Author: Ahmed Naish

New footage of Feb 7 shows Yameen, Gasim inciting demonstrators, police

Private broadcaster Raajje TV on Friday aired previously unseen footage from February 7, 2012, before the controversial resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed claimed that he resigned “under duress” after elements of the police and army joined opposition protesters and attacked the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) headquarters following a police mutiny in Republic Square.

The new footage shows government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Abdulla Yameen and Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim – both presidential hopefuls – address the protesting police, army officers and opposition supporters.

“The Indian government is with the Maldivian people,” Yameen announced to the assembled police and anti-government demonstrators. He was however cut short by police appealing for cooperation from the crowd.

After MNDF officers were pegged back and forced inside military headquarters following a confrontation with the mutinying police, the Republic Square – or the “green zone” where gatherings are prohibited – was overrun by opposition supporters and police officers.

The PPM parliamentary group leader reportedly arrived at the Republic Square after a meeting at the Indian High Commission.

Business tycoon and JP presidential candidate Gasim meanwhile praised mutinying police and army officers for their “sacrifice” and “jihad for the nation.”

In March 2012, Raajje TV aired video footage of political party leaders inside police headquarters before the resignation of President Nasheed. Upon receiving news of President Nasheed’s decision to resign, Gasim is heard to say that it was “fortunate that this ended without going to military rule.”

Gasim is a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which has appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, in the more recent footage televised by Raajje TV, a police officer announces that “ [state broadcaster] MNBC has been brought under control” and that the security forces were in the process of “arresting those we have to take into custody.”

Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz are also seen active in the area outside military headquarters, with one of the clips showing the latter carrying President Nasheed’s resignation letter.

Both ex-servicemen under former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom were civilians at the time of the transfer of power.

In other videos that emerged at the time, Nazim is seen announcing to the mutinying police and army officers that President Nasheed had been told to resign “unconditionally”.

Nazim also announced that he was “in charge of the army” and would soon appoint senior officers.

One of the previously unseen videos aired by Raajje TV further showed President Nasheed exiting the military headquarters in a car surrounded by MNDF officers and being driven the short distance to the President’s Office.

Following Nazim’s appeal to those gathered to refrain from violence, former Deputy Commissioner of Police Mohamed Rishwan is also seen addressing the crowd atop a military vehicle and appealing for cooperation and nonviolence.

Rishwan had reportedly denied any involvement in the events of February 7, 2012.

Meanwhile, in an interview with government-aligned radio station DhiFM on February 8 this year, Defence Minister Nazim claimed that President Nasheed would have been mobbed and killed if he was not escorted to the President’s Office under military protection.

“I would say in truth, given the level of hatred from the public, President Nasheed would not be in this world today if we had not taken him out and to the President’s Office under our protection. [Former President] Mohamed Ameen comes to mind. The people would have mobbed [Nasheed] just like that,” Nazim was quoted as saying in local media.

He added that video clips from the day would show “the extreme level of hatred from the public”.

Similar remarks were made by PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer days after the transfer of power. Naseer claimed at a PPM rally that Nasheed’s only options were to either “resign after bloodshed or resign peacefully”.

On August 30, 2012, the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) formed by President Dr Mohamed Waheed however concluded that there was “no coup, no mutiny and no duress” in President Nasheed’s resignation.

February 8

Raajje TV has also aired a video clip from the day after the transfer of presidential power following a brutal police crackdown on a walk across Male’ by supporters of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

In the wake of the crackdown near the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building near Republic Square, President Nasheed along with MPs Mariya Ahmed Didi and ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik took refuge in a shop and were dragged out by riot police.

The new footage shows President Nasheed surrounded and manhandled by the Specialist Operations (SO) officers before he manages to wriggle free and run. According to media reports on February 8, Nasheed rejoined supporters at the area and was taken to safety.

