Author: JJ Robinson

Speeding motorcyclist kills traffic policeman

A 22 year-old traffic police officer, Constable Misbah Abdulla, died today in Male’ after a speeding motorcycle collided with him near the president’s jetty, just metres from police headquarters.

Police said Constable Misbah was manning a vehicle checkpoint when he was hit by the speeding motorcyclist around 4:00am.

According to police, the collision threw the officer 80 feet from the checkpoint. He was taken to ADK hospital but later died of his injuries.

Local newspaper Haveeru, for whom Misbah previously worked as a printer prior to joining the police force, alleged the motorcyclist, 28 year-old Hussein Afeef from Foakaidhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, had a previous record of assaulting traffic policeman.

Afeef was taken into police custody and taken to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) for medical treatment.

Second crash

Following a second serious traffic incident on Friday, two men are being treated in Hithadhoo Regional Hospital after their motorcycles collided on the Addu link road near the convention centre.

Hassan Ahmed and Zaheenuddin Saeed are receiving emergency treatment, according to local media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Electoral register to be published in government gazette on Thursday

The Elections Commission will publish the electoral register for the upcoming presidential elections in the government’s gazette on Thursday, the commission’s president told local media.

Regulations give eligible voters 10 days to file complaints over the register once it is published.

According to the Elections Commission, 240,302 people will be eligible to vote in the presidential elections – a 15 percent increase (31,000 people) on 2008’s 209,294 eligible voters.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives “fully implements” three of UN’s 145 human rights recommendations: UPR mid-term assessment

The Maldives has “fully implemented” only three of the UN Human Rights Council’s 145 recommendations since its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in March 2011.

A mid-term assessment of the Maldives’ commitment to human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stated that 12 recommendations had been “partially implemented”, 33 “not implemented” – or rejected outright – while 96 recommendations received “no response”.

Recommendations fully implemented included provisions relating to accepting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the withdrawal of certain reservations to the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The UPR report sought comment from assorted NGOs, the Maldivian state and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) in compiling the progress so far.

It noted that while the Maldivian government had made a formal commitment to provide a mid-term report, “it did not respond to our enquiry.”

“[HRCM] did not respond to our enquiry either.”

In the absence of input from the government or the country’s national human rights body, the majority of responses and comments on the recommendations were provided by three NGOS: Earthjustice & Human Rights Advocates (EJ+HRA), Friends of Maldives (FOM), and the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (GIEACPC).

Treatment of minorities

In response to a recommendation from Norway that the government try to promote tolerance towards migrants in the Maldives, FOM stated it was unaware of any efforts to prevent stigmatisation.

“The stigmatisation has risen to concerning levels, especially towards Bangladeshi, Indian and Srilankan labourers,” FOM stated.

FOM noted that a bill on the Prohibition of Human Trafficking and People Smuggling had been submitted to parliament in December 2012, but said this had not yet been tabled for discussion and had not been subject to consultation with either the public or the NGO sector.

Regarding a recommendation for laws concerning the treatment and human rights of the physically and mentally disabled, “Legislation protecting persons with physical and mental disabilities seem to be of little or no interest within lawmakers,” observed FOM. “There is very little awareness on the importance of this matter. This is particularly concerning in the areas of law enforcement. For example, there are no protocols within the police service when dealing with persons with physical or mental disabilities.”

Treatment of women and children

In response to a recommendation that the Maldives abolish corporal punishment and the practice of public flogging, particularly of women and children, GIEACPC noted that the draft penal code included a legal defence for the use of corporal punishment in the home “under the concept of ‘justifiable force’ on a child for the ‘prevention or punishment of his misconduct’, providing this does not result in ‘death, serious bodily
injury, extreme or unnecessary pain or distress’.”

“The draft was recently amended to provide for Sharia punishments, including amputation, though it is unclear as yet if this would be imposed on child offenders,” GIEACPC noted.

FOM noted that despite the government’s ratification of the CEDAW and withdrawal of reservations to certain clauses, “women in the Maldives still face corporal punishment, notably with the recent case of a 15 year-old girl condemned to flogging despite being the victim of sexual abuse.”

FOM observed that there was a “clear rejection by the judiciary to reform, and this has been a major challenge that the Parliament, Executive as well as the civil society have been facing for the past years.”

Bringing domestic laws concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, equal rights, and sexual and domestic violence and abuse in line with CEDAW was “particularly difficult” due to the country’s extremely narrow interpretation of Sharia and its strict application, stated FOM.

