Author: Ahmed Naish

MP Yameen questioned by National Security Committee over alleged illegal oil trade

MP Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom was grilled by parliament’s National Security Committee today over allegations of an illegal oil trade worth US$800 million with Burma while the Mulaku MP was chairman of the State Trading Organisation (STO).

In the face of repeated questioning during today’s meeting, Yameen denied any involvement in “micro-management” of STO subsidiary companies during his time as chairman until 2005.

A resolution proposed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa to investigate the allegations was sent to the National Security Committee on August 2, which has since summoned and questioned senior STO officials.

Article 99 of the constitution grants parliamentary committees the power to “summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath, or to produce documents.”

The allegations first appeared in February this year in India’s The Week magazine in a cover story by Sumon K. Chakrabarti, Chief National Correspondent of CNN-IBN, who described Yameen as “the kingpin” of a scheme to buy subsidised oil through STO’s branch in Singapore and sell it through a joint venture called ‘Mocom Trading’ to the Burmese military junta, at a black market premium price.

Mocom Trading
“The Maldives receives subsidised oil from OPEC nations, thanks to its 100 percent Sunni Muslim population. The Gayooms bought oil, saying it was for the Maldives, and sold it to Myanmar on the international black market. As Myanmar is facing international sanctions, the junta secretly sold the Burmese and ‘Maldivian’ oil to certain Asian countries, including a wannabe superpower,” alleged Chakrabarti.

“Sources in the Singapore Police said their investigation has confirmed ‘shipping fraud through the diversion of chartered vessels where oil cargo intended for the Maldives was sold on the black market creating a super profit for many years’,” the report added.

Referencing an unnamed Maldivian cabinet Minister, The Week stated that: “what is becoming clear is that oil tankers regularly left Singapore for the Maldives, but never arrived here.'”

The article drew heavily on an investigation report by international accountancy firm Grant Thornton, commissioned by the government in March 2010, which obtained three hard drives containing financial information of transactions from 2002 to 2008. No digital data was available before 2002, and the paper trail “was hazy”.

In 2004, investigators from accountancy firm KPMG found in an STO audit that Mocom Trading was set up in February that year as a joint venture between STO Singapore and a Malaysian company called ‘Mocom Corporation Sdn Bhd’, with the purpose of selling oil to Myanmar and an authorised capital of US$1 million.

According to The Week, the company had four shareholders: Kamal Bin Rashid, a Burmese national, two Maldivians: Fathimath Ashan and Sana Mansoor (employees of STO), and a Malaysian named Raja Abdul Rashid Bin Raja Badiozaman, who was the Chief of Intelligence for the Malaysian armed forces for seven years.

As well as the four shareholders, former Managing Director of STO Singapore, Ahmed Muneez, served as the director.

Malaysia’s Mocom Corporation was one of four companies with a tender to sell oil to the Burmese junta, alongside Daewoo, Petrocom Energy and Hyundai.

Muneez, Ashan and Sana have been questioned by the National Security Committee over the past two weeks.

“Ex officio”

At today’s committee meeting, Yameen maintained that chairmanship of the STO board was an “ex officio” (by right of office) post, and as the affairs of Mocom Trading was managed by the STO subsidiary company in Singapore, “it doesn’t reach the STO board in Male’.”

The STO chairman under the previous government was not an executive chairman who handled day-to-day management of the state-owned enterprise, Yameen explained, adding that appointing board members to subsidiaries was handled by the Managing Director.

“Yameen is the chairman of STO, Singapore STO’s chairman is Mohamed Hussein Manik, Mocom Singapore – its called Mocom Singapore because it was formed in Singapore – has a board, a chairman and MD,” he said. “So information about STO subsidiary companies and STO JVs (joint ventures), even if its run in the Maldives, does not come to the STO board.”

The STO board would not know of the dealings of companies such as Fuel Supply Maldives, which supplies oil to resorts and inhabited islands, “because each company is a legal entity and its board has full discretion to conduct any legal business as broadly as it wants.”

He added that “micro-management issues” of subsidiary companies were not dealt with by the STO board and the chairman “did not know and did not have to know”.

Asked by MDP MP Mohamed Thoriq if he believed Mocom Trading was formed illegally, Yameen said he did not know “even the date the company was formed” or Mocom’s board members.

