“Freedom of religion remains severely restricted”: US State Department

Legal restrictions on freedom of religion in the Maldivian constitution and laws are generally enforced in practice by the government, observed a US State Department ‘July-December 2010 International Freedom of Religion Report’ made public yesterday.

The new constitution enacted in 2008 designates Islam as the official state religion and states that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.”

“There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the government during the reporting period. Freedom of religion remained severely restricted,” the report found. “The government required that all citizens be Muslims, and government regulations were based on Sharia (Islamic law).”

However it added that “[t]here were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.”

On constitutional restrictions to freedom of religion and conscience, the report noted that religion was “excluded from a list of attributes for which people should not be discriminated against.”

Meanwhile under the Protection of Religious Unity Act of 1994, any statement or action contrary to the law could be punished either by a fine or imprisonment.

Following the 2008 presidential election, the report noted, President Mohamed Nasheed replaced the former Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs with the current Ministry of Islamic Affairs and appointed the head of the religious conservative Adhaalath party as its minister.

“Minivan News reported that every Friday prayer since President Nasheed’s inauguration had been led by a religious figure from the Adhaalath Party,” the report noted. “It stated that in this way, Islam was being controlled by one group at the expense of other prominent scholars. The same report observed that a new ministry newspaper published every Friday, called Road to Steadfastness, printed only articles written by Adaalath Party members. According to government officials, the purpose was to maintain a moderate Islamic environment rather than an extremist one.”

The report also referred to the ministry’s ban on religion groups holding independent or separate Friday prayer congregations earlier than the fixed time of 12:35pm: “The ministry justified the ban, stating that separate prayer groups violated the Protection of Religious Unity Act that was intended to promote religious homogeneity.”

Although apostasy or conversion by a Maldivian Muslim to another religion was interpreted as a Shariah law violation, “there were no known cases of the government discovering converts and rescinding citizenship as a result of conversion.”

“During previous reporting periods, would-be converts were detained and counseled to dissuade them from converting; however, according to press reports, a handful of persons in the country’s blogging community reportedly identified themselves as atheist or Christian,” the report stated.

Referring to reporting by Forum 18, a Norwegian human rights organisation that promotes freedom of religion, the State Department report noted that “many persons, especially secular individuals and non-Muslims, voiced their concern over the restrictions on religion in anonymous weblogs. The organization stated fear of social ostracism and government punishment prevented this concern from being openly expressed.”

On social pressure restricting religious freedom, the report found that “there has not been a pattern of discrimination, intolerance or harassment.”

The report however referred to the suicide of Ismail Mohamed Didi, an air traffic controller who was found hanged from the control tower of Male International Airport on July 11, 2010.

“An e-mail written by Ismail, released shortly after his death, revealed that he had been seeking asylum abroad for fear of persecution over his lack of religious belief,” it stated. “Ismail had admitted he was an atheist to his work colleagues and at the time of his death, he was the subject of an internal investigation for professed apostasy. He subsequently had been harassed at work and received anonymous phone calls threatening violence if he did not repent.”

Religious Unity

Meanwhile a report by United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, published in February 2011, expressed concern to the government that a number of provisions in the regulations on protection of religious unity drafted in May 2010 “may seriously hamper several human rights, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of opinion and expression.”

The Special Rapporteurs inquired after “steps have been taken by the Government to address the situation of members of religious minorities, dissenting believers and journalists, especially in order to guarantee their rights to freedom of religion or belief and to freedom of opinion and expression.”

However the Special Rapporteur had not received a response from the government as of February this year.

“The Special Rapporteur regrets that he has so far not received a reply from the Maldives Government concerning the above mentioned allegations,” the report stated. “He would like to appeal to the Government to ensure the right to freedom of religion or belief in accordance with article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Article 18 of the UDHR guarantees “freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching”.

The Special Rapporteur warned that “vague terms such as ‘religious unity’ or ‘disagreement’ (article 2 of the draft Regulations) makes the interpretation of the draft Regulations prone to abuse which may be detrimental for members of religious minorities and dissenting believers.”

Moreover, a number of provisions would conflict with the Maldives’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In the 2006 country report, the previous Special Rapporteur had noted that “the concept of national unity appears to have become inextricably linked to the concept of religious unity, and even religious homogeny, in the minds of the population.”

In addition, the 2006 report observed that “religion has been used as a tool to discredit political opponents and that political opponents have publicly accused each other of being either Christians or Islamic extremists, both of which have proved to be damaging accusations in a country in which religious unity is so highly regarded.”

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression meanwhile found in 2009 “that people are prevented both by legislative provisions and through social pressure from expressing their views about issues relevant to religion or belief and as a result exercise self-censorship.”

“Against this background, the Special Rapporteur would urge the Maldives
Government to reconsider the draft Regulations, specifically taking into account the international human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief and freedom of opinion and expression,” the report concluded.