Issues relating to the rights of women remained “still highly controversial between the government and NGOs”, FOM observed, noting that this was possibly due to the government’s alliance with the Adhaalath Party, “a political movement that is seen to have more fundamental views and narrow interpretations of the Islamic Sharia, which has negative effects in terms of rights of women and girls.”

FOM also highlighted a growing trend of “families withdrawing girls from school in the name of religion.”

“These girls are then coerced into marriage in ages as early as nine to twelve years. There have been no visible efforts to control this or protect the right to education of these children. Although regulations prescribe that the age for marriage is 18, religious fundamentalists take refuge in Islamic Sharia over these matters and withhold that the consent of these girls are in the hands of their fathers or guardians. No efforts to prevent or react to these incidents have been seen in the Maldives,” FOM noted.

Justice system

Despite “elevated public discontent” over the state of the judiciary, formal dialogue as to its reform had been limited, FOM noted.

Regarding a recommendation by Malaysia that the Maldives accept offers of human rights training for judges and judicial staff, FOM responded that it was “aware that several international organisations as well as some local NGOs offered funds and programs in order to enhance the knowledge of human rights for judges, and that such funds exist presently, namely with the UNDP. However the judiciary have on several occasions ignored or avoided such offers for enhancement of knowledge.”

While a voluntary code of conduct for judges had been developed by the Judicial Service Commission, “the implementation of this code is not monitored. In addition
the general public view is that the code needs several amendments.”

Meanwhile, a report containing recommendations by the UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers had met with no response from the government, and public dismissal by several members of parliament.

Human rights

FOM observed a “serious deterioration in [the Maldives] process of promoting and protection of human rights”, with “continued confrontations between the law enforcement and protesters calling for fundamental rights and freedoms have resulted in excessive police brutality, obstruction of the right to assembly through the amendment of the existing Regulations on Assembly, several physical attacks and threats on journalists and many more such incidents which have been ignored by the relevant authorities.”

“Members of the police force who are seen on video clips to have brutalised protesters have since been given promotions. A single case of police brutality that the Police Integrity Commission investigated and which the Prosecutor General charged for, was rejected by the Criminal Court,” FOM noted.

Responding to a recommendation by France that the Maldives ensure the safety of journalists, FOM noted that “the situation of the journalists are such that they are targeted and harassed for what they report on. Some received physical threats and it is believed that politically motivated attacks on journalists have left them fighting for their lives.”

UNHRC Panel report

A delegation from the Maldives defended the Maldives’ human rights record before the UNHRC in July 2012.

It was headed by Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, former Justice Minister during the 30 year rule of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and co-author of a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’, published in January 2012.

Dr Jameel was accompanied by State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dunya Maumoon – Gayoom’s daughter – as well as the Maldives’ Permanent Representative in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam.

Asked by a panellist whether the country was seeking to reconcile human rights with Islam, Dr Jameel responded that human rights in the Maldives streamlined with Islam “with very few minor exceptions.”

“The general acceptance of Muslim jurists is that Islamic human rights were there long before we subscribed to universal human rights,” he said.

“We declare that there are no apparent contradictions between human rights and what is there in the Maldives constitution.”

On the subject of justice, Dr Jameel emphasised that any citizen could bring their grievances before the judiciary, over which the executive had “little or no influence.”

Following the delegation’s defence, the UNHRC recommended “radical changes” to Maldivian law to ensure compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

These changes include the abolition of the death penalty, compensation for “systematic and systemic torture,” withdrawal of reservations to the ICCPR’s Article 18 regarding freedom of religion and belief, and reforming the country’s judiciary.

A panel member during the UNHRC session itself also noted the “troubling role of the judiciary at the centre” of the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

“The judiciary – which is admittedly in serious need of training and qualifications – is yet seemingly playing a role leading to the falling of governments,” the panel member observed.

Read the UPR mid-term assessment

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the UPR was conducted in 2012. The Maldives UPR held between 4 November 2010 and 27 March 2011. On 4 November 2010, the Maldives performance was reviewed, queried, debated and responded to in a 3 hour discussion in which nearly 150 recommendations were made. After this discussion, a report was compiled and in March 2011, the Maldives gave a commitment to implement 145 of those recommendations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

A justice system in crisis: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.

“It is indeed difficult to understand why one former President is being tried for an act he took outside of his prerogative, while another has not had to answer for any of the alleged human rights violations documented over the years,” wrote Knaul, in her final report to the UN Human Rights Council following her Maldives mission in February 2013.

The report is a comprehensive overview of the state of the Maldivian judiciary and its watchdog body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Knaul examines the judiciary’s handling of the trial of former President Nasheed, the controversial reappointment of unqualified judges in 2010, and the politicisation of the JSC.

