Author: Zaheena Rasheed

Nasheed’s terrorism trial “a mockery” of Constitution, verdict “may have been pre-determined,” says Knaul

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s terrorism trial “made a mockery” of the Maldives Constitution, and violated the country’s international human rights obligations, the UN special rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers has said.

In a damning statement issued on Thursday, Gabriela Knaul highlighted several irregularities in the opposition leader’s rushed trial, and said: “The speed of the proceedings combined with the lack of fairness in the procedures lead me to believe the outcome of the trial may have been pre-determined.”

Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years in jail on March 13 after the Criminal Court found him guilty of “forcefully abducting” Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The surprise trial began one day after Nasheed was arrested on February 22, and was completed in just 11 short hearings over 19 days.

“The series of due process violations that were reported to me since Mr. Nasheed’s arrest on 22 February is simply unacceptable in any democratic society,” Knaul said.

Warning of a “seriously deteriorating situation in the independence of the justice system,” the expert urged the Maldives to guarantee that Nasheed’s appeal would respect the most stringent fair trial and due processes.

The Maldivian authorities must allow the public, including international observers who were arbitrarily denied access to the Criminal Court, to attend appeal hearings, she said.

Nasheed’s lawyers, however, have already raised concern over alleged attempts by the Criminal Court to block the former president from launching an appeal.

With one week having passed since the verdict was issued, the Criminal Court failed to release any relevant trial documents until yesterday (March 19), which lawyers say are necessary for Nasheed to meet the ten day appeal deadline provided in new regulations enacted by the Supreme Court.

Selective justice

The Maldives’ decision to try Nasheed on terrorism, while his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has not had to answer for any of the serious human rights violations documented during his term is “troubling for a country whose constitution enshrines the independence and impartiality of the justice system as a prerequisite for democracy and the rule of law,” Knaul also said.

She urged the Maldives to consider the recommendations she had put forth in a 2013 report, including revising the composition of the judicial watchdog body the Judicial Services Commission, proper investigation of judges’ misconduct, enforcing the judges’ code of conduct and increasing the judiciary’s financial and human resources.

“The delicate issue of accountability for past human rights violations also needs to be addressed,” she noted at the time.

Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on Wednesday raised similar concerns as Knaul over Nasheed’s trial, including the Criminal Court having denied Nasheed adequate time to prepare defence and a refusal to call defence witnesses.

The experts have also expressed concern over the Criminal Court’s decision not to wait until Nasheed sought new legal representation when his lawyers resigned half-way through the trial.

Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin and two judges of the three-member bench providing witness statements during a 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest amounted to conflict of interest, both Knaul and Zeid have said

“Clearly no one should be above the law, and the trial of a former Head of State would be a major challenge for any government. But in a polarised context, and given the long-standing serious concerns about the independence and politicisation of the judiciary in the Maldives, this case should have been handled with much greater care and transparency,” Zeid said on Wednesday.

Related to this story:

UN human rights chief expresses strong concern over “hasty and apparently unfair” Nasheed trial

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Judge Abdulla suspected of involvement in “contract killing,” says Nasheed

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s lawyers decry Criminal Court failure to provide court proceedings as appeal deadline approaches

With additional reporting by Shafaa Hameed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers today decried the Criminal Court’s continued failure to provide court proceedings into the opposition leader’s terrorism trial, with only two days remaining before the appeal period expires.

The Criminal Court only today released a judgment summary, which lawyers say is not enough to build an appeal.

Without the full transcripts of court proceedings, lawyers would not be able to determine if the three judge panel had considered fully witness testimony and defence arguments in their verdict, a statement issued today said.

Expressing grave concern, Nasheed’s legal team said the Criminal Court’s failure to provide court proceedings “is an obstruction of President Nasheed’s right to appeal.”

The opposition leader was convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in jail on March 13. According to new rules enacted prior to Nasheed’s trial, lawyers have 10 days to file their appeal.

A signed copy of the judgment summary was provided just before 3:00pm today, although the Supreme Court issued rules require judges to provide the summary at the end of the trial.

The appeal deadline is believed to expire on Sunday, March 22.

Asked if the ten-day appeal period included weekends, a Criminal Court spokesperson said he would have to check the new rules.

“These are untested rules. So we will file the appeal by Sunday, March 22,” Ahmed said.