“To this end, he calls upon the Maldives Government to allow for further debate and revision of the draft Regulations due to concerns that their implementation could have a significant negative impact on human rights in the country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court orders police to summon former Atolls Minister Abdulla Hameed

The Criminal Court has asked police to summon former Atolls Minister Abdulla Hameed to the Maldives under police custody to face corruption charges.

A court order issued last night requested police to summon 19 defendants whose cases have been stalled because they were out of the country.

Abdulla Hameed, brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and long-serving Speaker of Parliament, reportedly resides in Sri Lanka. In 2009, the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) pressed charges against Hameed for abuse of authority for financial gain to a third party.

A press statement by the Criminal Court noted that the order was made for the second time while a meeting was held with police on June 1, 2011 to discuss defendants at large.

The Criminal Court asked police to find Hameed in April 2011 and present him before the court after several hearings of the corruption case had to be cancelled.

Police said at the time that the Immigration Department had been instructed to hold Hameed’s passport should he ever return to the Maldives.

Police spokesperson Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam explained that when the court first requested police to summon Hameed in late 2009 he was not in the Maldives.

“But the court have not yet issued an arrest warrant or requested his arrest via Interpol,” Shiyam said in April. “His whereabouts remain unknown.”

In August 2009, police concluded an investigation into alleged corruption at the Atolls Ministry flagged in an audit report released earlier that year.

At a press conference on August 8, 2009, Chief Inspector Ismail Atheef exhibited numerous quotations, agreements, tender documents, receipts, forged bank statements and cheques implicating Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim, Eydhafushi MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem and Hameed  in a scam to defraud the ministry through fraudulent transactions.

Police investigations focused on three main points in the ministry’s audit report for 2007 and 2008: the purchase of mosque sound systems for over US$138,000; the purchase of 15,000 national flags for over US$110,000; and the purchase of 220 harbour lights at a cost of over US$151,000 from businesses with close ties to Nazim.

According to Atheef, Eydhafushi MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem, who was director of finance at the ministry, actively assisted the scam.

Atheef added that Mohamed Ali, an employee of Namira Engineering, and Abdulla Nashid, Nazim’s brother, further produced and signed bid documents.

Police said Hameed played a key role in the fraud by handing out bids without public announcements, making advance payments using cheques against the state asset and finance regulations, approving bid documents for unregistered companies and discriminatory treatment of bid applicants.

“In these cases, money laundering was involved,” Atheef said at the time. “I wouldn’t say money from these transactions was directly deposited to the accounts of Abdulla Hameed or Ahmed Saleem.

“Transactions take a long period. For example, I deposited five rufiyaa to an account, and from that account withdrew four rufiyaa as cash. Then deposit four rufiyaa to another account, by single denominations. A person who is looking at it from a distance would find it hard to trace.”

Conspiracy to defraud

Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim appeared in court last month to answer multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud the former Atolls Ministry. However the Criminal Court barred journalists from observing the trial.

Local daily Haveeru reported today that summons to the next trial date on September 29 was delivered to Nazim last night. The court had reportedly failed to hand over the chit to the People’s Alliance (PA) MP on eight occasions.

In November 2010, following the PGO’s decision to press charges, Hameed’s son and lawyer, Shaheen Hameed, issued a press statement arguing that the case was “politically motivated”.

Shaheen accused the PGO of double standards claiming that “people who confessed to the crime and gave statements to police regarding this case have not been prosecuted to date.”

In an earlier statement put out in October, Shaheen Hameed said his father was “ready to fully answer the charges made against him at trial.”

The prominent lawyer argued in the statement that there was no impediment from carrying out the trial in Hameed’s absence as his legal team was “ready to defend him.”

He added that both the police and PGO denied “repeated requests” for government documents related to the case, which were needed to prepare a defence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Details lacking in government expenditure statement: DRP

The first of weekly government expenditure and income statements made public by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury this week lacks detail and does not serve to promote transparency, contends the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom, also a member of the parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, told Minivan News today that the party “welcomed” the government following through on its pledge to publicise government expenditure on a weekly basis.

“But half the truth is often more deceptive than lies,” he said. “First of all, there were no details in the statement. It was just categorised expenditure without any detail of the expenditure.”

While the Health Ministry has spent Rf744 million (US$48 million) this year, said Mausoom, “we don’t know what the money was spent for or where it went.”

“The whole health sector was corporatised,” he said. “But basic health services have not improved. There is a lack of equipment or facilities that need to be renewed and there’s always talk of how more doctors are needed.”

DRP Deputy Leader Ahmed ‘Andey’ Mohamed meanwhile explained that if a household servant was given Rf100 for shopping and asked to provide details of expenditure “for him to say I spent Rf50 at shop A, Rf30 at shop B and Rf20 at shop C does not mean he provided any details of what he bought.”