Knaul also examines parliament’s failure to pass critical pieces of legislation needed for the proper functioning of the judiciary and “legal certainty”, as well as raises serious concerns about an impending budget catastrophe facing the judicial system.

“The immediate implications of the budget cuts on the judiciary are appalling. For instance, the Department of Judicial Administration only has funds to pay staff salaries until November 2013 and it had to cancel training this year,” Knaul notes.

“The Civil Court reported that it would not have sufficient funds to pay its staff salaries after October 2013; furthermore, existing budgetary resources would not be sufficient to pay for utilities and facilities after June 2013,” she adds.

The Nasheed trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing criminal charges in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his detention of the Criminal Court’s Chief Judge, Abdulla Mohamed, days prior to the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

“Judge Abdulla had allegedly shielded a number of powerful politicians in corruption cases by refusing to issue orders to investigate, and many complaints had been made regarding his conduct and supposed lack of ethics,” Knaul outlined.

“The Judicial Service Commission had completed an investigation on him in November 2011, holding him guilty of misconduct. This decision was appealed to the Civil Court, which ordered that the Judicial Service Commission’s complaint procedure be suspended.

“Although the Commission appealed the Civil Court’s ruling, Judge Abdulla was allowed to continue in his functions,” she added.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain the case against Nasheed is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and bar him from the September 7 presidential elections, while the new government has emphasised the judiciary’s independence and insisted on its policy of non-interference.

Following Knaul’s visit and her departure statement, several members of the JSC have also challenged the commission’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Court, and its appointment of the bench. The commission includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including a rival presidential candidate, resort tycoon, Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader and MP Gasim Ibrahim.

“The trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings,” Knaul notes, questioning the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”

“According to the law, the Prosecutor General’s office should have filed the case of Mr Nasheed with the Criminal Court. While the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s office regarding the evident conflict of interests in this case are understandable, since Judge Abdulla sits in this court, it is not for the Prosecutor to decide if a judge is impartial or not,” stated Knaul.

“The Prosecutor should act according to the law when filing a case, as it is the duty of judges to recuse themselves if they cannot be impartial in a particular case,” she explained.

“All allegations of unfair trial and lack of due process in Mr Nasheed’s case need to be promptly investigated, including the claims that the trial is being sped up to prevent Mr Nasheed’s participation in the 2013 elections,” she added.

Knaul noted a decision by the Supreme Court to declare the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court as legitimate after the Commission filed a case with it in 2012.

“The Special Rapporteur was informed that the judge of the Supreme Court who cast the deciding vote in this case also sits as a member of the Judicial Services Commission, whose decision to establish the Hulhumalé court as a magistrates court was under review,” the report noted.

Politicisation of the JSC

Knaul observed that the JSC had a “complicated” relationship with the judiciary, given that the commission “considers that it has exclusive jurisdiction over all complaints against judges, including over criminal allegations, while the Prosecutor General understands that the criminal investigation agencies have the competence to investigate criminal conducts by anyone.”

Knaul underlined that “judges and magistrates, as well as other actors of the justice system, are criminally accountable for their actions. Criminal actions entail consequences and penalties that are different from those resulting from disciplinary or administrative investigations.”

The special rapporteur stated that there was near unanimous consensus during her visit that the composition of the JSC – which draws members from sources outside the judiciary, such as parliament, the civil service commission and others – was “inadequate and politicised”. This complaint was first highlighted in a report by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) in 2010.

“Because of this politicisation, the commission has allegedly been subjected to all sorts of external influence and has consequently been unable to function properly,” said Knaul.

State of the courts

Conflicts of interest and the resulting impact on judges’ impartiality was also a concern, noted Knaul.

“It seems that judges, and other actors of the State, do not want to fully acknowledge and understand this concept, leading to the dangerous perception from the public that the justice system is politicised and even corrupted,” she said.

Knaul also expressed “shock to hear that many members of the judiciary, including in the Supreme Court, hold memberships in political parties.”

The Supreme Court, she noted, has meanwhile been “deciding on the constitutionality of laws ex-officio, without following appropriate examination procedures, under the understanding that they are the supreme authority for the interpretation of the Constitution.”

The relationship between prosecutors and the judiciary was also difficult, Knaul noted, expressing “serious concern” that some courts “use the threat of contempt of court and disbarment to impose their decisions and superiority over prosecutors.”

“The lack of a centralised case-management system does not facilitate their tasks either. In some places, such as Addu City, one prosecutor covers four courts and is often called to different hearings at the same time,” she observed.

“Symbolic” reappointment of judges

Two months prior to the end of the constitution’s transitional period and the deadline for the appointment of new judges according to moral and professional criteria – article 285 – the interim Supreme Court informed President Nasheed “that all its members would permanently remain on the bench.”

