Bill of amendments to Religious Unity Act returned to committee

The bill of amendments to the Religious Unity Act has been sent back to the Social Affairs Committee on Monday for further revision after a mere 16 out of 66 MPs in attendance voted for it to be passed.

Late MP Dr Afrasheem Ali, who was brutally murdered at the beginning of this month, had submitted the bill proposing a total of 11 amendments to the Religious Unity Act on June 7, 2010. The Social Affairs committee had completed its research into the bill on June 20, 2012.

The bill had been presented to the parliament floor for discussion on October 9, 2012. Members had submitted an additional 11 recommended amendments to the bill at that time, some of which were passed during Monday’s voting session.

The passed amendments include submissions by Adhaalath Party member and Fares-Mathoda MP Ibrahim Mutthalib. One of these amendments stated that only those who have been educated in a university approved by the qualification board or educated to a level deemed acceptable by the government could teach Islam in local schools. It also states that if a foreigner is to teach Islam, he has to be a Sunni Muslim.

Amendments prohibiting the establishment of prayer houses for any religion besides Islam; creating, selling or using anything depicting other religions, and seeking external assistance for spreading other religions were also passed.

Additionally, the amendment by Mavashu MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal AbuBakr of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) stating that there should be no attempts to instill love for a religion other than Islam in the hearts of school children and that no lessons involving other religions should be included in the school curriculum, was also passed.

Among the amendments which were rejected were a proposition to replace the existing Fiqh Academy with a ‘Fatwa Centre (Lecture Centre) and a proposition to appoint imams for all mosques and place them under the direct authority of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

At Monday’s parliament session, 45 of the 63 members in attendance voted against passing the proposed Bill of Amendments to the Religious Unity Act, with two members abstaining from the vote.

Meanwhile, Kaashidhoo MP Abdulla Jabir expressed concerns regarding the act in Monday’s parliament session. He said that enforcing such “strict religious penalties’ were not suited to a country as small as the Maldives.

Jabir went on to say that “all ministries in this 100 percent Muslim country are Islamic Ministries”, adding that the ministry being controlled by Adhaalath Party was leading to religious issues getting politicised.

He added that although the Adhaalath Party was based on religious values, it was nonetheless a political party with political aspirations.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Jabir said “What I am repeatedly saying is that the Maldives is too small a country for the implementation of these issues highlighted in this bill.”

The Religious Unity Act has been in effect since 1994 and has been previously criticised as being against the spirit of the 2008 Constitution.

The Islamic Foundation of the Maldives had also filed a case in the High Court in February 2011, claiming that the Religious Unity Act of 1994 was inconsistent with the constitution of the Maldives and should be invalidated.

In September 2011, the then-government had brought into force Religious Unity Regulations, enforcing the existing Religious Unity Act, with a penalty of 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment for violation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed office’s allowance withheld

Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad has said that the office allowances payable to former President Mohamed Nasheed have been withheld for the past three months.

Sun Online have reported Jihad as saying that the issue was related to the unknown location of Nasheed’s office.

“We have not received any response to our letters to clarify this. The allowance will resume once they inform us the office location,” he said.

However, when questioned by local paper Haveeru Jihad said that the suspension of privileges was related to a disagreement over whether former president’s were required to conduct charitable activities.

“In reality, the office should be involved in holding social activities. However, the concern of these members is that there is no social work to be seen by the (Nasheed’s) office. It has to be clarified. Hence the financial allowances have been halted for the time being. We still haven’t been provided with the information we sought in relation to the office,” Jihad told the paper.

The paper reported that the current law on the matter states that up to MVR175,000 per month in office expenses can be provided to former heads of state conducting charitable work.

Jihad said that a former Presidents’ Immunity and Privileges Act is currently being drafted and that Nasheed will be allowed the privileges outlined in the eventual legislation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Finance Committee debates prompt investigation of government finances

The Majlis Finance Committee has decided to table the issue of the alleged embezzlement of MVR24million ($US1.5million) by the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) as an emergency issue tomorrow, local media has reported.

Following the release of the Auditor General’s report on the DMC’s 2010 finance, released last week, there have reportedly been two arrests in relation to the case.

Head of the committee Ahmed Nazim called into question the government’s accounting system, as did the Auditor General, Niyaz Ibrahim, who criticised those in charge at the DMC.

Ibrahim has also decided to expedite the audit of the government’s finances after being questioned in the Finance Committee about an allegedly unauthorised MVR300million ($US19.4million) loan, taken by the government from the Bank of Maldives in June.