Citizens should be made aware of details of expenditure and the services provided with public funds, he added.

One of the “main areas of concern”, said Dr Mausoom, was Rf1.9 billion (US$123 million) spent out of the Finance Ministry’s contingency budget.

“That is almost Rf2 billion. Where did that money go?” he asked, adding that reduced amounts from civil servants salaries that the government was ordered to pay back by the courts had not been released.

The DRP MP for Kelaa also questioned whether the Rf489 million (US$31.7 million) released to state-owned enterprises so far this year could be categorised as “investment.”

A number of “dodgy companies” were dealing with domestic corporations, such as regional utilities and health corporations, he continued, and planning for “unfeasible business projects” with surveys and Memorandums of Understanding.

“A lot of cost would be incurred for that and it can’t really be considered investments,” he argued, revealing that there were 62 government-owned corporations.

Moreover, as a footnote of the expenditure and income summary stated that the figures were taken from reports that “have not been reconciled or audited,” Dr Mausoom suggested that “the numbers are likely to be understated” and subject to change.

“So there are a lot of unanswered questions,” he said. “But it is good that this has been made public because we are able to raise these issues. If the government wants to dispel all doubts, they should provide full details down to the last laari, which won’t be that hard to do.”

Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz was not responding at the time of press.

Deficit spending

Meanwhile among the highest spending line ministries and institutions were the Education Ministry with Rf1.2 billion (US$77.8 million), the Home Ministry with Rf751 million (US$48 million), Housing Ministry with Rf652 million (US$42 million) and local councils with Rf359 million (US$23 million).

According to the statement put out by the Finance Ministry, government expenditure (Rf7.5 billion) outstripped revenue (Rf6.3 billion) by 20 percent between January 1 and September 8, 2011.

As a consequence, the fiscal deficit reached Rf1.3 billion (US$84 million) at the end of last week.

In addition to Rf3.2 billion (US$207.5 million) spent on salaries and allowances for state employees – the single largest source of expenditure – Rf2.4 billion (US$155.6 million) was needed to cover recurrent expenditure or administrative costs.

Capital expenditure was meanwhile Rf1.2 billion (US$77.8 million) while spending on debt service reached Rf563 million (US$36.5 million).

DRP Deputy Leader Ahmed Mohamed observed that capital expenditure – capital outlays for local component of development projects, fixed assets maintenance and investments for state-owned enterprises – was “only 17 percent of the budget” while recurrent expenditure was over 75 percent.

In December 2010, parliament approved a Rf12.37 billion (US$802 million) annual state budget with a projected revenue of Rf8.8 billion (US$570.7 million) and recurrent expenditure of Rf9.8 billion (US$635.6 million) – 49 percent of which was to be spent on salaries and allowances.

The forecast for recurrent expenditure was 79 percent of government spending.

In March this year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that “significant policy slippages” have undermined the country’s ability to address its unsustainable budget deficit.

“On the expenditure side, there have been no net fiscal savings from public employment restructuring, public sector wages will be restored to their September 2009 levels earlier than expected, and the new Decentralisation and Disability Bills will lead to considerable spending increases,” the IMF noted in a statement.

The IMF said that while it recognised “the difficult political situation facing the authorities”, “decisive and comprehensive adjustment measures” were required to stabilise the economy, allow sustainable growth and reduce poverty. In particular, it raised concern about the “lack of significant progress in public employment restructuring.

Dr Mausoom meanwhile insisted that as government revenue was expected to exceed previous forecasts because of new tax revenue and reach almost Rf10 billion (US$648.5 million), “the deficit should be reduced by a corresponding amount to the boost in income.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Details of government spending and revenue made public

Government expenditure outstripped revenue by 20 percent between January 1 and September 8, 2011, according to the first of weekly expenditure statements made public by the Ministry of Finance and Treasury yesterday.

While government income reached Rf6.3 billion (US$408.6 million) at the end of last week, government spending however stood at Rf7.5 billion (US$486.4 million), resulting in a fiscal deficit of Rf1.3 billion (US$84 million) financed by loans and sale of Treasury bills.

In addition to Rf3.2 billion (US$207.5 million) spent on salaries and allowances for state employees – the single largest source of expenditure – Rf2.4 billion (US$155.6 million) was needed to cover recurrent expenditure or administrative costs.

Capital expenditure was meanwhile Rf1.2 billion (US$77.8 million) while spending on debt service or debt repayment reached Rf563 million (US$36.5 million).

President Nasheed announced at a ceremony held in August to unveil the government’s ‘Fiscal and Economic Reform Programme’ that the government would publicise details of expenditure on a weekly basis.

In December 2010, parliament approved a Rf12.37 billion (US$802 million) annual state budget with a projected revenue of Rf8.8 billion (US$570.7 million) and recurrent expenditure of Rf9.8 billion (US$635.6 million) – 49 percent of which was to be spent on salaries and allowances.