Former STO Managing Director Manik had previously told the committee that he discovered Mocom’s existence when the issue came up at an annual general meeting.

Asked by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed Nashiz if he visited Singapore on official trips on behalf of STO, Yameen said he never went to Singapore with the express purpose of evaluating STO Singapore.

Nashiz had said at last night’s meeting that the total value of STO’s oil trade amounted to over US$4 billion – or Rf61 billion – over the course of 14 years and six months “if the information [STO Singapore MD] Muneez gave us was accurate.”

Nashiz suggested that Muneez’s claim that he “made all the decisions on his own” was dubious.

DRP MP Rozaina Adam meanwhile noted today that testimony by STO MD Manik and STO Singapore MD Muneez “conflicted” as Manik insisted he was unaware of Mocom’s formation but Muneez said it was formed after the head office provided all the required legal documentation.

Manik had also revealed at the committee that Muneez’s annual bonus was withheld as a result of his role in forming the joint venture without a board resolution.

Asked by Rozaina if the MD had shared any concerns with the chairman, Yameen said he had not.

Yameen however said he found it “very hard to believe” that the MD or accounting section would have been unaware of the transactions with Mocom.

Moreover, Singapore had the strictest commercial laws in the region and the trade in question was conducted with “back-to-back LCs (lines of credit)” with “first-class banks,” said Yameen, making it difficult to siphon off money to a third party as it would require a letter with instructions to do so, which would have been noted as “highly unusual.”

Today’s meeting was disrupted at frequent intervals by shouting matches that broke out between MDP and the former president’s newly-formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM). MP Yameen, half-brother of Gayoom and long-serving Trade Minister in his cabinet, was elected by the PPM interim council as its parliamentary group leader.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament deadlocked for second week

Parliament was disrupted and cancelled less than half an hour into today’s sitting after opposition MPs vociferously objected to the presence of convicted MP Ismail Abdul Hameed, insisting that sittings could not go ahead with the Kaashidhoo MP in attendance.

Hameed was convicted of corruption on August 29 and sentenced to 18 months banishment. He has since appealed the Criminal Court verdict at the High Court, which concluded hearings last week and is due to issue a ruling.

Parliament sittings have been cancelled since last Monday as a result of the dispute over Hameed’s right to participate in sittings and committee meetings pending a High Court decision.

Discussions among parliamentary group leaders to resolve the deadlock have so far been unsuccessful. Some committee meetings, where legislation is reviewed and stakeholders consulted, have however been taking place over the past two weeks.

Responding to points of order raised by opposition MPs today, Speaker Abdulla Shahid said parliament did not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to determine if an MP should be stripped of his or her seat.

Shahid noted that according to article 74 of the constitution, “Any question concerning the qualification or removal, or vacating of seats, of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.”

“The constitution doesn’t say the Majlis Speaker, a Majlis member or any other state institution could do it,” he said, adding that by-elections would be called and conducted by the independent Elections Commission (EC).

The Speaker explained that the EC had sent a letter to parliament requesting that the Supreme Court’s counsel be sought to resolve the dispute.

According to article 95 of the constitution, parliament could “by resolution refer to the Supreme Court for hearing and consideration important questions of law concerning any matter, including the interpretation of the constitution and the constitutional validity of any statute.”

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee has however been unable to reach a decision on seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on the issue.

Shahid noted that the Supreme Court could only offer assistance if parliament passed a resolution.

“Therefore, a solution to this could be found when the Supreme Court considers the issue and makes a decision,” he said. “Today’s sitting was held because as Speaker I believe that until then we should proceed with the work of this Majlis.”

Opposition MPs however continued to raise points of order contending that there was no room for dispute as an MP with a sentence to serve could not attend parliament. After the series of consecutive points of order, Speaker Shahid called off today’s sitting.

A Parliament Watch report, prepared by Transparency Maldives with UNDP support and released in June this year, found that a quarter of all sittings last year were terminated due to disruption.

Following last week’s forced cancellations, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that opposition MPs did not wish to disrupt proceedings but were objecting because article 73(c)(3) of the constitution clearly stated that MPs found guilty of a criminal offence “and sentenced to a term of more than twelve months” would be stripped of their seat.