MP Yameen addressing crowd

MP Gasim addressing crowd

“MNBC has been taken under control”

President Nasheed exits MNDF headquarters

President Nasheed walks to Muleeage after resignation

Riyaz carrying resignation letter

Mutinying police and army officers calling for president’s resignation

Nasheed escapes SO officers on February 8, 2012

Nasheed rejoins supporters

Nazim demands “unconditional resignation” of President Nasheed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Brigadier General Nilam suspended following testimony to Government Oversight Committee

Former head of military intelligence, Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, has been relieved of his duties at the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), by Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim.

According to a statement by the Defence Ministry yesterday, General Nilam was suspended because a case involving the former head of military intelligence was under investigation.

The statement did not provide further details or specify the nature of the investigation and alleged offence.

The move follows the Brigadier General’s testimony (Dhivehi) to parliament’s Government Oversight Committee on January 9, which was made public on Wednesday after MPs on the committee voted to publicise minutes of the closed session.

During the past two weeks, the oversight committee has summoned high-ranking officers of the security services for its review of the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CNI’s) report into the transfer of presidential power on February 7, 2012.

In his testimony to the committee, Brigadier General Nilam said he was asked by Defence Minister Nazim if he believed that the transfer of power amounted to a coup or a revolution.

Nilam said he replied that, “looking at it academically, this has all the characteristics of a coup.”

“I have even looked into this and studied this along principles that academicians would consider. So I told [Nazim] that this has all the characteristics. He didn’t say anything else,” Nilam said.

Asked by pro-government Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan if he believed there was a coup d’etat, Nilam said based on his experience in military intelligence, “this has roots that go much deeper.”

Brigadier General Nilam was seen in leaked video from inside the MNDF headquarters showing a frenzied former President Nasheed ordering officers to go out and confront the mutinying police on the morning of February 7.

Responding to questions by committee members, Nilam explained that the president, defence minister and chief of defence forces were issuing orders because “the [military] lines weren’t working.”

“I was really saddened. This was not something I ever saw inside the military. There has been insubordination. There are former officers here [among MPs on the committee]. There is insubordination. But things have never happened like this in such an operation,” Nilam said at the committee.

Nilam added that he saw a president in a “very helpless” state, which was “a sad moment.”

“We are entrusted with the duty and responsibility of protecting the country’s independence and sovereignty. It is truly disturbing to see something like from [the military],” he said.

The brigadier general said he was present when current Defence Minister Nazim relayed the message for the president’s “unconditional” resignation.

He also noted that military officers banged the president’s car with their boots while he was taken to the President’s Office from the military headquarters and that current Chief of Defence Forces General Ahmed Shiyam took over as acting chief before President Nasheed officially resigned.

“There are lot of questions here. I believe that this should be investigated thoroughly and looked into. These are very serious matters,” he said.

Under Maldivian law, Brigadier General Nilam continued, a “coup d’etat” could not be carried out without the military’s involvement as the offence is specified and prohibited in the Defence Forces Act of 2008.

Asked by the committee’s chair, MP Ali Waheed, if there was a threat to the life of President Nasheed had he not resigned, Nilam said weapons were stored because there was fear of live armour being used and that the mutinying police were armed with riot gear.

Nilam also revealed that the military did not have “any control of [presidential residence] Muleeage after 7:00am or 7:30am in the morning.”

Police and ex-servicemen entered Muleeage after 7:15am on February 7, 2012, he added.

First Lady Laila Ali and the president’s daughters were reportedly taken to a safe location in the morning.

Continuing his testimony, Brigadier General Nilam said he overheard President refuse assistance from two foreign nations before he decided to resign.

“[The President] said this is an internal matter. He answered both calls in much the same way,” he said.

Nilam added that there was possibility of bloodshed “if it dragged on” and that the president’s life was in danger.

Meanwhile, former Chief Superintendent of Police Mohamed Jinah was also relieved of his duties last week following his testimony to the oversight committee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s ousting result of “planning, propaganda and a lot of work”: Umar Naseer

The resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, 2012 was the result of “planning, propaganda and a lot of work”, interim deputy leader of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has claimed.