Recurrent expenditure was expected to be 79 percent of government spending.

An additional Rf200 million (US$12.9 million) was injected to the budget in anticipation of the local councils that came into being in February this year.

Plugging the deficit

In March this year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that “significant policy slippages” have undermined the country’s ability to address the ballooning budget deficit.

“On the expenditure side, there have been no net fiscal savings from public employment restructuring, public sector wages will be restored to their September 2009 levels earlier than expected, and the new Decentralisation and Disability Bills will lead to considerable spending increases,” the IMF noted in a statement. “Also, the Business Profit Tax will come on stream eighteen months later than planned [the tax came into force on July 18, 2011].”

The IMF warned that the Maldives economy was presently unsustainable, on the back of “expansionary fiscal policies” from 2004 which left the country especially vulnerable to the decline in tourism during the 2008-2009 recession.

The country’s fiscal deficit exploded on the back of a 400 percent increase in the government’s wage bill between 2004 and 2009, with tremendous growth between 2007 and 2009. On paper, the government increased average salaries from Rf3000 (US$195) to Rf11,000 (US$713) and boosted the size of the civil service from 24,000 to 32,000 people – 11 percent of the total population of the country – doubling government spending from 35 percent of GDP to 60 percent from 2004 to 2006.

The IMF said that while it recognised “the difficult political situation facing the authorities”, “decisive and comprehensive adjustment measures” were required to stabilise the economy, allow sustainable growth and reduce poverty. In particular, it raised concern about the “lack of significant progress in public employment restructuring.”

An internal World Bank report produced for the donor conference in May 2010 meanwhile noted that increases to the salaries and allowances of government employees between 2006 and 2008 reached 66 percent, which was “by far the highest increase in compensation over a three year period to government employees of any country in the world.”

President Nasheed told delegates at the conference that the government was “committed to financial prudence and long-term stability.”

“We have scrapped the reckless policies of the past, which saw money printed to finance a growing budget deficit,” he said, adding that the government was working with “international multilateral organisations, to ensure we do not spend more than we can afford.”

On the size of the bloated civil service, Nasheed said, “In the past, the government offered people jobs not because there was work that needed doing. The government offered people jobs as bribes; to get their allegiance to a repressive regime. Almost 10 per cent of the population works for the government – a staggering amount.

“And there are more civil servants than there is work to be done. Many government employees are under worked; chained to demoralising jobs. Our administration will therefore dramatically reduce the number of civil servants. But we must provide loans for outgoing civil servants, to help them set up businesses or acquire new skills.”

In April, the government announced a programme to incentivise voluntary redundancy in the civil service.

“Political backlash”

A UNDP paper on achieving debt sustainability in the Maldives published in December 2010 meanwhile observed that former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom responded to growing calls for democratisation in 2004 with “a substantial fiscal stimulus programme” of increased government spending, “much of which was not related to post-tsunami reconstruction efforts.”

When the impact of the worst global recession in decades struck the Maldives in September 2008, “the Maldivian economy was already in the middle of a severe economic crisis with substantial fiscal and current account deficits, high liquidity growth, double digit inflation, pressure on the fixed exchange rate, increases in public and private sector debt, rising inequalities between the capital and the atolls, and a costly civil service.”

However the new government’s efforts to reduce government spending with pay cuts of up to 20 percent along with plans to downsize the civil service – which employs a third of the country’s workforce – was met with “a severe political backlash from parliament.”

“In March 2010, the parliament passed a 2010 budget with amendments which increased the government’s proposed budget by 7 percent (or 4.5 percent of GDP),” the paper noted, referring to parliament’s addition of Rf800 million (US$51 million) to the 2010 budget.

“Three quarters of this increase funded a reversal in civil service wage cuts implemented the previous year. Progress on redundancies has also been slower than expected and reforms in this area are unlikely to be completed until the end of 2011 at the earliest. This will have important fiscal consequences.”

In July, the Finance Ministry publicised details of expenditure on state employees, showing that Rf1.6 billion (US$103 million) had to be spent on salaries and allowances for 20,476 civil servants.

State wage expenditureAnnual expenditure on salaries and allowancesPercentage of total wage bill or expenditure on employees
Civil servants or employees under the executive (excluding political appointees and councillors)Rf1,596,029,00739 %
Uniformed bodiesRf1,001,489,48624 %
Political appointees in the executive branchRf99,178,9802 %
Administrative staff at the President’s OfficeRf27,326,7301 %
CouncilsRf717,250,03017 %
JudiciaryRf210,282,4635 %
People’s Majlis or legislative branchRf79,210,7182 %
Institutions dependent on state budgetsRf393,620,94310 %
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC in contempt of court for attempting to influence ongoing proceedings, say lawyers

Making statements in the media and on public forums “in a way that could undermine the dignity and prestige of courts” could lead to lawlessness, social discord and the “destruction” of the nascent democracy in the Maldives, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has warned.