“What if later at some point the High Court and the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s ruling and declares that his seat is vacant?” he asked. “If that happens, then another issue will be raised – how do we know if the votes he gives now are valid?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police question Ibra over “unclear” offence

Police summoned President’s Advisor Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail for questioning last night after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) requested the former Male’ MP be investigated for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges” at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally on September 2.

Speaking to press outside police headquarters, Ibra’s lawyer Ahmed Abdulla Afeef said “it was unclear” what offence or crime Ibra was suspected or accused of committing.

“Police said it was to clarify information after a letter was sent from the Judicial Service Commission,” he explained, adding that the alleged offence, or under which specific penal provision the investigation was to be conducted, was not clearly stated.

The letter from the JSC referred to an article on newspaper Haveeru reporting Ibra’s remarks at the September 2 MDP rally at Kaafu Thulusdhoo, Afeef said, stressing that neither police nor the JSC letter referred to any violation of laws.

“Judges are issuing verdicts any way they please. The effort we have to make against this is not inconsiderable. It was citizens who came out and ousted Maumoon from power. The matter of judges too can only be sorted out by citizens rising up,” Ibra, who was also the first elected president of MDP, was quoted as saying in newspaper Haveeru.

Ibra said last night he had “complete assurance” that criminal charges could not be pressed against him “because I have not committed a crime specified in the law.”

The former chair of the Special Majlis’ constitution drafting committee urged police to conduct a full investigation.

Ibra added that he was “very happy” that “today we have police who brings the law to bear on people in high posts of the government.”

“I won’t [exercise the right to] remain silent to evade the law, I won’t obstruct police investigations and court trials through various means to evade the law,” he asserted.

“Runaway judiciary”

The JSC is constitutionally mandated to investigate complaints of misconduct by judges, take disciplinary action and recommend dismissal of judges by parliament (through a two-thirds majority). Last year, 143 complaints were filed at the commission; by its own statistics none were tabled and only five were ever replied to.

Outspoken whistle-blower and then-President’s member on the JSC, Aishath Velezine, was meanwhile stabbed in the street in January this year.

In late 2010, Velezinee launched an emotive appeal against “a runaway judiciary” and the constitutionally-mandated reappointment of judges after vetting by the JSC, despite a quarter of sitting judges possessing criminal records and many having only finished seventh grade.

The majority of the current bench was appointed by former President Maumoom Abdul Gayoom, who was “the highest authority on administering justice” under the old constitution, with powers to appoint and dismiss judges as well as grant pardons and amnesties.

In an interview with Minivan News in September, Ibra argued that the JSC had been “compromised” and “the Supreme Court and key elements within the judiciary are still controlled by Gayoom – directly or indirectly.”

Ibra’s criticism of the judiciary at a ruling party rally in September prompted the JSC to conduct an “emergency meeting” where it decided to ask the “relevant authorities” to carry out an official investigation.

The Supreme Court meanwhile issued a press statement contending that Ibra’s remarks encouraged “the illegal curtailment of the tasks of the judiciary” and could lead to “the loss of peace and security of the Maldivian state and plunge the nation into unrest.”

Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla is also the chair of the JSC, which has three judges from three tiers of the judiciary, one lawyer elected by licensed lawyers, one member of the public, the Speaker of parliament, an MP elected by parliament, a member of the President, the Attorney General and the chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Ibra meanwhile sued the Supreme Court last month for defamation in light of its statement. Shortly after the case registered, the apex court issued a writ of prohibition and took over the defamation case against itself from the Civil Court.

As a result, Ibra said at the time, “I now have to go before the Supreme Court and say to them ‘You have defamed me, now please decide in my favour.’”

He suggested that the Supreme Court’s reaction “establishes what I originally claimed. We as citizens – the public – have to do something. We can’t let seven idiots hijack the justice system of the entire country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PIC investigating police handling of MDP protest

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) is investigating police handling of a ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest on October 20 outside the Supreme Court that spread to the residence of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Speaking at a press conference today, PIC Chair Shahinda Ismail revealed that four people lodged complaints with the commission after the disturbances outside Gayoom’s residence Endherimaage.

“While protests around the area of the Supreme Court are definitely prohibited, I believe that police failed to carry out their responsibilities by allowing people to gather there,” she said.

In a press statement last week, the PIC questioned whether police had done enough to control the protest and prevent damages to private property. The commission said it would investigate the events of the day and recommend legal action.