The conviction of the opposition leader on terrorism charges relates to the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has previously accused the Criminal Court of “deliberately refusing to release court proceedings in order to frustrate attempts at launching an appeal.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on Wednesday called on the Maldives to enable international jurists to observe an appeal after “a hasty and apparently unfair trial.”

Expressing strong concern, Zeid noted that the Criminal Court refused to provide Nasheed adequate time to prepare a defence, and said the court’s decision not to call defence witnesses was “contrary to international fair trial standards.”

He urged the former president be given adequate time to prepare and present his defence during the appeal process.

“The Nasheed case places the Maldives judicial processes in a sharp spotlight. The flagrant irregularities in this case can still be rectified in the appeal process, and I urge the authorities to restore domestic and international confidence in the legal system by enabling international jurists to observe the appeal process,” he said.

The surprise trial began one day after Nasheed was arrested on February 22, and was completed after 11 hearings in 19 days.

“It is hard to see how such hasty proceedings, which are far from the norm in the Maldives, can be compatible with the authorities’ obligations under international law to conduct a fair trial,” the UN human rights chief said.

President Abdulla Yameen meanwhile called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict.

In a statement released by the President’s Office on Sunday (March 15), President Yameen noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

Correction: This article previously stated the Criminal Court had issued court proceedings. This is incorrect. The court had only provided a judgment summary.  

Related to this story:

UN human rights chief expresses strong concern over “hasty and apparently unfair” Nasheed trial

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Judge Abdulla suspected of involvement in “contract killing,” says Nasheed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN human rights chief expresses strong concern over “hasty and apparently unfair” Nasheed trial

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has expressed “strong concerns about the hasty and apparently unfair trial” of former President Mohamed Nasheed and called on the Maldives to enable international jurists to observe an appeal.

In a statement today, Zeid said Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years in jail on terrorism charges following “a rushed process that appears to contravene the Maldives’ own laws and practices and international fair trial standards in a number of respects.”

The Criminal Court on March 13 found Nasheed guilty of using the military to “forcefully abduct” the court’s Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The surprise trial began one day after Nasheed was arrested on February 22, and was completed after 11 hearings in 19 days.

“It is hard to see how such hasty proceedings, which are far from the norm in the Maldives, can be compatible with the authorities’ obligations under international law to conduct a fair trial,” the UN Human Rights chief said.

“Clearly no one should be above the law, and the trial of a former Head of State would be a major challenge for any government. But in a polarised context, and given the long-standing serious concerns about the independence and politicisation of the judiciary in the Maldives, this case should have been handled with much greater care and transparency.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul in May 2013 described the Maldives judiciary as “a system in crisis,” and expressed shock at reports of political bias and concern over judges’ low qualifications.

Zeid today noted the Maldivian Constitution affords anyone accused of a crime the right to adequate time and facilities to mount a defence.

But Nasheed was without legal counsel at a February 23 remand hearing in which the Criminal Court ordered the former president be kept in detention until the trial ended.

Moreover, when Nasheed’s lawyers quit in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to provide additional time, the three-judge panel did not wait until he had new counsel before proceeding with the trial, Zeid noted.

“The government argues the new case against Nasheed was based in the same materials previously available to his legal team, but he should have been given time to instruct his counsel and prepare a new defence,” he said.

The Criminal Court’s decision not to call defence witnesses was also “contrary to international fair trial standards,” he said.

The High Commissioner for Human Rights also raised serious questions about conflict of interest over the judges and Prosecutor General having been witnesses during the 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

PG Muhthaz Muhsin and Judges Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Abdulla Didi were present at the Chief Judge’s home at the time of his arrest, but the two judges refused to step down from the bench claiming there was no conflict of interest.

Zeid also noted the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, and domestic as well as international observers were barred from monitoring the trial proceedings.

He urged Nasheed be given adequate time to prepare and present his defence during the appeal process.

“The Nasheed case places the Maldives judicial processes in a sharp spotlight. The flagrant irregularities in this case can still be rectified in the appeal process, and I urge the authorities to restore domestic and international confidence in the legal system by enabling international jurists to observe the appeal process,” he said.

The Supreme Court introduced new appeal procedures in January reducing the time allowed to lodge an appeal from 90 working days to just ten.