In a press statement issued yesterday, the JSC claimed that criticism of the judiciary by any individual or group could “pave the way for a [pervasive] spirit of not bowing to the constitution and legal judgments [among the public].”

“And making such statements could completely destroy the constitutional and legal system established in this country through the hard work of the Maldivian people while in its infancy and pave the way for disagreement and quarrel, division and discord, in the entire country,” it reads. “Therefore, the commission urges all parties not to make such statements or commit any action that could undermine the dignity and eminence of the courts.”

The JSC’s statement comes after the Supreme Court reprimanded President’s Advisor Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail last week for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges” at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally on September 2 in Kaafu Thulusdhoo.

The Supreme Court claimed 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”.

Prior to the Supreme Court issuing its statement, the JSC conducted “an emergency meeting” and decided to ask police to investigate Ibra’s remarks.

Ibra’s remarks came after the Criminal Court barred journalists from observing the corruption trial of Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim on August 25.

“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, former Male’ MP and first elected president of MDP, was quoted as saying in newspaper Haveeru.

Ibra told Minivan News last week that his remarks did not constitute a criminal offence and he strongly criticised the Supreme Court for considering themselves “above the law or a law unto themselves.”

JSC Chairman and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed
JSC Chairman and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed

Former President’s member on the JSC and outspoken whistle-blower, Aishath Velezinee, told Minivan News that Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed had in his capacity as JSC Chair asked that police investigate Ibra, and then had the Supreme Court issue its statement.

“What are the police going to do? It sounds like the highest court in the land has already issued its verdict,” she said.

Both the JSC and the Supreme Court in its respective statements referred to article 141(c) of the constitution, which states: “No officials performing public functions, or any other persons, shall interfere with and influence the functions of the courts.”

Ibra however pointed out that he did not “say anything about an ongoing case” that could be construed as either undue influence or interference.

“Contempt of court”

A group of lawyers meanwhile filed a case against the JSC at the Civil Court last week contesting the legality of the commission’s evaluation criteria for selecting judges to superior courts.

The group of lawyers, represented by Ali Hussein and Ismail Visham, contended that regulations drafted by the JSC containing the evaluation criteria conflicted with both the constitution and article 15 of the Judges Act. The lawyers requested that the regulations be abolished and the shortlist be cancelled.

Judge Abdulla Didi
Judge Abdulla Didi

In addition, the lawyers claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties with two members of the commission – the spouse of Judge Abdulla Didi and business partner of Lawyer’s Representative Ahmed Rasheed – suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

The lawyers explained at a press briefing on Thursday that the evaluation criteria was skewed to favour graduates of the Islamic College by awarding higher marks for Kulliya certificates.

At the first hearing on Thursday night, the Civil Court granted a temporary injunction ordering the JSC to halt the appointment process pending a final ruling.

JSC Public Member Ahmed Rasheed
Lawyer's Representative on the JSC Ahmed Rasheed

The JSC responded with a press statement insisting that the process was legitimate and constitutional.

Following the Civil Court order, the JSC held a meeting on Friday and decided to appeal the court order at the High Court.

Prompted by the JSC’s two press statements in the past three days, the group of lawyers sent a letter to the commission today arguing that while the constitution assured the court’s dignity and respect, “in past years the commission has not acted in a way that upholds the dignity and eminence assured by the constitution.”

The “respect and dignity assured by the constitution” is not intended only for the courts, the lawyers noted.

Moreover, the lawyers argued that the JSC issuing two press statements in the space of three days was an “attempt to unduly influence judicial proceedings” since the case was ongoing at the Civil Court.

“Contempt of court is a rule applied against any attempts to influence the process of an ongoing court case,” the letter explained. “This is a crime under provisions 86, 87 and 88 of the Maldivian penal code.”

Moreover, the lawyers argued that the JSC’s actions obstructed a right guaranteed by article 42 of the constitution to every citizen regarding “justice, transparency and impartiality” of all judicial proceedings.

“Therefore, if the commission has planned to do anything that could influence the ongoing case, stop such efforts immediately,” the letter concludes. “And if it is not stopped, we will be forced to take legal action again.”

Representative for the lawyers suing the JSC, Abdul Hameed Abdul Kareem, told Minivan News today that the JSC was looking for a lawyer to appeal the court order.

“All prominent lawyers support this cause, providing assistance in different forms,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We have not forgotten your 30 years”: MDP to Gayoom

Leaders of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) launched vitriolic attacks against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom at a rally Tuesday night, following his departure from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to lead the newly-formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

In a series of fiery speeches, MDP MPs and party leaders dubbed PPM “the property inheritance party” created to “set up a family dynasty” and condemned the former President’s return to active politics.