After a wooden plank allegedly thrown from Gayoom’s residence critically injured a 17-year-old, MDP activists threw rocks at the building, clashed with Gayoom supporters blocking the entrance and tried to knock down the door of adjoining residence Maafanu Endherigas.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam explained last week that demonstrations in certain areas, including courts and army gates, are prohibited by the Regulation on Assembly, put in place by executive decree under the previous government.

“Members of the Maldivian Democratic Party and Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) have both gathered in these areas though, even though we have requested them not to. Some of them have gone to the army gates and the President’s gate as well, so occasionally we have to address the issue,” he said.

Police meanwhile issued a press statement last night defending its actions on the day of the MDP protest, claiming that “some people are trying to blame police and relentlessly spreading misinformation to mislead the public.”

Prior to the protest, which was announced to begin at 3.30pm, the statement noted that police put up security lines and road blocks at 2.45pm around the Supreme Court and cordoned off the area.

“The area was closed off to prevent people from gathering there and to ensure there was no hindrance to the hearing to be conducted at the Supreme Court,” the police statement said.

However, while police made way for MP Mohamed Musthafa to enter the Supreme Court, “others entered into the cordoned area saying they had registered for the hearing.”

“As police had not been provided with information about those authorised to observe the hearing, while they entered the area others who had not been registered also came in,” police said.

As the Supreme Court had requested security and police believed that attempts to arrest protesters and disperse the crowd could have led to disturbances and affected the hearing, “police tried to control the protest and prevent more people from coming into [the cordoned area] until the hearing was concluded.”

The statement noted that in similar circumstances police used its discretion to restrain from using force to ensure that “the work of state institutions are not disrupted.”

When the crowd marched to Endherimaage after Musthafa emerged from court, police officers remained outside the Supreme Court.

Police officers were dispatched to the area around Endherimaage shortly after clashes erupted, the statement noted, and the officers were able to control the disturbances and disperse the crowd.

Minivan News journalists at the scene noted that police arrived after several MDP activists attempted to knock down the door of Endherigas and Endherimaage. Some protesters had briefly entered Endherigas but were kept out by a young man wielding a metal cone.

Police officers however blocked the entrance of both houses after they arrived at the scene, some 10 or 15 minutes after the violence erupted.

The police statement meanwhile criticised the PIC for putting out its statement last week allegedly without clarifying the matter with police.

“As the Police Integrity Commission is a commission formed to investigate with fairness complaints against police, this service deeply regrets [the commission] releasing such statements based on false information being spread in the media by political parties for political reasons without completing its investigation and unlike how it acts in similar cases,” it reads.

The statement alleged that individual police officers were facing intimidation from politicians, which was “unacceptable.”

At today’s PIC conference, Shahinda however denied that the commission acted any differently in the wake of the controversial MDP protest.

The purpose of the statement was to assure the public that it was investigating the incidents, she continued, noting that the four complainants were not all political parties with a political motivation.

“We have released statements regarding other serious cases as well where we wanted to appeal to the police,” she said.

Asked if police were subject to undue political influence, Shahinda said she could not comment on the present case before the inquiry was over, “but generally I don’t believe there is political influence over police.”

Shahinda also said that the police explanation for not dispersing the crowd was not a valid reason.

“After people had already gathered, not dispersing the crowd saying the hearing could be affected is not an acceptable excuse,” she said. “I don’t believe people should have been allowed to gather there in the first place.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Employment Tribunal members took unrecorded overtime pay worth 45 percent of their salaries: audit report

Members of the Employment Tribunal received 45 percent of their salary as overtime pay every month from December 2008 to March 2010 without records of overtime hours, according to the tribunal’s audit report for 2010 made public by the Auditor General’s Office last week.

“Members took a total of Rf275,904 (US$17,892) as overtime pay,” the report found. “While as a rule overtime pay is given based on records of work done after official hours and since overtime pay is not part of the salary, this office believes that the overtime pay should not have been given to members without maintaining records.”

The audit report noted that the Employment Tribunal was asked by the Auditor General in March 2010 to clarify the issue of overtime pay with the President’s Office.

The President’s Office informed the tribunal on March 23, 2010 that the overtime pay should be given based on extra hours worked and not exceeding 45 percent of members’ salary.