That is an assignment we had planned for this year. But after the MPs raised questions over the matter, we have sped up that process and the assignment has commenced and is ongoing. This exercise is intended to carry out a comprehensive public debt audit of the State,” Haveeru quoted Ibrahim as saying.

He said that the audit will cover five years of spending and admitted that it was his office’s responsibility to determine legality of state debt.

“Based on the ratios, it is the responsibility of the Auditor General to determine the vulnerability of the State. If you look at the practice of the rest of the world public debt audits will cover such issues,” Niyaz added.

“Debt is a highly sensitive issue. It is related to the sustainability of the State. In addition to determining the authenticity, there are some vulnerability ratios we look for in a public debt audit,” reported Haveeru.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP too small to take to court: Umar Naseer

Vice President of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has decided to withdraw the case challenging his dismissal from his former party, reports local media.

Naseer told Sun Online that it did not make sense for the VP of the country’s most popular party to take a smaller party to court – the PPM is currently the second largest party in the Majlis and the third largest in the country by membership.

Naseer’s dismissal from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) in 2010 preceded the eventual split of the party. Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s decision to leave the political party – the country’s first – resulted in the creation of the PPM in 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President cleared to submit bills to Majlis

An amendment has been passed to the People’s Majlis’ Rules of Procedure enabling the current government to submit bills to the legislature.

Since February’s transfer of presidential power, there has been dispute regarding the power of current President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan to submit bills to the Majlis as his party, the Gaumee Ittihad Party (GIP), has no representation in parliament.

Yesterday’s amendment, which was approved by 42 of 67 MPs present, changed the procedure to allow the president to designate a party to represent the government. The amendment was submitted to the floor by a report from the General Purposes Committee.

Article 217 of the parliamentary rules of procedure had previously interpreted the president’s party as that which he was a member of. The new amendment defines the president’s party as any designated by him.

This, in turn, impacts upon article 71 which states that government bills must be submitted by the party in power.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has maintained that they remain the party in power, although this is not defined in the rules of procedure.

“This is the perfect example of the democratic changes we are losing every day,” said party spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor who argued that, after being elected on an MDP ticket, Waheed was now allowing the opposition to dictate policy.

When asked by a reporter from Al Jazeera on February 8 about his relationship with other political parties, Waheed responded: “I come from a different party, and the [former] president knew very well that I was not from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) when he asked me to be his running mate to win the election,” he said.

The status of the MDP has been queried, particularly following the publication of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report which ruled the February transfer of power to have been legitimate.

The MDP and Waheed’s GIP formed a coalition just days before the 2008 presidential elections which Mohamed Nasheed won, with Waheed as his running mate.

Nasheed’s February resignation was followed by wholesale changes to the cabinet and the formation of a coalition government in which the MDP refused to participate – maintaining that Nasheed was ousted illegally.

Waheed has also claimed, however, that his government is “a continuation of the previous one under President Nasheed.”

“There should be no doubt on this score,” he was reported as telling Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in May.

The MDP still holds 30 seats in the Majlis, although it is outnumbered by the pro-government coalition, which currently includes 39 of the assembly’s 77 members.

Local media have reported that the government intends to submit 12 bills to the Majlis within the next month following yesterday’s amendment.

The bills are said to concern human trafficking, prevention of sexual harassment, extradition as well as a bill that will govern the implementation of the death penalty, amongst others.

The Majlis has been beset by the political gridlock enveloping the country over the past eight month. Attempts to open the Majlis session in March saw violent clashes between protesters and security forces, while tensions within the chamber saw sessions suspended throughout August and September.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldives’ judiciary unreformed and unrepentant

I have read with concern a number of articles and commentaries over recent weeks which appear to be based on two false premises: first, that the Maldives judiciary is independent and impartial; and second, that it is capable of delivering a fair trial to the democratically elected President of this country, Mr Mohamed Nasheed.

Neither premise holds-up to careful scrutiny.

The first false-premise, which is regularly put forward by members of the Government, especially Dr Hassan Saeed, as well as by the Maldives’ own ‘independent’ UN Resident Coordinator, Mr Andrew Cox, appears to be based on a misguided reading of the concept of ‘independence’. In essence, this misreading holds that if our Constitution says that the judiciary is ‘independent’ then it must be so, irrespective of what the on-the-ground reality tells us.

The 2008 Constitution does of course establish a separation of powers and makes clear, in article 142, that “judges are independent”. But just because the Constitution says this is so, does not, of course, magic the situation into existence.