Introducing candidates from “Team Umar” at a rally last week ahead of the PPM’s first congress this weekend, Naseer urged supporters to vote for members of his team as they had “produced results” through street activism against the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) administration.

“A lot of people told us that Mohamed Nasheed’s government cannot be toppled from the street. I said while contesting for DRP’s [Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party’s] deputy leader that I was coming to this post to topple Mohamed Nasheed’s government from the street. We have proven and shown that,” he said.

“You should not think that February 7 happened automatically,” he continued. “It did not happen like that. It was the result of planning, propaganda and a lot of work by some people. It did not happen automatically.”

While former President Nasheed insists that he was forced to resign “under duress” following a police mutiny and loss of command and control over the military, a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) found that the transfer of power to then-Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik was constitutional.

Speaking at last week’s rally, Umar Naseer said members of his team led protests for 22 consecutive nights and played an important role in backing up mutinying police officers in the early hours of February 7.

In an interview with Australian journalist Mark Davis for the SBS Dateline television programme in February 2012, Naseer claimed he was at a “command center” on the night of February 6 directing protests by the then-opposition.

“On the protesters’ side, we were informing and educating the police and army through our speeches and television programs,” Naseer said.

Asked by Davis if the opposition had made any other inducements, such as promises that they and their families would be “looked after” if they switched sides, Naseer said “there were.”

He added that the former president could have been beaten by a mob if he had emerged from the military headquarters without agreeing to resign.

At the first PPM rally following the controversial transfer of presidential power, Umar Naseer said he told former President Nasheed to resign “or else you might lose your life.”

Naseer claimed that the former president’s choices were to either resign peacefully or “resign after bloodshed.”

“While the operation [protest] was going on that night, I was at the commanding center. I was talking to Nasheed’s close aides. I told them to surrender; otherwise [he] might lose life. I told them that repeatedly. But, firstly, they responded arrogantly saying they do not have to surrender [because] such a circumstance has arrived,” Umar claimed.

But around 8:30am the next morning, Umar claimed that Nasheed called him saying that he wanted to resign. Nasheed said that he would not participate in any political activities hereafter, Umar added.

“Nasheed called and said that he is prepared to resign. He requested arrangements to be made for him and his family to leave for somewhere else. I told him that it will be arranged and to prepare for resignation,” Umar claimed.

Following media coverage of those remarks, Umar however released a statement claiming he did not imply that President Nasheed’s life was threatened by police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

During the unrest, Umar said that he spoke to Former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and told him that their lives were in danger because of the large number of protesters in Republic Square.

“I said his life could be in danger because of the large number of people gathered there [Republican Square] and it seemed that police, MNDF did not have the capacity to control the crowd – not even us,” Umar said.

“We feared from our hearts that if the civilians [protesters] had entered the MNDF headquarters by using any means, Nashed, Tholhath and MNDF and police inside the building [at the time] would have been at danger.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Footage leaked of museum vandals destroying pre-Islamic artifacts

Private broadcaster Raajje TV has aired leaked security camera footage showing a group of men vandalising pre-Islamic artifacts in the national museum on February 7, 2012.

Around 35 exhibits were destroyed when  half a dozen men stormed into the museum amid the political chaos of February 7, after former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under controversial circumstances during a police and army mutiny.

The footage shows a group of men entering the museum, knocking over glass cases and smashing Buddhist-era statues.

Local daily Haveeru reported today that it had learned the men were “religious extremists” who belonged to a local group.

In May 2012, police forwarded cases against four suspects involved in the vandalism to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO). Police at the time declined to reveal any information regarding the identity of the four suspects.

Officials at the PGO were unable to confirm today if the cases had been filed at the Criminal Court.

According to museum director Ali Waheed, the vandals destroyed “99 percent” of the evidence of the Maldives’ pre-Islamic history prior to the 12th century, including a 1.5-foot-wide representation of the Buddha’s head – one of the most historically significant pieces at the museum.