After the Auditor General raised the issue of the overtime pay granted from December 2008 to March 2010, the President’s Office designated the payments made as fixed overtime pay.

Among other issues noted in the audit report, the tribunal incurred fines for late payment of utility bills and the responsible staff member did not reimburse the office budget.

In addition, attendance records for part-time members of the tribunal were not kept for the period between December 2008 and March 2009.

Moreover, records dating after March 2009 showed that some part-time members worked only three days a month and minutes of tribunal hearings revealed that part-time members did not attend a number of hearings.

Some hearings were meanwhile cancelled because part-time members on the panel could not attend due to other commitments.

Minutes of meetings also revealed that discussions were held upon request by complainants to reconstitute panels with part-time members due to long delays in resolving disputes.

“While adequate services were not received from part-time members, we note that they were given a total of Rf350,271 (US$22,715) as salary during their time as members [of the tribunal],” the report noted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP members in Thinadhoo protest inaction over 17 year-old injured by wooden plank

Members of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in Gaaf Dhaal Thinadhoo conducted a protest march Friday calling on the authorities to bring those responsible to justice after a 17 year-old from the island, Hussein Hassan, was severely injured by a wooden plank allegedly thrown from Maafanu Endherigas.

Hussein Hassan was struck on the head by a wooden pole during an MDP protest on October 20 outside Maafanu Endherimaage, residence of the former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The injury left the 17 year-old with skull fractures and paralysis down one side of his body.

According to the MDP website, about 300 participated in the protest, carrying party flags as well as placards and banners condemning the release of Gassan and calling for the perpetrator to face trial and answer for the crime.

While Police arrested Mohamed Gassan Maumoon, son of the former President, on suspicion of hurling the wooden block last week, the Criminal Court ruled that his arrest was unlawful as due process was not followed and ordered his release.

Following his release and media reports suggesting the incident took place, police exhibited video footage of the wooden pole striking the 17 year-old victim on the head while MDP protesters were outside Endherimaage.

Gassan’s lawyer, Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim ‘Wadde’, claimed to local media that the plank was thrown by a protester.

At the police briefing, Superintendent Mohamed Jinah said police wished to “reveal the truth” about the incident as “deliberately false allegations have been made against police using the media” and “relentless efforts” had been made to cast aspersions on police and its senior officers.

“We had reasons to implicate Gassan Maumoon in this matter,” Jinah said, adding that police had statements from eight witnesses who saw Gassan on the balcony as well as photos taken by a police forensic team of wooden poles inside the Endherimaage building Thursday night.

In addition to eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, said Jinah, the “most important reason” for suspecting Gassan was his admission upon questioning that he did step out to the balcony.

Following his admission, said Jinah, “after a gesture from his lawyer he then exercised the right to remain silent.”

Upon request by police, the Criminal Court has since imposed a travel ban on Gassan for one month.

“Trial by media”

In a statement released to local media on Thursday, Gassan denied the allegations and insisted he would prove his innocence in a court of law.

Gassan accused Superintendent Jinah of using his statements during questions for “political purposes,” explaining that he chose to remain silent out of concern that the investigation was politically-motivated and could be used to harm his family.

Gassan said he exercised the constitutional right to remain silent after police appeared to “casting a net” around him for political ends.

The former President’s son concluded his statement by accusing police of attempting to conduct “trial by media” and making misleading statements to the public.

In interviews with local media outlets, Gassan claimed police senior officials were motivated by a desire for promotions as a reward for his arrest and detention.

“Double-standards in double-quick time”

Gassan’s release was meanwhile condemned by the ruling party as testament to the “open double-standards” and “politicisation” of senior judges.

“When former President Gayoom’s son is arrested – for an extremely serious offence, namely leaving a young man with brain damage – the court convenes extraordinarily at 16:00hrs the same day and, after ignoring materials provided by the police to support his detention, is able to hand down a judgment of unlawful arrest that evening,” noted Chairman ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik in a statement. “Compare this with the treatment of Ilham, an MDP activist who was arrested for damaging private property and who the very same Criminal Court decided, at the same time as freeing Ghassan, to remand in custody for a further five days pending investigations.”