This action, Knaul noted, had “no legal or constitutional basis.”

“The five judges who had been sitting on the transitional bench were appointed to the seven-member permanent bench, leaving many with the perception that the Supreme Court was appointed in a politicised manner,” she noted.

The rest of the courts followed suit several months later at the conclusion of the interim period, with the Commission “opting for interpreting article 285 of the Constitution in a rather symbolic way and [not scrutinising] judges’ qualifications thoroughly.”

“For instance,” Knaul noted, “not all criminal allegations pending against judges were investigated. This resulted in a seemingly rushed reappointment of all sitting judges but six, which in the opinion of many interlocutors corrupted the spirit of the constitutional transitional provision.”

While the 2008 Constitution had “completely overturned the structure of the judiciary”, at the conclusion of the JSC’s work on article 285, “the same people who were in place and in charge, conditioned under a system of patronage, remained in their positions.”

As a result, “many believe that some judges who are currently sitting lack the proper education and training […] A simple judicial certificate, obtained through part-time studies, is the only educational requirement to become a judge.”

Way forward

Knaul’s report contains four pages of recommendations for judicial reform, starting with a “constitutional review” of the composition of the Judicial Services Commission – the same conclusion reached by the ICJ in 2010.

“The Maldives finds itself at a difficult crossroad, where the democratic transition is being tested, while remnants of its authoritarian past are still hovering,” Knaul observed, stating that the power struggle she witnessed during her visit had “serious implications on the effective realisation of the rule of law in the Maldives.”

Among many other recommendations, Knaul called on the government to show “strong and nonpartisan leadership”, by pushing for “constructive dialogue aimed at establishing clear priorities for the country, the adoption of necessary core legislation, and policy measures to consolidate the democracy. Such leadership should be guided by the Maldives’ obligations under international human rights law, which provide for a sound and sustainable foundation for democracy.”

She also noted that “the delicate issue of accountability for past human rights violations also needs to be addressed.”

Read the full report

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Two men charged with attack on Raajje TV reporter

Police have pressed charges against two suspects allegedly involved in the attack on Raajje TV Reporter Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed.

Ahmed Vishaan, 22, of Kerin Light in Male’s Maafanu neighborhood and Hassan Raihaan, 19, of Fehimaa in Male’s Galolhu neighborhood have been “accused of assault in a manner that can cause serious injuries,” Criminal Court Media Official Mohamed Manik told local media yesterday (May 22).

Vishaan was  been accused of hitting Aswad with a three foot iron rod in the face and head, while the journalist was on his motorcycle the night February 23, 2013 at around 1:18 am, said Manik.

Raihaan has been accused of “helping Vishaan flee the scene” via motorcycle after the attack on Aswad, he added.

Aswad, a senior reporter for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned television station, was attacked with an iron bar while riding on a motorcycle near the  artificial beach area.

He was attacked while he was on his way to see two Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) journalists, who were admitted to hospital after being attacked during opposition-led protests.

Following the attack, Aswad was airlifted to Sri Lanka for emergency surgery. He later recovered and returned to the Maldives, telling local media he was very happy to return to the Maldives and would remain undeterred in his role as a journalist.

The attack on Aswad is one of the most serious assaults on a Maldivian journalist since blogger Hilath Rasheed had his throat slashed in an alleyway in mid-2012.

Rasheed was initially given a five percent chance of survival, but later recovered. He has since fled the country.

Press freedom

The Maldives plummeted to 103rd in the most recent Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index, a fall of 30 places and a return to pre-2008 levels.

“The events that led to the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed in February led to violence and threats against journalists in state television and private media outlets regarded as pro-Nasheed by the coup leaders,” RSF observed, in its annual ranking of 179 countries.

“Attacks on press freedom have increased since then. Many journalists have been arrested, assaulted and threatened during anti-government protests. On June 5, the freelance journalist and blogger Ismail “Hilath” Rasheed narrowly survived the first attempted murder of a journalist in the archipelago,” RSF noted in its report.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police arrest MNDF officer accused of planning Dr Afrasheem’s murder

Additional reporting by Ahmed Nazeer, Neil Merrett and Mariyath Mohamed.

Police have arrested Azleef Rauf, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer accused of planning the murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali by suspect Hussein Humam, who yesterday (May 22) confessed to the crime after earlier denials.

Azleef was arrested as part of an ongoing investigation, however a police spokesperson who requested anonymity would not confirm if his detention was related to the murder of Dr Afrasheem.