“We thought the person who ruled this country for 30 years was finished, but we’re now seeing the formation of the Private Property of Maumoon,” said MP Ali Waheed, former deputy leader of the DRP who defected to the ruling party in May. “We stayed quiet but it was Maumoon who picked off one teeth after another from DRP and now he’s saying DRP is toothless and forming PPM with people who need false teeth.”

The MP for Thohdoo added that he “came to the MDP to put a stop to this”.

“I want to call on [DRP Leader] Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and [Speaker of Parliament] Abdulla Shahid today, if you’re toothless, come to a party that has teeth and bite Maumoon,” he said.

Ali Waheed claimed that in the wake of MP Alhan Fahmy’s dismissal from DRP in late 2009, Gayoom sent a text message to DRP MP Ahmed Nihan’s phone from Singapore asking Waheed to call Fahmy “a rat.”

On Gayoom’s stated reasons for forming a new party, Ali Waheed said that the Maldivian constitution protected Islam and national sovereignty, neither of which required the the former President’s protection.

Ali Waheed accused Gayoom of undercutting young leaders of the DRP, predicting that “at the last minute” the former President would ask Umar Naseer and Abdulla Yameen – potential contenders for the PPM presidential ticket – to step aside to make way for his presidential bid.

Meanwhile after verifying the required 50 application forms, the Elections Commission (EC) approved the PPM’s request to register the new party today with Gayoom’s son Farish Maumoon as the party’s temporary liaison. Gayoom’s four children, along with half-brother MP Abdulla Yameen and nephew MP Hamdhoon Abdulla Hameed, were also members of the Z-DRP council formed after the ‘Zaeem’ faction’s split from the DRP.

“We have not forgotten”

In her remarks, outgoing MDP Chairwoman Mariya Ahmed Didi criticised Gayoom for refusing to rule out an attempt to return to power after inviting “educated youth” to join his party.

Mocking Gayoom’s request to reporters at Monday’s press conference to ask only one question at a time “because I might forget,” Mariya said that “[Gayoom] might have forgotten how [he] ruled for 30 years, the Maldivian people experienced those 30 years and remember it well.”

President Mohamed Nasheed told her that if the government arrested Gayoom or sought retribution or revenge, said Mariya, it would discourage the emergence of strong opposition parties.

Nasheed explained that “we have come out for a bigger picture and must be patient and lower our hearts,” Mariya said, expressing gratitude to MDP member for “the patience you have shown.”

“We are seeing that when the public has been very patient, some people mistakenly thought that people have forgotten the experience of 30 years,” she continued. “I want to tell President Maumoon, we do remember. We remember the brutality, we remember Evan Naseem and those who were killed with him.

“We remember what happened to our ballot boxes, how island chiefs sat on it and replaced ballot papers to get 98 percent [in previous presidential referendums] so that you could say ‘I’m the President.’ I want to tell Maumoon we have not forgotten how you destroyed our young generation with drugs so that they will not oppose you. We remember the level of corruption in this country in the past.”

“Access Denied”

AlhanMP Alhan Fahmy – who was dismissed from the DRP for voting against the party line in a no-confidence motion against Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed – meanwhile argued that the fledgling democratic system in the Maldives would not allow Gayoom to stage a come-back.

“There is only one way an autocratic ruler can come back,” he explained. “That is, the ruler can return to an autocratic government. Today our system is a democratic system. That means when Maumoon tries to enter the system, it will flash in big letters: ‘Access Denied’.”

Alhan said the “message MDP wants to send Gayoom” was that – as recent events in the Middle East have borne out – deposed autocratic regimes could not return to power.

“I have a two year-old child and whenever anyone asks him ‘what happened to Maumoon?’ he will immediately reply ‘he fell’,” Alhan continued, adding that presidents in democratic countries are not toppled from power but leave after completing their terms in office. “When you fall, you can’t climb back again. You have to stay on the spot where you fell.”

Meanwhile in his speech, President Nasheed asserted that there was no possibility of Gayoom returning to power.

“It is not something we should be concerned about in the least,” he said. “We know the history of this country and what happens to former rulers. [But] because what we want to see from this country is a different reality, we still keep saying ‘lower your hearts in victory’ and this is what we will keep doing in the future.”

Gayoom should be offered “the respect and honour due to a former President,” said Nasheed, assuring supporters at the rally that Gayoom’s political activities would not cause them “any harm whatsover.”

“That is not something that will happen in this country anymore,” he insisted. “Before concluding I do however want to tell you what happened to Ali Rasgefaan [Sultan killed in battle with an invading Portuguese garrison in 1558]. When he reached Maafanu [ward of Male’] and looked back, there were only two people behind him. He was buried there with those two. The Prime Minister of Andhiri Andhiri [Portuguese overseer] was Thufasha, who was Ali Rasgefan’s Prime Minister. Nothing new will happen in our country. This is a very ancient island. We are living with a thousand of years of history. Do not be worried at all.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lawyers contest legality of JSC appointment process

A group of lawyers filed a case at the Civil Court today contesting the legality of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) evaluation criteria for selection of judges to superior courts, requesting a court order to halt the appointment process.