“Senior members of the judiciary are no longer even offering the pretence of due process or rule of law; they are acting according to their own personal interests and allegiances, with complete contempt for justice. A young man is lying in hospital paralyzed down one side, and the chief suspect in the attack last night walked free from court and went with his friends and family to celebrate their “victory”. On the same day, a ‘normal’ citizen, who lacks Ghassan’s family connections, has his detention – on far less serious charges – extended by five days. This is double-standards in double-quick time.”

Last Wednesday, the MDP’s national council approved a resolution submitted by Thinadhoo MP Mohamed Gassan to condemn “the Criminal Court’s obstruction of police efforts to investigate this brutal act” and call on the authorities to take action.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police exhibit video footage of falling plank injuring 17 year-old outside Endherimaage

Police have exhibited video footage of a wooden pole thrown from above injuring a 17 year-old during a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest outside former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s residence, Maafanu Endherimaage.

At a press briefing last night, Superintendent Mohamed Jinah said police wished to “reveal the truth” about the incident as “deliberately false allegations have been made against police using the media” to bring the institution into disrepute, and “relentless attempts” had been made to cast aspersions on police and its senior officers.

On Monday, police arrested Gassan Maumoon, son of the former President, on suspicion of hurling the 5-foot block of wood from the Endherimaage building. The Criminal Court however ruled that his arrest was unlawful and ordered his release.

The video footage shows the wooden pole strike the victim on the head and the crowd scattering after other objects were thrown down. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, Minivan News journalists observed gravel, hot boiling water and sharp metal objects raining down on protesters.

Jinah said the victim, Hussein Hassan, Gaaf Dhaal Thinadhoo Semy, had to undergo brain surgery to repair damage to his skull and “one side of his body is paralysed.”

Police did not want to reveal such video footage to the public lightly, said Jinah, but did so in this case because “many people have been using different media to claim that [the incident] never happened and make serious allegations against police contrary to the truth of the matter to bring the institution into disrepute.”

Police were also investigating damage caused to private property during the MDP protest and ascertaining the cost of the damages, Jinah said, adding however that police had not been provided security camera footage from residences in the area upon request.

Two MDP activists were arrested on suspicion of causing damage to the former President’s residence and adjoining houses. The pair have since been released after interrogation despite the Criminal Court extending their arrest for five days.

Of the two cases under investigation, said Jinah, “the most important and serious matter” was the “life-threatening” incident that left the 17-year-old hospitalised.

“We had reasons to implicate Gassan Maumoon in this matter,” Jinah said, adding that police had statements from eight witnesses who saw Gassan on the balcony as well as photos taken by a police forensic team of wooden poles inside the Endherimaage building Thursday night.

In addition to eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, said Jinah, the “most important reason” for suspecting Gassan was his admission upon questioning that he did step out to the balcony.

When Gassan let slip that he was on the balcony, Jinah said “after a gesture from his lawyer he then exercised the right to remain silent.”

“When a police investigation team gets such information, there is no reason not to suspect a person of committing a crime,” he asserted.

The Criminal Court’s decision to order Gassan’s release was not based on the evidence submitted but “a procedural point” argued by the legal team of the accused.

Gassan’s lawyers filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, or release from unlawful arrest, before police were due to take the former President’s son before the Criminal Court for an extension of detention.

The Criminal Court has since imposed a one-month travel ban upon request by police.

Meanwhile in a video message released before his arrest with footage from opposition-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV, Gassan denied the allegations and said he heard the protesters call for Gayoom to be “brought out, killed and dragged through the street.”

“At this dangerous moment, my priority was to take my father and mother to what I saw as the safest place in the house,” he said. “Afterwards, I called Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh and asked for help to save us. However we haven’t seen those who committed this atrocity taken for interrogation.”

After being summoned for questioning on Saturday, Gassan noted that police informed his lawyer by phone that a second summons chit was cancelled.

However, a third chit was issued the night before his arrest: “We believe that a third chit came to me after the government directly influenced police and ordered them,” he said.

Asked about the circumstances surrounding Gassan’s arrest, Jinah said Gassan was summoned a second time after receiving new information.

“We decided to take him into custody at the police headquarters,” he said. “If a person cannot be arrested at a police office, I don’t believe we can arrest a person on the street either.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC forwards cases against senior officials of Thilafushi Corporation for prosecution

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has concluded its investigation into alleged corruption committed by the Thilafushi Corporation Ltd (TCL) in awarding a land reclamation project to Heavy Load Maldives – a family business of ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairman ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik – and sent cases against three senior TCL officials for prosecution.