What the Constitution also does therefore is set up mechanisms to ensure judicial independence, impartiality and integrity. It therefore makes clear that all judges will, under the new Constitution, be subject to a reappointment process (article 285) and that to be (re)appointed, judges (article 149) “must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Judge, and must be of a high moral character”.

Central to this process is the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which is responsible for both the (re)appointment process and for upholding the impartiality and integrity of judges including by listening to complaints and taking “disciplinary action” against them if necessary (article 159b).

The importance of these mechanisms is clear when one recalls that all judges at the time of the entry-into-force of the new Constitution had been appointed by, and owed their loyalties to, former President Gayoom during his 30-year rule.

However, as Aishath Velezinee, President Nasheed’s former member on the JSC, has demonstrated in her book “The Failed Silent Coup”, former President Gayoom succeeded, through securing a post-election de facto majority in the Majlis, in controlling the appointment of members to the JSC and thus of controlling the JSC’s reappointment and disciplinary procedures.

As a result, despite ample evidence of some judges possessing neither the competence, qualifications nor moral character to be reappointed, the JSC quickly moved to swear them all in, arguing that the criteria laid down by the Constitution to control reappointment were only “symbolic” .

When Velezinee objected she was manhandled out of the room.

In the years thereafter, the JSC compounded this failure by refusing to process any of the multiple public complaints it received against Gayoom-era justices. When, in 2011, it finally bowed to public pressure and recommended disciplinary action be taken against Judge Abdullah Mohamed, a man accused of serial wrongdoings over many years, the judge in question simply asked his friends in the Civil Court to annul the proceedings.

When the Civil Court did so, it removed the last pretense that the Maldives’ judiciary is independent, impartial or accountable. As of that date, the Maldives’ judiciary became a failed institution.

So what of the second premise: that such a judiciary is capable of delivering a fair trial to President Nasheed, who is ‘accused’ of arresting Judge Abdullah Mohamed after the judge used his friends in the Civil Court to circumvent the Constitution and then used his position in the Criminal Court to repeatedly free not just allies of former President Gayoom, but also a number of known criminals?

Here, it is perhaps worth turning to respected international experts, international organisations and NGOs which have studied the Maldives judiciary and the justice sector more broadly.

The systematic problems facing the judicial system have been widely documented and were perhaps best summed-up by legal expert Professor Paul Robinson who advised the Maldives on judicial reform.

In his 2005 report, he characterised the Maldives criminal justice system as “systematically failing to do justice and regularly doing injustice”.

One of Professor Robinson’s main recommendations – to conduct a complete overhaul of the country’s archaic Penal Code – remains unimplemented. As a consequence, the Prosecutor-General is insisting on prosecuting President Nasheed on the basis of a Code drafted in the 1960s and which is based on a document produced in India in the 19th century.

In February 2011, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) visited the Maldives and issued a report which echoed many of Professor Robinson’s earlier concerns and demonstrated that, irrespective of the new Constitution, little had changed.

In its report, the ICJ expressed concern at “the apparent failure of the JSC to fulfill its constitutional mandate of properly vetting and reappointing judges” as well as the “judicialisation of politics”.

“The JSC”, according to the ICJ, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner”. The ICJ concluded that the complete lack of judicial accountability in the Maldives undermines public confidence and calls into question the institution’s independence.

In July 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered the state of the Maldives judiciary. In its concluding statement, the Committee said it was “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives”.

“The State has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised” noted the Committee, which called for serious reform of the Supreme Court, the judiciary more broadly and the Judicial Service Commission.

These findings were mirrored by both Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in late 2012, following their visits to the Maldives. For example, FIDH in its report “From Sunrise to Sunset” on human rights in the Maldives, noted that despite important constitutional changes, “different sections of the judiciary have failed to become fully independent”, while pointing out that the JSC lacks transparency and its members are prone to “conflicts of interest”.

With the above in mind, it is difficult to understand how members of the government or some parts of the international community can claim with any degree of sincerity that our judiciary is either independent or capable of delivering a fair trial for President Nasheed or the hundreds of other Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) members currently facing prosecution for “terrorism” and other trumped-up charges.

If justice is indeed blind, then why are hundreds of MDP supporters awaiting trial, while not one police officer or member of the current government has been held accountable for the widely-documented brutality unleashed against protesters since February 7?

And if justice is indeed blind, then why are cases against MDP supporters being fast-tracked while there are over 2000 other cases pending with the Prosecutor-General? Why have all the serious corruption cases against Gayoom’s political allies been either sidelined or discontinued?

