees acts of police on February 8 to have been against the law, and that she observed no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Ismail stated that while demonstrations were permitted in the MMA area, there was no evidence beyond that of statements by police officers to prove that any illegal acts had been committed, or that there was any intention to do so by the demonstrators.

Ismail further stated that the police broke up the protest without prior warning, acting against the orders of the officer in charge in the area, Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, order to ‘hold’ without advancing, and also against the advice of Maldives National Defense Force commanders. She said that the police had acted under orders from Unit Commander Seargant Mohamed Naeem.

Ismail described the acts of brutality noted in the PIC report as “targeted attacks to cause immense harm to certain people”, stating that these acts could not be seen as actions to protect anyone and should be further investigated and taken action against.

Ismail also states that Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh and then Acting Head of Police Specialist Operations Department Ahmed Shameem must be held responsible for not having carried out the responsibilities of their posts in a sufficient manner.

She also notes the accounts given to PIC investigations by Fairoosh, Shameen and Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, stating that providing false statements to the investigation is a criminal offence as noted in Article 62 of Chapter 3 of the Penal Code.

Ismail further states that Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and Head of Police Professional Standards Directorate, Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed, must be held accountable for failing to investigate the acts of police on February 8. She states that this failure is a breach of the constitution and the Police Act.

Recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs

The PIC report presents two recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs.

It calls on the ministry to order the police to investigate undue use of force with batons during February 8.

Noting that many officers during the February 8 had had their faces covered with hoods and helmets, the report additionally calls on the Ministry to establish a system in the police which would facilitate identification of police being investigated under similar situations.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that they are in the process of studying the PIC report.

“After studying it, if we find that any steps need to be taken, or any reforms need to be made, then we will work on that,” Haneef said.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Minivan News also tried contacting the Police Integrity Commission, but was unable to get a response at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

How the romantic idyll of the Maldives is in danger: The Daily Express

“Away from the warm turquoise waters and sun-bleached beaches, the romantic idyll that has made the Maldives a popular honeymoon retreat is under threat,” writes Stuart Winter for UK-based newspaper, The Daily Express.

“The thousands of newlyweds arriving on the coral islands each year looking for peace and solitude have little notion of the simmering tensions crippling this Indian Ocean paradise’s fragile democracy.

A damning report on the archipelago’s civil rights record, along with an open letter from an eminent group of luminaries calling for free and fair elections, is damaging the lustre of one of the planet’s most tranquil holiday destinations. The murder of an Maldivian MP last week and the machinations surrounding the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed have only added energy to the political storm gripping the island.

Nasheed, the islands’ first democratically elected leader, claims he was forced to resign at gunpoint earlier this year when mutinying police and military loyal to long-standing former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom staged an effective coup.”

Read more.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)