Police confirmed a request had also been made for authorities to confiscate the passports of “some” individuals as part of its investigations, but would not reveal the identities or number of suspects facing travel bans.

Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali told Minivan News that Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid, Adam ‘Spy’ Solah and Shahin Mohamed were now facing travel bans, but added that their passports had not be confiscated.

The three individuals were on Wednesday accused by Humam of involvement in Afrasheem’s death.

Javid, son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, was arrested by police in December 2012 in connection with the case, and was released 45 days later.

According to local media reports of the hearing in the Criminal Court yesterday, Humam alleged that the idea of killing Dr Afrasheem was given to him by Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer Azleef Rauf, whom he met at a baibalaa tournament in 2012.

Humam, the statement and the court hearing

Minivan News spoke to Criminal Court Media Official Ahmed Mohamed Manik regarding the sequence of the court hearing, which was widely reported by local media after the chief suspect confessed.

According to Manik, after the state presented evidence – which included bloodstained jeans forensically linked to Dr Afrasheem – Humam declared that he “did not have anything more to say.”

“The judge then inquired of him whether he was accepting the charges or denying them, to which Humam said that he confessed to having partaken in the planning and the execution of the murder,” stated Manik.

In an earlier hearing, Humam denied specifically murdering Dr Afrasheem, however he did confess in court to several other murders, stabbings and robberies.

During yesterday’s hearing, after the judge asked Humam to provide details, “he responded that he had already given a detailed statement previously,” said Manik.

“The judge again asked if Humam was referring to the statement he had given to the police, or the one he had given at a court hearing to which he was brought to extend his detention,” he said.

“Humam said it was the one given in the detention extension hearing. I am not sure which one of the detention extension hearings it was that he gave that statement in, whether it was the first one or some later one. Either way, the judge then asked the state prosecutors to read out the statement, as they had already submitted this among the evidence,” said Manik.

“Humam was not asked to read it as it was such a long statement and it would take too much time. Once the statement was read out, he confirmed that it was the one that he had given before,” Manik stated.

“Humam repeatedly insisted that he did not want a lawyer. He confessed to having participated in planning and carrying out the killing. He did not add details after the statement. He just confessed, confirmed the statement that was read out was the one he had given before, and repeatedly stated he did not want a lawyer.”

According to the statement read out in court, Humam was invited to coffee with Azleef, Javid and his brother ‘Jana’, during which Azleef allegedly said “I promise you will get MVR4 million if you murder Dr Afrasheem,” to which Javid’s brother ‘Jana’ replied “yes you will.”

According to the statement, he later met with Azleef and a person called ‘Spy’, and asked them why he had to attack Afrasheem. Their reply was that one of the reasons they had to attack Dr Afrasheem concerned remarks he had made the day former President Mohamed Nasheed controversially resigned.

Rauf and Javid were also previously detained by police over their alleged involvement in the case. Both were later released by the court.

Javid spent 45 days in detention in connection to the Afrasheem murder, after which time his lawyer argued his continued detention was unconstitutional given there was no evidence to support keeping him in custody.

On the day of Javid’s release (January 17), his brother Shahin Mohamed was arrested by police while he was waiting with the rest of Javid’s family outside the court. Mohamed was released from police custody three hours after he was detained.

An MDP activist Mariyam Naifa was also arrested several days following the murder, and was subsequently released. Her lawyer at the time said she was arrested in connection to intelligence received by police in the Afrasheem case.

Motive

The government and police have maintained that Dr Afrasheem’s death was politically motivated.

However, others have sought to ascribe religious motives to the killing,  as noted in the  US State Department’s 2012 report on religious freedom.

“One of the more prominent theories about his murder was that violent extremists viewed Afrasheem’s very public moderate approach to Islam as apostasy and killed him to send a message to moderate Muslims that a strict interpretation of Islam was the only acceptable approach. The case remained under investigation at year’s end, with one person charged in the murder,” the report noted.

Afrasheem was murdered outside his house shortly after appearing on a religious television program in which he insisted that he had never ever spoken of anything regarding religion which was not stated in the Quran or sayings of the Prophet (PBUH), and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1IGDhGmKnVU

The scholar and MP was attacked several times in 2008, including being hit in the head with a stone on May 27 on his way home from work, and was assaulted after he finished Friday prayers as an Imam in the Ibrahim Mosque in January. His car window was smashed while he was driving through Male’ on March 18, 2012.

The murdered MP was also formerly Parliament’s member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), until he was replaced in mid-2011 by Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader, resort tycoon Gasim Ibrahim.

Immediately following Dr Afrasheem’s murder, President’s Office Press Secretary Masood Imad sent an SMS to foreign media outlets declaring that “Nasheed’s strongest critic Dr Afrasheem has been brutally murdered.”