An official at the museum told Minivan News following the incident that the group “deliberately targeted the Buddhist relics and ruins of monasteries exhibited in the pre-Islamic collection, destroying most items beyond repair.”

“This is not like a glass we use at home that can be replaced by buying a new one from a shop. These are originals from our ancestors’ time. These cannot be replaced ever again,” the official said.

In September 2012, the United States government donated US$ 20,000 (MVR 308,400) to help restore and repair the damaged artifacts.

The vandalism was reminiscent of the Taliban’s demolition of the great carved Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in early 2001 and raised fears that extremists were gaining ground in the Maldives, the New York Times reported in February.

AFP meanwhile reported former President Nasheed as saying that the vandals included Islamist hardliners who had attacked the museum because they believed some of the statues inside were “idolatrous”.

In the weeks leading up to the transfer of presidential power on February 7, former President Nasheed’s administration was accused by a coalition of religious NGOs and opposition parties of weakening Islam in the Maldives under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests.”

On December 23, 2011, the opposition alliance held a massive rally in the capital Male’ to “defend Islam” from Nasheed’s allegedly liberal policies and securalisation agenda.

In November 2011, monuments gifted by the South Asian countries to the Maldives ahead of the 17th summit of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), hosted in Addu City, were denounced as idolatrous and vandalised.

Removal of the contentious monuments was one of the five demands of the December 23 coalition, who also demanded that the government prohibit Israeli airlines from operating in the Maldives, shut down brothels doubling as massage parlours, reverse policies to allow sale of alcohol in city hotels and condemn United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay for her suggestion that flogging be abolished as a punishment for extra-marital sex.

After coming to power, the ruling coalition withdrew the demands in the People’s Majlis.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Recent bills “restrict fundamental rights,” NGOs warn

A number of bills passed by parliament in 2012 could “weaken the democratic, good governance system” and “restrict some fundamental rights,” local NGOs Transparency Maldives (TM) and Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) have warned.

In a joint statement issued today, the civil society organisations expressed concern at the potential narrowing of constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression as well the formation of political parties.

The statement also expressed concern with the “loss of transparency” due to the decision to conduct no-confidence motions through secret ballot.

With legislative and oversight powers over the executive and independent institutions, the NGOs noted that the People’s Majlis had “the most prominent role” in establishing democratic, good governance and protecting human rights.

The NGOs also called on the relevant authorities to ensure that MPs could fulfil their legal responsibilities “free from harassment and fear in a secure environment”

It added that the NGOs did not believe calls for dissolving parliament “could strengthen the People’s Majlis.”

On the amendment approved to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence motions through a secret vote, the NGOs said it believed that decision could lead to “loss of transparency in the Majlis, pave the way for corruption and impede holding the people’s representatives accountable.”

Fear of physical harm or other forms of retribution based on such votes was not a justification for the decision, the NGOs said, contending that secret votes was “not the solution” to the purported threats.

The political parties bill meanwhile restricted the constitutional right to form political parties by requiring 10,000 members for registration, the statement continued.

“What is needed to strengthen the functioning of the party system is to increase participation of party members, party’s taking initiative to inform members of financial matters, auditing, ensuring implementation and taking measures against violations,” the statement read.

The NGOs suggested that the number of votes a party receives in general elections, number of parliamentary seats and strength of internal mechanisms could be used as a measure to provide state funding in lieu of the number of registered members.

The organisations further contended that the bill on peaceful assembly posed “serious challenges to the whole democratic system.”

The bill could restrict the constitutional right to freedom of assembly (article 32), freedom of expression (article 27) and press freedom (article 28), it added.

As article four of the constitution states that “all the powers of the state of the Maldives are derived from, and remains with, the citizens,” both NGOs warned that narrowing the fundamental rights guaranteed by the second chapter of the constitution would “facilitate taking away from the public the powers that remain with them.”