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Maldives judiciary is that, at this time of political division, it is the one subject about which nearly everyone in the country can agree. Whether you are for President Nasheed or against him; whether you think February 7 was a legitimate change in government or a coup, nearly everyone – at least outside the President’s Office – agrees that our judicial sector are not fit for purpose.

And yet it is this deeply flawed institution, wielding a two hundred year old legal code that is supposedly able to deliver a fair trial for President Nasheed.

Over recent years, we have achieved much. We have amended our Constitution, embraced party politics, held our first free and fair elections, voted-out a 30 year old autocracy and voted-in our first democratically elected leader.

But the judiciary has failed to come even close to matching this pace of change and remains, by-and-large, the same institution as it was during the Gayoom era – unreformed and unrepentant.

Eva Abdulla is an MP in the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

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)

President Waheed inaugurates new Dhiraagu HQ

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan yesterday opened the new head office of local telecommunications group Dhiraagu in Male’, a construction the company claims is the first its kind in the capital to be built to meet specific technical requirements.

President Waheed spoke at a special opening ceremony, playing up the importance of the country’s communications sector to wider development in the Maldives.  He attended the ceremony alongside dignitaries including Minister of Economic Development Ahmed Mohamed.

Dhiraagu itself is one of the country’s largest service providers, dominating the internet and telecommunications sector alongside its main competitor, Wataniya.

According to the company, its new headquarters has been designed to comply with international safety standards, whilst also providing accessibility to wheelchair users and incorporating what it has called advanced energy saving and environmental friendly technologies.

These technologies include the use of 100 percent LED lights across the building, motion sensors, heat reflective glass and ozone friendly refrigerant within the office’s air conditioning units.

On the outside of the structure, Dhiraagu claims that a silver colour PVDF cladding has also been used over a highly reflective glass surface that serves to further reduce heat entry into the building.

Set up back in 1988, the company has said it presently employs over 600 staff across the Maldives, 99 percent of whom are said to be local workers. Dhiraagu’s leading shareholder is presently Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).

CWC took a controlling stake in Dhiraagu in 2009 when former President Nasheed’s government sold 7 percent of its shares, giving the British-based firm a controlling stake in the company.

Then-opposition parties criticised the sale in local media, arguing that the acquisition of large stakes of domestic companies by foreign investors was bad for the country.

Similar arguments have been levelled against the development of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) by Indian company GMR, sparking fears that foreign firms will be deterred from investing in the Maldives.

CWC now controls 52 percent of Dhiraagu’s shares,with the government holding just under 42 percent as of March this year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP will not contest late PPM MP’s Ungoofaaru seat

After extensive discussions, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has decided not to field a candidate in the December 1 Ungoofaaru by-election for the Majlis seat vacated by the late Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

“The best thing is to leave the remaining term of the seat to the party which was represented by the late Dr Afrasheem. The decision was also made in light of the fact that Afrasheem had won the seat on this party’s ticket and hence out of respect and admiration for the late MP,” Haveeru reported a DRP statement as saying.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was said to be preparing to contest the election.  Meanwhile,  it has been reported locally that Dr Afrasheem’s brother, Ibrahim Ameem, would contest in the PPM’s primary for the Ungoofaaru constituency next Thursday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government spending MVR 5 million on 136 political appointees

The government spends MVR 5 million a month (US$325,000) on 136 political appointees, approximately US$4 million a year, according to statistics obtained by local news outlet Sun Online.

The monthly spend includes 19 Minister-level posts at MVR 57,500 (US$3730), 42 State Ministers (MVR 40,000-45,000, US$2600-2900), 58 Deputy Ministers (MVR 35,000, US$2250), five Deputy Under-Secretaries (MVR 30,000, US$1950) and 10 advisors to ministers (MVR 25,000, US$1620).9\

President Mohamed Waheed is officially paid (MVR 100,000, US$6500) a month, Vice President Waheed Deen (MVR 75,000, US$4850).

Waheed’s Special Advisor Hassan Saeed, the Chancellor of the National University and the Controller of Immigration are paid at ministerial level.

On paper, the annual MVR 60 million spend on political appointees is approximately MVR 40 million less than the spend on political appointees during the former administration.

Figures released by the Ministry of Finance in July 2011 showed that the executive was spending MVR 99 million (US$6.5 million) annually on 244 political appointees, two percent of the state’s total wage bill.

The country’s 77 MPs are meanwhile paid a base salary of MVR 42,500 (US$2,750) per month, a further MVR 20,000 (US$1,300) per month in allowances for phone, travel, and living expenses, and a further MVR 20,000 in committee allowances.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)