Following Humam’s court appearance yesterday, Masood tweeted that the government was “concerned about the close  relationship of Mr Javid to former President [Mohamed Nasheed].

Government is concerned about the close relationship ofMr. Javid to former President @mohamednasheedwe are watching the case closely.

— Masood Imad (@MasoodImv) May 22, 2013

Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb meanwhile tweeted following the hearing that he was “Shocked and Saddened by the news of the confession of Dr. Afrasheem murderer, confirming that he was brutally killed for a political reason”.

Shocked and Saddened by the news of the confession of Dr. Afrasheem murderer, confirming that he was brutally killed for a political reason

— Ahmed Adeeb (@Ahmed_Adeeb) May 22, 2013

Former Justice Minister, Home Minister at the time of Dr Afrasheem’s death and now the PPM’s vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel, tweeted: “Dr Afrasheem was assassinated for political purpose , says the suspect”.

Dr Afrasheem’s murderer reveals those behind this crime.The nation is shocked with this revelation , wonder will they say now! — Mohamed Jameel Ahmed (@MJameelAhmed) May 22, 2013

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has publicly dismissed the rumours that the murder was linked to religious fundamentalists, stating “no evidence has been gathered suggesting that this murder was carried out for a religious motive.”

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed also disputed a religious motive in Afrasheem’s murder, telling local media that the Islamic Ministry had not forced the scholar to offer a public apology for anything in his last television appearance.

Shaheem went on to say that Afrasheem had been given the opportunity to appear on the show following a series of requests made by the murdered scholar. He said Afrasheem had asked for the opportunity on Monday’s (October 1. 2012) program, and so the previously arranged guests had been replaced with him.

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

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

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

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

In May 2012, Shaheem’s Adhaalath Party put out a press release “condemning in the harshest terms” remarks made by two unnamed scholars in a lecture to police officers that the party contended “mocked” the Sunnah (way of life prescribed as normative for Muslims on the basis of the teachings and practices of Prophet Mohammed).

A police media official confirmed that the session was conducted by Dr Ibrahim Zakariyya Moosa and the late Dr Afrasheem.

“In his speech, Dr Afrasheem Ali mainly explained the importance of knowing how the Prophet’s Sunnah is ranked,” read the police news item.

MP Afrasheem argued that issues on which scholars have not been able to reach a consensus could not be declared either compulsory or heretical as “there cannot be a definite conclusion regarding such problems.”

However, according to Adhaalath Party, one of the scholars told police officers that there was no benefit to society from an individual wearing a beard “even if, for example, it was established from the Prophet’s Sunnah.”

“As some officers of the Maldives police institution wanted to wear beards, he attempted in his talk to convince them that there was no need to do something that was of no benefit to society,” the party said.

“Desperate attempt”: MDP

While unable to confirm if Javid or any other members of the party were among those whose passports had been confiscated, the former President’s MDP alleged the handling of the case by police was a “desperate attempt” by the government to frame the party and discredit it ahead of the presidential elections in September.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that the party was “totally shocked” at what he alleged were attempts to implicate its supporters in the murder of a “liberal religious scholar”.

“We believe this is very much related to trying to absolve religious fundamentalists of the crime,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that the public were skeptical of the direction of the police investigation into Dr Afrasheem’s death, given that President Dr Mohamed Waheed had come to power in a “coup d’etat”.

“This coup administration has lost all credibility in the eyes of the public. No one believes their scaremongering,” he said.

“We are concerned at these attempts of election-time intimidation.”

Ghafoor claimed that the entire investigation into Dr Afrasheem’s murder was tainted by wide-scale public distrust in the police.

“They are trying to cover up the case desperately, and yet it is during their watch that we are seeing so many murders occurring,” he said.

Ghafoor added the MDP were awaiting developments in the police investigation, while preparing to host protests across the country on Saturday (May 25) raising concern about judicial bias and a lack of law and order.

Masood Imad rejected allegations the government was involved in the direction of investigations into the murder, claiming that the police and judiciary were dealing with the matter.

“We have continued to say that we will not interfere with the country’s judiciary,” he said. ” We are just sitting and watching how the case develops.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives UN team calls for abolition of death penalty, flogging

The UN country team in the Maldives has issued a statement calling for the abolition of both corporal punishment and the death penalty in the Maldives.

While the Maldives still issues death sentences, these have traditionally been commuted to life sentences by presidential decree since the execution of Hakim Didi in 1954, for the crime of practicing black magic.