The legislation on freedom of assembly was passed on December 25 with 44 votes in favour and 30 against.

MPs of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party voted against the bill, which would outlaw demonstrations outside designated areas and require accreditation for media to cover protests.

Parliamentary privileges

Transparency Maldives and Maldivian Democracy Network also expressed concern with the controversial parliamentary privileges bill passed last month.

The bill was submitted in late 2010 and became the subject of controversy and public outrage. In January 2011, a group of “concerned citizens” demonstrated and petitioned then-President Mohamed Nasheed urging him to veto the legislation.

The bill was passed on December 27, 2012 with Speaker Abdulla Shahid casting the tie-breaking vote.

The vote was tied 31-31 with three abstentions. Most MPs of the opposition MDP voted against it and later raised concerns with some of the clauses.

In its statement, the NGOs insisted that the parliamentary privileges bill should have been “based on the concept of privileges stated in article 90 of the constitution” to uphold the “integrity of the institution” and ensure that MPs could fulfil their duties “free of undue influence”.

Article 90(a) states, “No member or other person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court, and no person shall be subject to any inquiry, arrest, detention or prosecution, with respect to anything said in, produced before, or submitted to the People’s Majlis or any of its committees, or with respect to any vote given if the same is not contrary to any tenet of Islam.”

Moreover, article 90(b) states, “No person or newspaper or journal shall be liable in respect of any report or proceedings made or published under the authority of the People’s Majlis, or in respect of any fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the People’s Majlis or any of its committees, where this is done in accordance with principles specified by the People’s Majlis.”

The NGOs contended that the parliamentary privileges bill violated the spirit of article 90 of the constitution and contained “inappropriate financial and other benefits” for MPs.

The NGOs concluded their statement by calling on parliament to review the bills passed during the third session of 2012.

The statement urged MPs to consider the constitution and human rights as well as “international general principles and measures” in its review of the approved legislation.

Beyond privileges

In a video message posted on his personal blog yesterday (January 1), Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that the “main reason” he voted against the privileges bill was because it “contained a number of clauses outside the meaning of privileges.”

Parliamentary privileges should be construed as eliminating obstacles to fulfilling MPs’ legal responsibility, Nasheed said.

Former Information and Legal Reform Minister Nasheed objected to clauses in the bill specifying financial benefits for MPs as well as jail terms for persons found guilty of violating  MPs’ privileges.

“In my view, when we are implementing these things for the first time, we could settle for fines instead of big criminal punishments,” he said.

Nasheed also disagreed with a clause that allows convicted MPs serving a jail term or sentence of less than 12 months to participate in parliamentary proceedings. MPs convicted to longer than a year would lose their seats.

The bill also stipulates that MPs who serve one five-year term would receive 30 percent of their pay as a retirement pension upon reaching 55 years of age and 45 percent as a pension if they serve two five-year terms.

Nasheed noted that seven percent of an MP’s salary was contributed to the pension fund under the existing pension law, which the bill did not address.

Moreover, Nasheed contended that the bill conflicted with a number of provisions in the parliamentary rules of procedure or standing orders.

Among other issues he raised, Nasheed noted that punishments for offences specified in the bill contravened punishments in existing laws and that the parliamentary secretary-general was to receive “the security offered to the Speaker of Parliament, a state car and a diplomatic passport.”

Nasheed also observed that the legislation did not settle the question of whether MPs could refer to ongoing court cases during parliamentary debates.

While the bill states that official secrets must not be disclosed, Nasheed said it did not specify a penalty for the offence.

Nasheed also expressed concern with the absence of ethical guidelines or rules for MPs in exercising powers to demand and receive any information – “for example, a person’s bank account, information regarding his health, information on loans he has taken.”

According to the privileges legislation, persons who refuse to comply with such demands for information, documents or records would face penalties or punishments specified in the bill.

As both the executive and judiciary would have special privileges as well, Nasheed suggested that such a bill should “balance the scale” between the three powers of state.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament’s Finance Committee revises pay scheme for senior state officials

Parliament today passed revisions to the pay scheme approved by the Finance Committee for senior officials in the executive, judiciary and independent institutions.