On Monday, Nasheed’s lawyers accused the Criminal Court of deliberately refusing to release court proceedings “in order to frustrate attempts at launching an appeal.”

Although lawyers must file an appeal with ten days, the Criminal Court said it will take up to 14 days to provide a signed copy of court proceedings.

Related to this story:

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Judge Abdulla suspected of involvement in “contract killing,” says Nasheed

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP protesters attacked, doused with petrol and chili water

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protesters were beaten and doused with petrol and water mixed with chili powder last night.

Minivan News journalists observed four young men on motor cycles charge into a crowd of protesters gathered in front of the MDP office on Sosun Magu at 9:45pm. They kicked protesters and slapped a middle-aged man in the face when he told them to leave.

The young men rode off within five minutes.

The opposition party has held daily protests since February 10, first against President Abdulla Yameen’s alleged breaches of the Constitution, and later against the arrest and sentencing of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed was convicted of terrorism over the January 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, and jailed for 13 years on March 13.

At 11:00pm, another group of eight men attacked protesters as they marched near the Malé City Council office and doused protesters with a mixture of petrol, crude oil and chilli powder.

Ahmed Anwar
Ahmed Anwar

A journalist with Island TV, Ahmed Anwar, said he too was attacked by gangsters and said the group had singled out women in the crowd

“The protesters were heading to the Usfasgandu area when the gangs suddenly charged into the crowd. They threw petrol, crude oil and some kind of pepper mixed with water on us. They singled out the women in the crowd. A woman standing next to me had both crude oil and chili powder on her,” he told Minivan News.

Anwar said the police watched on as gangsters attacked protesters. When the crowd apprehended one of the young men, the police escorted him out of the crowd and released him, Anwar alleged.

However, the police did detain a young man who attacked the protesters around 12:00am, he said.

 

Maldives Media Council member, Miusam Abbas, was also doused with petrol and crude oil.

“I was with the members of the press. We were trying to get to the back of the crowd when the gangsters threw crude oil and petrol on me,” he told Minivan News.

According to the Maldives Police Services, three men and two women were arrested from the protest last night. They included individuals who had attempted to disrupt the protest, the police said, but declined to give further details.

Last Sunday, a group of eight men wielding knives threatened protesters and vandalised a party lorry and its sound system ahead of the night’s protest. A group of six attacked protesters and journalists on February 27 and cut off Raajje TV’s live feed.

Vice President of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, Ahmed Tholal, in a tweet last night urged the “authorities to ensure safety of people exercising a constitutional right.”

In a statement today, the MDP condemned “the continuing attacks on MDP protesters” and accused government officials of perpetrating the attacks.

“These groups, with the backing of government officials, are attacking and intimidating protesters with machetes and other dangerous weapons. The people who attack us have full confidence they would be released,” the statement read.

The opposition party further alleged the police arrested peaceful protesters instead of taking action against those who disrupted protests.

The MDP called on the Human Rights Commission and the Police Integrity Commission to investigate the police’s inaction.

Meanwhile, a group attempted to break into former MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor’s home last night. They broke the lock and vandalised the door.

Hamid, also the MDP’s international spokesperson, is in Colombo at the moment.

The opposition-dominated Malé City Council has also expressed concern over “police negligence” in protecting protesters and failure to arrest gangsters who attack protesters.

“The police are acting as if they support the gangs’ actions,” the statement said.

Related to this story:

Artists protest exclusion of Nasheed paintings from Minivan50 exhibition

MDP to work with Adhaalath Party as Sheikh Imran calls for “national unity alliance” against government

Eight gangsters threaten MDP protesters with knives, vandalise lorry and speaker systems

10,000 protest in Malé, call for President Yameen’s resignation

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP to launch national civil disobedience campaign to free Nasheed

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has decided to launch a national civil disobedience campaign to free imprisoned leader, former President Mohamed Nasheed.

A resolution passed at an MDP national council meeting declared the party does not accept the Criminal Court’s 13-year jail term against Nasheed for his role in the January 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The terrorism conviction effectively bars Nasheed from presidential elections in 2018.

“The MDP resolves to free President Mohamed Nasheed from this government’s injustice, to do all necessary to stop the persecution of other politicians, to involve other political parties and other supporters in our work as extensively as possible, to launch a national civil disobedience movement, to reform judiciary and ensure judicial independence, to launch protests and organise petitions, and to accept Nasheed’s last appeal and establish a people’s government,” the resolution said.