Recent calls for presidential clemency to be blocked led former attorney general Azima Shukoor to draft a bill favouring the implementation of the penalty via lethal injection. It was met with opposition by several religious groups such as the NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf, which called for the draft to be amended in favour of beheadings or firing squads.

More recently, the state has called for a High Court verdict on whether the practice of presidential clemency can be annulled.

The Maldives continues to issue and implement flogging sentences for certain crimes, notably extra-marital sex. The vast majority of those sentenced are women.

An earlier call by UN High Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay in 2011 calling for a moratorium on flogging as a punishment for extramarital sex led to protesters gathering outside the UN building, carrying placards with angry slogans including “Islam is not a toy”, “Ban UN” and “Flog Pillay”.

Earlier this year, widespread global publicity of such a sentence handed to a 15 year-old rape victim led to two million people signing an Avaaz petition calling for an end to the practice of flogging in the Maldives.

In its statement, the UN team in the Maldives called for the Maldives to ensure its legislation and practices fulfilled the international human rights obligations to which it was signatory.

“The Maldives made a commitment following its Universal Periodic Review by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2010 to maintain a moratorium on the death penalty, in line with its vote in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution 65/206,” the UN statement read.

“In view of the country’s more than 50-year moratorium, the United Nations calls upon the Maldives to take the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to its international human rights obligations, and abolish the death penalty,” it added.

The UN noted that flogging as a punishment was prohibited under the Maldives’ international commitment “to prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” – to which all three the Maldives has signed.

“The United Nations Country Team notes with particular concern the possibility in the Maldives of sentences of death, as well as corporal punishment to persons who committed crimes while below 18 years of age. These concerns have also been expressed to the Maldives by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2012, and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2007,” the statement read.

“Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, ‘Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age’,” it noted, “while Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides, ‘No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.’”

The UN noted that more than 150 countries have no either abolished the death penalty or ceased to practice it, “a global trend also seen among countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.”

“The United Nations Country Team stands ready to support the Maldives to ensure its legislation and practices fulfil its international human rights obligations,” it added.

Earlier in May the Juvenile Court issued the death sentence to two 18 year-olds found guilty of the February 18, 2012 murder of Abdul Muheeth of Galolhu Veyru House.

Three minors were charged in the case, and one was acquitted by the court. The two sentenced to death are both 18 years-old, although both were underage and minors at the time of the murder.

The sentencing led Amnesty International’s Deputy Asia-Pacific Director Polly Truscott to warn that the Maldives was “entering new and dangerous territory – imposing death sentences for crimes allegedly committed by children is alarming.”

The death penalty is widely supported in the Maldives as either adherence to stricter interpretations of Islamic Sharia, or as a perceived method of reducing violent crime.

Public opposition to the death penalty tends to rest more on a widespread lack of trust in the capabilities of the judiciary to implement such punishments fairly, with 50 percent of the country’s 207 judges reported to have less than grade seven education, rather than objections on human rights grounds.

Current revision to the new penal code by the parliamentary committee responsible have been challenged on religious grounds by figures such as Sheikh Ilyas of the Adhaalath Party – presently in coalition with President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP).

The chair of the religious conservative AP’s scholars’ council and member of the Fiqh Academy was summoned to the committee last week after claiming that the draft legislation (in Dhivehi) did not include Shariah penalties for fornication, apostasy and violent robbery.

The initial draft of the penal code was prepared by legal expert Professor Paul H Robinson and the University of Pennsylvania Law School of the United States, upon the request of the Attorney General in January 2006. The project was supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

“If it is passed, there is no doubt that there will be no religion in this Muslim society that claims to be 100 percent Muslim. There will be no Islamic punishments,” Sheikh Ilyas stated in a sermon delivered at the Furqan mosque in Male’ on March 23.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MIAL to take over airport operations by July 1, says Finance Minister

The government has declared it intends to transfer the operation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) to a new state-owned company, Male International Airport Limited (MIAL).

Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad told local media that MIAL would take over the airport’s operations by July 1.

“The company has been registered. Now remains the work by MACL to hand over operations. It will begin soon, without delay,” the Finance Minister said, according to Sun Online.

“The new company will run the airport. The ownership of the airport will remain with MACL until arbitration is completed. But the work on transferring the employees and such will continue, when they take over operations. An official handover of the assets will also be conducted,” Jihad was reported as saying.

His comments follow the leaking of a letter recently sent to the Finance Ministry by Axis Bank, one of backers of the GMR-Malaysia Airports (GMR-MAHB) consortium which the government evicted from the Maldives in December 2012, after declaring the concession agreement signed under the former administration “void from the start”.