The revisions included a MVR 5,000 (US$324) pay raise for board members of the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA).

Article 102 of the constitution states, “The President, Vice President, members of the Cabinet, members of the People’s Majlis, including the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, members of the Judiciary, and members of the Independent Commissions and Independent Offices shall be paid such salary and allowances as determined by the People’s Majlis.”

The task of determining salaries and allowances is entrusted to the Finance Committee under section 100(a) of the parliamentary rules of procedures.

Among the changes brought by the committee to the pay structure passed on December 28, 2010 was a monthly phone allowance of MVR 1,000 (US$65) for MPs, ministers, judges of the High Court and Supreme Court, members of independent commissions, the Prosecutor General, the Attorney General and the Governor of the Maldives Monetary Authority.

If the phone bill exceeds MVR 1000, the officials would be allowed to claim compensation for the cost of phone calls made for official purposes.

The Finance Committee also decided to discontinue monthly salaries for drivers of cabinet minister’s cars (MVR 7,500) as well as an allowance for petrol cost (MVR 1,000). Ministers would be instructed to settle the expenses out of their salaries from April 2013 onward.

However, the committee did not terminate similar expenses for other officials provided state cars.

The committee meanwhile approved raising monthly salaries of Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) board members by MVR 5,000 (US$324) and the health insurance premium for judges and their parents from MVR 4,500 (US$292) to MVR 7,000 (US$454).

MIRA board members would now receive a monthly pay of MVR 15,500 (US$1,005).

Followings its review of the pay scheme and consideration of requests, the Finance Committee however decided not to increase the salaries of Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) board members.

The committee also decided against making any changes to the remuneration of MPs.

Moreover, requests by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for a committee allowance as well as an additional allowance for Criminal Court judges ruling on extension of detention for criminal suspects were denied.

The revised pay scheme was passed with 38 votes in favour, two against and five abstentions.

Presenting the Finance Committee report (Dhivehi) to the floor, MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed said the change to phone allowance was made in light of issues raised by the Auditor General’s Office in various audit reports regarding the waste of public funds and phone credit transfers.

The decision was made to impose one rule and limit for all institutions and reduce costs, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Nolhivaram said.

As a recommendation to reduce state expenditure, the Finance Committee also decided to advise the government to merge the Customs Integrity Commission and the Police Integrity Commission to form a “National Integrity Commission” with oversight over all state institutions, Nasheed said.

Nasheed added that eliminating salary for minister’s drivers and fuel allowance would save 89 percent from the budget item.

Meanwhile, on December 23, the Finance Ministry issued a circular instructing government offices to arrange a medical insurance scheme for ministers, their spouses and children under 18 years of age to receive medical treatment in the Maldives as well as overseas in SAARC and ASEAN nations.

The offices were asked to make arrangements from their budgets for the health insurance scheme from the Allied Insurance Company with an annual premium of MVR 12,500 (US$810).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political parties bill designed to “eradicate” Islamic ideology: Adhaalath Party leadership

Leaders of the religious conservative Adhaalath Party have claimed legislation passed by parliament last week requiring political parties to have a minimum of 10,000 registered members was a direct attempt to dissolve the party.

If the political parties bill passed on Thursday is signed into law, parties without 10,000 members would have three months to reach the legally required number or face being dissolved.

At a press conference on Saturday, Adhaalath Party Leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla said he suspected that “black money” from Indian infrastructure company GMR was behind the decision to insert the clause requiring 10,000 members.

Imran said the bill was intended to “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

Imran claimed that “a person with a brain would not deny” that the decision by parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee to raise the prerequisite to 10,000 members from 5,000 at a late stage was made “because Adhaalath Party would be disqualified at that number.”

He further contended that the party’s recent campaigns to “reclaim the airport” from the GMR-led consortium and “reform parliament” was also “connected to passing that bill.”