On August 29, the JSC announced that 17 shortlisted candidates have been invited for interviews on Saturday (September 10).

The group of lawyers, represented by Ali Hussein and Ismail Visham, contend that regulations drafted by the JSC containing the evaluation criteria conflicted with both the constitution and article 15 of the Judges Act. The lawyers requested that the regulations be abolished and the shortlist be cancelled.

In addition, the lawyers claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties – as a spouse and a business partner – with two members of the commission, suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

Briefing press today, Ali Hussein argued that the evaluation criteria formulated by the JSC unfairly favoured graduates of the College of Islamic Education (Kulliya).

While article 15 of the Judges Act stipulate that candidates for superior courts must possess a first degree in “either Shariah or law,” Ali Hussein explained that under the regulations drafted by the JSC, a candidate with a masters degree and a graduate of Kulliya both receive 25 marks for educational qualification.

“We are saying this is not fair,” he said. “We especially note that the Faculty of Sharia and Law teaches shariah subjects to the same extent as Kulliya [Islamic College], but graduates of the faculty receive 20 marks while students from Kulliya receive 25 marks.”

Kulliya graduates also received higher marks than graduates of the Islamic University of Malaysia, he said.

As 25 marks are to be awarded for the interview, Hussein noted, candidates who were not shortlisted would not receive any marks: “They should also have the chance to receive those 25 marks,” he said.

Moreover, he continued, the JSC criteria also conflicted with the academic rankings of the Maldives Qualification Authority (MQA), formerly the accreditation board, which places Kulliya certificates below those of overseas institutions.

The lawyers noted that shortcomings of the judiciary and lack of public confidence were tied to the lack of qualified judges on the bench.

“One of the main points of concern is that the JSC is the independent statutory body with a legal mandate to develop and improve the judiciary,” said co-counsel Ismail Visham. “But their actions so far suggest that they are trying to service the existing judiciary instead of introducing foreign elements or trying to develop the judiciary.”

As judges are appointed for life, said Visham, “they should be screened better” to ensure necessary academic qualifications, integrity and competency.

The eight claimants against the JSC include Abdul Hameed Abdul Kareem, Hassan Fiyaz, Mohamed Fareed, Husnu Suood (former Attorney General), Anas Abdul Sattar, Mohamed Nizam, Mohamed Iyaz and Ahmed Abdulla Hameed.

In March this year, two senior judges accused the Supreme Court of violating due process and unfairly dismissing a case challenging the legitimacy of the JSC’s appointment of five judges to the High Court.

Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yousuf – an applicant for the bench – filed a case at the Civil Court in January claiming procedural violations in the JSC vetting process.

The Supreme Court however transferred the case from the lower court a day later and conducted two hearings before dismissing it without issuing a verdict. The highest court of appeal had announced on January 21 that it was taking over the case as it involved “a matter of public interest”.

In a letter sent to President Mohamed Nasheed at the time, Chief Judge of the Family Court, Hassan Saaed, claimed that “the fact that the case was dismissed in violation of legal principles and procedures came as a shock to the judiciary.”

Saeed added that as a result of the incident, “the growing confidence that I and ordinary citizens had in the judiciary is lost,” urging the President to “stop this process continuing unlawfully.”

President Nasheed meanwhile appointed former MP Hussein Ibrahim as the President’s member on the JSC yesterday.

In August 2010, the JSC’s controversial reappointment of judges – the majority of whom were appointed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who was the highest authority on justice under the old constitution – was characterised by the President’s former representative on the commission, Aishath Velezinee, as “nothing less than treason to rob the nation of an honest judiciary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Z-faction formed new party “after failing to gain control of DRP”: Thasmeen

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom decided to form a new party because “particular individuals” were not elected to leadership posts at the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Congress in March 2010, and “because they failed to gain control of the party”, DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali told press today.

Flanked by DRP council members and leaders of coalition partner Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) at a press conference this afternoon, Thasmeen denied the former President’s claim that he was forced to quit the DRP because of a lack of internal democracy and inadequate efforts to hold the government accountable.

The breakaway Z-faction opted to form a new party after “they failed to influence the different organs of DRP,” Thasmeen said, accusing the ‘Zaeem faction’ of undermining the DRP leadership with “baseless allegations.”

“They have not provided any reason for the Maldivian people to believe the allegations made over the past year or so,” he said. “I have definitely never voted against the DRP whip since the party was formed. I have never failed to attend a vote in Majlis for any reason. And I have never failed to say what I must when the current government does something that is detrimental to the people.”