A copy of the direct agreement attached to the leaked letter showed the Finance Ministry guaranteed the loans taken by GMR-MAHB, which was signed and stamped in November 2008 by both MACL and then-Finance Minister Ali Hashim.

Axis Bank has called in the guarantee and is currently seeking US$160 million from the government and MACL. In the letter copied to both the Finance Ministry and MACL, the bank expressed concern that the government was attempting to turn MACL into a shell company while arbitration was pending, and warned it not to transfer the company’s assets or function to a new entity.

“Given that Axis Bank’s claim under the direct agreement is against MACL, you will understand that Axis Bank views with the greatest concern any attempt to dissipate the assets of MACL in favour of MIAL or any other third party,” wrote Axis Bank’s CEO Bimal Bhattacharyya in the letter, dated April 22.

“If MACL ceases to manage and operate Male’ airport, and MIAL instead performs that role, then MACL will lose almost all of MACL’s revenue stream, and become a shell,” he wrote.

The letter demanded the government “undertake not to allow any assignment, transfer or disposition of any of MACL’s rights to manage and or operate Male airport to MIAL or any third party… or allow MIAL or any third party to perform any function of managing or operating Male’ airport which is presently performed by MACL”.

“Please understand that Axis Bank views any dissipation of MACL’s assets with grave concern, and will take the necessary legal action to prevent such a dissipation”, the bank advised.

MIAL’s appointed CEO Bandhu Saleem at the time told Minivan News that “until the arbitration is complete, I think it will be very difficult to start a new company.”

Meanwhile, uncertainty over the fate of the airport and the outcome of both the arbitration process and the upcoming presidential election led the global body representing the world’s airports, Airports Council International (ACI), to issue an alert to its members advising them to “conduct due diligence while considering any investment in the Maldives, considering the latest developments, uncertainty of outcome of elections, the legal and financial risks of the current arbitration and the nascent legal framework.”

ACI informed its members that the takeover was the subject of arbitration proceedings expected to last 9-12 months, and further noted that as the government had guaranteed the bank loans used by the developer, these were also the subject of separate proceedings.

With elections scheduled for September, ACI advised it was possible that “any leadership changes arising out of the elections [could] have a material impact of the future of the Male’ airport and the decision of expropriation.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Tourism Ministry searching for ‘celebrity ambassador’ to promote the Maldives

The Ministry of Tourism has announced it is seeking the appointment of a celebrity ambassador for the Maldives, through a company based in Singapore.

Deputy Tourism Minister and head of the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC), Mohamed Maleeh Jamal, told local media the government was in the process of selecting the most suitable celebrity on offer.

“We are currently holding discussions, the most suitable celebrities for Maldives and the prices they offer, we are discussing such things now,” Maleeh told Sun Online.

Maleeh and Adheeb were not responding to calls at time of press to speculate on the qualities the Maldives would look for in its celebrity ambassador, or the potential cost of such an endorsement.

Former Secretary General of the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI), ‘Sim’ Mohamed Ibrahim, told Minivan News the proposal was a good idea – “it will generate sound bites, column inches and other publicity” – but suggested the government seek a “goodwill ambassador” rather than a paid celebrity.

“I don’t know how much the government has in their marketing budget, but I’ve heard there is an issue with low funds. If they have the money, then why not [go ahead]? But if they don’t, there’s other basic marketing to spend the limited resources on,” he said.

“[The ambassador] should not be financially-motivated; it should be someone who has a warmth for the country. Someone like Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, or Bill Gates,” he suggested.

Following a reported £250,000 visit in December to the One and Only resort by football star David Beckham, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb told Minivan News the Maldives was prized by celebrities because of the seclusion and privacy of the country’s ‘one island, one resort’ model.

“Right now we are formulating policies to encourage more VVIPs to the Maldives. They can add a lot of value to a destination solely on the grounds that so many people follow them,” Adheeb said.

”We want to let the world know how unique a destination it is. How safe it is. How can we then give mores exclusivity to VVIPs? We offer privacy, the islands are free of paparazzi, that’s how we have made the Maldives unique. It is a celebrity destination,” he added.

The tourism budget for 2013 was increased from MVR 20 million (US$1.2 million) to MVR 80 million (US$5.1 million) at the start of the year, following criticism from the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI) that the amount was too low.

The initial sum of money allocated was the lowest in eight years, according to a statement from MATI at the time.

Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb told local media at the time that the ministry had initially requested a budget of MVR 200 million (US$12.9 million) to carry out tourism promotion for the year, however parliament had “erased a zero” from the figure when finalising the budget.

Adheeb noted that while tourism promotion is expensive, the revenue generated from the industry “drives the entire engine”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)