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” he said.

Imran also argued that the bill also violated the constitutional principle of equality.

Following preliminary debate in early 2010, the political parties bill was reviewed and finalised by the Independent Institutions Committee on December 10, 2012.

Writing in his personal blog (Dhivehi) in October, Independent Institutions Committee Chair MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed revealed that “a clear majority” voted in favour of requiring parties to gain 5000 members before it can be officially registered, and 10,000 members before becoming eligible for state funds.

“When the law is passed, the current registered parties with less than 5,000 members would be given a six month period to reach the figure. If a party fails to reach that figure by the end of the period, the particular party would be dissolved,” Nasheed explained.

However, the minimum number of members was later raised to 10,000 and the period shortened to three months before the draft legislation was presented to the Majlis floor for Thursday’s vote.

The political parties bill was passed with 64 votes in favour and four against.

According to figures from the Elections Commission (EC), Adhaalath Party has 5,881 as of December 27. In October 2011, the party had 6,140 members.

Only four parties out of 16 registered in the country have more than 10,000 members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and Jumhooree Party (JP).

Speaking at yesterday’s press conference, Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, chief spokesperson of the party, dismissed the notion that the minimum requirement of 10,000 members was approved for economic reasons as political parties were provided funds from the state budget.

Shaheem criticised provisions in recently-passed legislation on MPs’ privileges guaranteeing retirement pensions after one term as well as overseas medical treatment for MPs’ family members as untenable expenses by the state.

“When a MP serves a five-year term, the state has to pay him till he goes to the grave. And [the state] has to take care of him and his family,” Shaheem said.

If state funding for small political parties was too costly, Shaheem argued that a monthly pay of more than MVR 12,000 for island councillors was excessive as well.

Five-member councils in islands with very small populations had “nothing at all to do,” he claimed.

Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muiz meanwhile said that the membership clause was intended to get rid of the religious conservative party due to its efforts “on behalf of Islam” in recent years.

Muiz referred to the Adhaalath Party’s successful campaign against proposed regulations to authorise sale of alcohol in city hotels as well as its opposition to making Dhivehi and Islam non-compulsory subjects in higher secondary education. He claimed that the party also put a stop to former President Mohamed Nasheed’s attempts to strengthen ties with Israel and “bring Jews” to allow them to “exert influence in the country”.

Muiz, who also serves as the Adhaalath Party’s secretary general, called on “all citizens who love Islam” to sign up for the party.

Sheikh Ilyas Hussain, head of the party’s religious scholars council, meanwhile claimed that efforts to get rid of Adhaalath Party were intended to “erase” Islam from the Maldives and “spread secular activities in society.”

Following the parliament’s vote on the political parties bill, Adhaalath Party Sheikh Mohamed Iyash wrote on the party’s website last week that it was “essential for religious people to have political power given the state of the Maldives.”

“Religion and politics cannot be separated. Calls by some secular individuals to separate religion and politics are dangerous,” he wrote in response to a purported question regarding the “Shariah judgment” on signing for Adhaalath Party.

“Their [secular individuals’] intention is for religious scholars to not criticise any affairs of state and just stay in mosques praying and giving religious advice,” he wrote, adding that it was compulsory upon all Muslims to “enjoin good and forbid evil.”

A “religious political party” in the Maldives was therefore “necessary and obligatory,” he contended.

“Adhaalath Party is the only party formed to protect religion in the country. To say that all other political parties were formed for worldly purposes would not be demeaning them,” he added.

Sheikh Iyash wrote that it was “a big responsibility of every Maldivian citizen to find a way to maintain Adhaalath Party in existence.”

The Adhaalath Party has announced that it would hold a rally on Thursday night to launch a recruitment drive to increase membership.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Rape suspect arrested in Vili-Male’

Police have arrested a 33 year-old male in connection with the rape of a girl below 16 years of age in Vili-Male’ on Saturday (December 29).