After months of factional strife and a litany of grievances aired in the media, Gayoom withdrew his endorsement of Thasmeen in March this year, accusing his successor of “acting dictatorially” and violating the party’s charter in the controversial dismissal of Deputy Leader Umar Naseer.

On allegations made by Umar Naseer that Thasmeen accepted a US$1 million bribe from Indian infrastructure giant GMR – which took over management of the Male’ International Airport under a concessional agreement last year – the DRP leader noted that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) had “investigated thoroughly” and cleared both Thasmeen and Speaker Abdulla Shahid of any wrong-doing.

Thasmeen argued that there was “no reason to accept” the Progressive Party’s claim of “being an exemplary democratic party” as the Z-faction had disregarded the DRP’s charter, openly refused to accept decisions by the party’s organs and “worked in a way detrimental to the party that was worse than our political enemies.”

The minority leader of parliament also noted that the Z-faction had been functioning independently “as a separate party with a separate council, with a separate parliamentary group lately.”

“There’s no reason to believe they can do something they failed to do over the past year with just the name of a political party,” he said, adding that the Z-faction MPs had not informed the public about the shortcomings of the government’s proposed economic reforms.

Thasmeen insisted that “a substantial number of members” would not leave DRP for the Progressive Party: “We are calling the party’s leadership in the islands, the party’s councillors and heads of island branches,” he said. “Based on information we are getting, we are certain that a substantial number of people from DRP will not go to this new party.”

Local daily Haveeru reported today that 500 members have so far applied to leave the party. Thasmeen however expressed confidence that the DRP would remain the largest opposition party.

The DRP leader revealed that the party would conduct internal elections “in the next three months” for DRP island branches or chapters. The elections were last held in 2006.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court reprimands Ibra for criticising judiciary

The Supreme Court has reprimanded President’s Advisor Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail for reportedly calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges” at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally Friday night in Kaafu Thulusdhoo.

A press statement issued by the Supreme Court yesterday claimed that Ibra’s remarks “encouraging the illegal curtailment of the tasks of the judiciary” could lead to “the loss of peace and security of the Maldivian state and plunge the nation into chaos and unrest”.

While article 299(a) of the constitution demands “obedience to the constitution” and compliance with all its provisions, the statement noted, article 144(c) states that, “No officials performing public functions, or any other persons, shall interfere with and influence the functions of the courts.”

Moreover, article 144(d) states that, “Persons or bodies performing public functions, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, eminence, dignity, impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts.”

The Supreme Court asserted that “making such statements in a free, democratic society under lawful governance goes against the principles of civilisation” and “the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives does not allow any such illegal activity”.

The court’s statement concluded by assuring the public that the highest court of appeal “as the parent of the constitution and laws of the country” would not tolerate “any action that could undermine established democratic institutions and the rights of the Maldivian state and the Maldivian people.”

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – oversight body for the judiciary – meanwhile conducted an “emergency meeting” Sunday night prompted by Ibra’s remarks and decided to request “relevant authorities” to carry out an official investigation.

Ibra’s remarks came after the Criminal Court barred journalists from observing the corruption trial of Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim on August 25.

“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, former Male’ MP and first elected president of MDP, was quoted as saying in newspaper Haveeru.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Ibra argued that criticism of the judiciary did not constitute a criminal offence or could be considered unlawful.

Responding to the Supreme Court claim that his remarks could “plunge the nation into chaos and unrest”, Ibra noted that ensuring law and order was “out of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.”

“Before making such serious allegations against a person they should at least attempt to find out the truth or see if any law was violated,” he said. “It is like the Supreme Court believes they are above the law or a law unto themselves.”

Ibra, who also served as chairman of the drafting committee of the Special Majlis – the special assembly convened to revise the constitution in 2004 – noted that according to article 16 of the constitution fundamental rights and freedoms could only be limited by a law passed by parliament and “only if demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

“I know of no law passed by the Majlis that says it is illegal to criticise the judiciary,” he said.

On the Supreme Court’s contention that he violated article 144(c) and (d), Ibra pointed out that he had not said anything about an ongoing case that could be construed as “interference or influence.”

Ibra went on to criticise the JSC for deciding to investigate his remarks: “It has nothing to do with the mandate of the JSC. What law says their job is to take measures against people who criticise the courts?”

Moreover, he added, the JSC could only ask police to investigate if there was a criminal offence involved.

“Whether it’s the executive, legislature or judiciary, if anyone is acting dictatorially and harming citizens, I will come out and I will do everything I can to stop it,” he said.

Former President’s member on the JSC and outspoken whistle-blower, Aishath Velezinee, told Minivan News that Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed had in his capacity as JSC President asked that police investigate Ibra, and then had the Supreme Court issue its statement.

“What are the police going to do? It sounds like the highest court in the land has already issued its verdict,” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)