The three members of the bid evaluation committee facing corruption charges are Managing Director Mohamed Wafir, Director Mohamed Adhil Rasheed and former Acting Manager Ibrahim Riyaz.

A statement put out by the ACC yesterday noted that the US$21 million project was not awarded with the advice of the TCL board and in violation of the government-owned company’s operating procedures.

The ACC investigation found that TCL provided US$3 million to Heavy Load as a mobilisation payment without the approval of either the engineer or the board’s majority.

Moreover, TCL accepted three vessels worth US$1.8 million as advance payment security without a valuation of the vessels. The security document was signed by a director of Heavy Load Maldives while a board resolution from the company authorising the director to sell or mortgage assets was not submitted.

Based on its finding, the ACC concluded that the three evaluation committee members tried to “illegally benefit a particular party” in the awarding of the project.

In addition, the ACC found that TCL was in the process of revising the project and replacing its engineer, Abdulla Ziyad, as the contractor appeared unlikely to complete the project on time.

The dredging was part of TCL’s development of a new port catering to 15,000 ton cargo ships and container terminal, on 3.8 million square foot of land. The industrial zone development project is partly intended to free up land currently occupied by the port in Male’, one of the most densely populated cities in the world at over 100,000 people per square kilometre.

Meanwhile, in a second statement put out today, the ACC revealed that it had also requested the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to prosecute TCL’s Corporate and Legal Affairs Manager Mohamed Latheef as he had failed to provide a copy of a board resolution approving the decision to sue the ACC after it ordered the project to be halted.

Latheef had assured the ACC on August 21 that he would send a copy to the commission, the statement noted.

TCL sued the ACC on April 21 claiming the commission’s order to stop work on the US$21 million Thilafushi reclamation project was not legally justifiable.

In April, TCL lawyer Mazlan Rasheed argued at the Civil Court that the ACC did not have legal authority to order the government corporation to scrap the project, which was was both “irresponsible” and “unlawful” as the order was made before the commission completed its investigation process.

TCL therefore requested that the Civil Court declare the ACC order unlawful, he said.

ACC lawyer Areef Ahmed Naseer however denied the claims, insisting that the commission acted within legal bounds.

Heavy Load Maldives was awarded the US$21 million project on September 30 last year, and inaugurated the project on February 4, 2011.

MP Moosa Manik told Minivan News in February this year that the commission’s order was politically motivated, claiming that “there is a part of the ACC that is not free and fair.”

“PA’s Deputy Leader [Ahmed] Nazim is very close with one of the commission members, [Abdulla] Hilmy, which needs closer investigation,” Moosa claimed. “I am a strong part of this government and I think this is a political trick. I haven’t even been into the Heavy Load office in one and a half months because of my campaigning [in the local council elections]. It is run by my family, my children.”

In an audio clip of a leaked phone call between Nazim and MP Abdulla Yameen that emerged in July 2010, the Deputy Speaker is heard to say that he has “given warnings” to ACC members to issue a press release, presumably regarding dismissed Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP appeals for international assistance over “intolerable situation” of judiciary

The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has appealed for assistance from the international community over the “increasingly blatant collusion between politicians loyal to the former autocratic President, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and senior members of the judiciary – most of whom were appointed by Gayoom during his thirty years of power.”

In a statement by the MDP forwarded to diplomatic missions and United Nations offices by the Foreign Ministry concerning the events of October 20, the ruling party explained that a protest was launched against “an ongoing, highly-politicised Supreme Court case” contesting the eligibility of MP Mohamed Musthafa for the May 2009 parliamentary elections.

“The Supreme Court case is the latest installment of an ongoing attempt by Gayoom to secure a parliamentary seat for his son, Gassan Maumoon,” the statement alleged, noting that Gassan was defeated by the MDP MP for Thimarafushi constituency.

The High Court however ordered a re-vote after Gassan challenged the result, which was won again by Musthafa.

“Having lost two votes – both recognised as free and fair by the independent Elections Commission (EC) – the Gayoom family again turned to the courts for help,” the statement continues.