Mohamed Abdushukoor, 33, of Galolhu Red Coral, was taken into custody last night with assistance from the public, the police said.

Abdushukoor reportedly forced the under-aged victim into a house in Vili-Male’ at about 1:00pm yesterday while she was out walking with her 14 year-old brother.

Police accused the suspect of keeping the pair in separate rooms as he sexually abused the girl. The incident was reported to the Police Family and Child Protection Unit late yesterday afternoon.

Police then made a public announcement publishing a photo of Abdushukoor, who it said has a criminal record, appealing for assistance in searching for the suspect.

He was arrested in Vili-Male’ shortly before midnight on Saturday, police said, and expressed gratitude to the public for their help in locating the suspect.

According to an unpublished 2009 study on violence against minors, almost one in seven children of secondary school age in the Maldives have been sexually abused at some time in their lives.

The sexual abuse rate of girls in the country was found to be almost twice as high than for boys at 20 percent, according to the study.

One in five Maldivian girls has been sexually abused – while the figure for boys was 11 percent.  Female minors were particularly at risk in the capital Male’, the report found.

A 2007 study on Women’s Health and Life Experiences meanwhile found that one in three Maldivian women aged 15 to 49 experience either physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives, including childhood sexual abuse.

In recent years, local authorities and NGOs have released a number of findings highlighting the extent of child abuse and wider sexual assaults within society.

The state-run Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital’s (IGMH’s) Family Protection Unit reported in 2010 that the centre was notified of 42 cases of rape between 2005-2010. Most of these cases were found to involve minors.

According to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, 13 rape cases were reported last year alone, the majority of which most were gang rapes or assaults involving minors.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political parties bill passed with 10,000 member prerequisite

Parliament today passed the long-awaited political parties bill with a clause requiring a minimum of 10,000 members for registration.

Upon ratification, the bill will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

The legislation was passed with 64 votes in favour and four against.

Article 11 of the bill states that at least 10,000 signatures would be needed to register a party at the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to ensure that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

An amendment proposed by MP Ibrahim Muttalib to lower the figure to 5,000 was defeated 59-6 at today’s sitting of parliament.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only three have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

According to the latest figures from the EC, the MDP currently has 47,192 members, DRP has 25,190 members and PPM has 17,900 members.

Business magnate MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhooree Party (JP) has 8,931 members with 5,149 pending membership forms.

The religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) has 5,708 members, down from over 6,000 in February this year.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) has 3,427 members while the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) led by Dr Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed has 2,125 members.

Meanwhile, the legislation passed today also stipulates that the Male’ City Council (MCC) must provide a 1,000 square feet plot in the capital for parties with membership exceeding 20,000.  The plot would be used as an administrative office or meeting hall, for which the party would be required to pay rent.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Prior to the passage of the landmark legislation today, political parties were governed by a regulation.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate that parties whose membership falls below the figure would be dissolved.

In March, EC Chair Fuad Thaufeeq told Minivan News that these regulations were “vague” as parties were not required to maintain 3,000 members.

The review of the political parties bill (Dhivehi) was meanwhile completed by the Independent Institutions Committee on December 10. Following a preliminary debate, it was sent to the committee on April 19, 2010.

Writing in his personal blog (Dhivehi) in October, the committee’s chair MP Nasheed revealed that “a clear majority” voted in favour of requiring parties to gain 5000 members before it can be officially registered, and 10,000 members before becoming eligible for state funds.

At the time, Nasheed expressed confidence that the committee’s decision would not be overturned on the Majlis floor when the bill was put up for a vote. He noted that the clauses for membership numbers were backed by the main political parties in parliament.

“When the law is passed, the current registered parties with less than 5,000 members would be given a six month period to reach the figure. If a party fails to reach that figure by the end of the period, the particular party would be dissolved,” Nasheed explained.

The minimum number of membership was later raised to 10,000 and the period shortened to three months before the draft legislation was presented to the Majlis floor for today’s vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)