“Umar Naseer, a senior member of Gayoom’s political party [Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)], lodged a case at the Supreme Court claiming that Musthafa had not been eligible to run for parliament because of an outstanding debt owed to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) – a bank which became insolvent and had its loans and debts taken over by the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA).”

Musthafa at Supreme Court

After the MMA clarified to Musthafa that he did not have an outstanding debt, the EC decided that he was eligible to stand for the Thimarafushi seat.

However, Umar Naseer told Minivan News in May 2010 that Musthafa “has to pay US$31,231.66 (Rf401,326.83)” to the MMA and that the Civil Court ruled on August 28, 1997 that the debt should be paid by MP Musthafa and his company Seafood International Private Limited.

“We raised the issue at the Elections Commission (EC) during the parliamentary elections and the former president of EC said that there was no debt which should be paid by Mustafa,” Umar said.”That’s why I took it to the Supreme Court.”

Before Musthafa was summoned to court last Thursday – which prompted the MDP national council to pass a resolution to launch a protest – the Supreme Court last conducted a hearing on the case on March 17 this year.

At last Thursday’s hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said the apex court wished to “clarify a few points after reviewing the case.”

The Supreme Court Justices asked Musthafa a number of questions regarding the case, including if he had issued a personal guarantee for the loan.

Musthafa said he had not given any personal guarantee and insisted that the loan was issued to Seafood International Pvt Ltd.

“Politicised”

Following the MDP’s protest alleging that the judiciary and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) were subject to political manipulation by the opposition and members of the former government, opposition parties accused the ruling party of attempting to exert undue influence over the judiciary by “intimidating judges,” warning of “dangerous” consequences for the nation.

The MDP statement meanwhile contended that Musthafa’s case “fits a pattern whereby cases filed against MDP supporters and those who sympathise with the MDP are fast-tracked while more serious cases against family and friends of Gayoom never reach court.”

On August 29, Independent MP Ismail Abdul Hameed was abruptly summoned to the Criminal Court and sentenced to one year and six months banishment about 30 minutes before a crucial vote on the government’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation. The Kaashidhoo MP had been voting with the ruling party on the economic reform bills.

The statement also referred to the corruption trial of Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim, charged with multiple counts of defrauding the former Atolls Ministry, which remains “indefinitely delayed.”

In the statement, MDP Chairman ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik accused senior judges of being “intent on defending the political and economic interests of their erstwhile friends and former paymasters from the regime of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.”

In May this year, the JSC, the watchdog body charged with overseeing the judiciary, abolished its Complaints Committee citing “efficiency”, with complaints against judges subsequently forwarded for review by the legal section and Chair Adam Mohamed Abdulla, a Supreme Court Justice.

Last year the JSC received 143 complaints concerning the conduct of judges. By its own statistics none were tabled in the commission, and only five were ever replied to. Chair of the former complaints commission, Aishath Velezinee, was meanwhile stabbed in the street in January this year.

The JSC also failed to table or even acknowledge receipt of a report on the judiciary produced by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which questioned whether the JSC’s possessed the technical ability and knowledge to investigate complaints and hold the judiciary accountable, as well as its independence.

Moosa went on to accuse the judiciary of “using the sanctity of judicial independence to protect the status quo and to remain unreformed. Nearly every judge appointed by Gayoom has retained his place on the bench – despite the fact that many of them have no legal qualifications whatsover.”

“We therefore look to our friends in the international community to help us address this difficult situation, and to support efforts to secure that which we all want – a strong, independent, professional judiciary, responsible to the needs of the society it serves,” the statement concludes.

Meanwhile in a statement released yesterday, the party revealed that its Councillor AbuBakr Fulhu “was unexpectedly called to the High Court for sentencing in a case originally brought in 2009 under Article 88(a) which contended that he had encouraged his brother to argue with a magistrate.

“The Criminal Court originally acquitted him, however, the local MP (an ally of Gayoom) has been pressing for a review by the High Court. Today, two years after the last hearing on the case, the High Court has suddenly summoned Aboo Bakr Fulhu for sentencing.”

The ruling party contended that the move was “clearly part of a concerted campaign, and we thus call on the international community to be vigilant. For example, senior members of Gayoom’s party, such as Umar Naseer, are informing the public about the outcome of cases against MDP supporters – before the verdicts have even been handed down, and are publicly predicting that many more MDP MPs will be brought before the courts and will be stripped of their seats”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)