Nasheed had called on supporters to confront President Abdulla Yameen’s “dictatorial regime” and “to take all of your lives in your hands and to go out onto the streets in protest.”

Speaking at the council meeting, MDP council members called for targeted boycotts against pro-government resorts and businesses and urged mass protests in Malé.

Nasheed will remain the party’s president and 2018 presidential candidate, MP for Galholhu North MP Eva Abdulla said.

“We, all of us together, we don’t have the sort of courage Mohamed Nasheed does. But we have learnt to take heart from his courage. That is why I say, don’t you dare think we will take a step back,” she said.

Pointing to several irregularities in the trial, MDP council members declared they would not accept the guilty verdict, and called on supporters to have courage.

“I am eight months pregnant, yet I am determined to continue this fight for justice for President Nasheed and Maldivian citizens. If I have the courage, so does every single MDP member,” said Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussein.

Hisaan at MDP National Committee

Democracy is won through long hard struggles, many council members noted.

“We must remember, history is rife with such atrocities. Authoritarian rulers, in our neighboring India, Mahatma Gandhi, in South Africa, Mandela, sentenced them to long years in jail in an attempt to destroy their political careers. But ultimately, they came out national heroes,” MP and former Speaker Abdulla Shahid said.

After the meeting, council members led hundreds of supporters in a march through Malé, calling for Nasheed’s release.

When the march ended at approximately 12:30am, hundreds of young men continued calling for Nasheed’s freedom on foot and on motorbikes.

Ali Waheed at protest

Six protesters were arrested last night, the Maldives Police Services said.

In the wake of the Criminal Court sentencing the opposition leader to 13 years in jail on Friday night (March 13), the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s conviction “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

Domestically, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives said the former president was denied fundamental rights that guarantee a fair trial in line with the Maldives’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Moreover, human rights NGO Maldivian Democracy Network urged the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges to intervene in order to prevent a “slide back to autocracy,” whilst Transparency Maldives expressed “grave concern” and stressed that Nasheed was denied legal representation, the right to appeal, and sufficient time to mount a defence.

President Abdulla Yameen has meanwhile called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

In a statement released by the President’s Office last night, President Yameen noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

Related to this story

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

Government will ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal conviction, says spokesperson

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex-defence minister “plotted to attack” president, police chief, tourism minister

Former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim plotted to attack President Abdulla Yameen, state prosecutors have claimed.

Revealing confidential plans in a pen drive allegedly confiscated along with a pistol and three bullets from Nazim’s home on January 18, state prosecutors said the retired colonel had also planned to attack Commissioner of Police Hussein Waheed and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb.

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office had previously submitted the plans as confidential documents in a weapons smuggling charge against Nazim.

The plans demonstrated Nazim had the “motive and character” to use the pistol and bullets, state prosecutor Adam Arif told the Criminal Court today.

Nazim’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed maintains rogue police officers planted the weapons at the former defence minister’s apartment in a conspiracy engineered by Tourism Minister Adeeb.

Defence lawyers today named President Yameen, Commissioner Waheed, Chief of Defence Forces Major General Ahmed Shiyam, Home Minister Umar Naseer and several senior ranking police and military officers as witnesses.

The Criminal Court adjourned today’s hearing stating the court would decide whether to summon defence witnesses only if they appear to negate the prosecution’s evidence.

Pen drive

 

Following the January 18 weapons find, Nazim was dismissed from his ministerial post. Two weeks later, on February 10, he was arrested on additional charges of terrorism and treason. At the time, the police accused Nazim of plotting a coup and planning to harm senior government officials.

On February 24, at the first hearing of the trial on weapons possession, Arif revealed Nazim’s alleged plot to harm officials was to be financed by Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim’s Villa Group.

The documents were to be kept confidential, but Arif today revealed further details, alleging a man named Riyaz was also involved in financing Nazim’s alleged plans.

Another individual identified as FA was to secure international assistance from Singapore, Malaysia and Bangkok, while another identified as “Bodu Boalha” [Big Ball] was to import weapons into the country, Arif said.

The documents also contained an escape plan, and listed the state wholesaler State Trading Organisation (STO) as an additional resource.

Nazim’s brother Adam Azim had been STO’s Managing Director up until his dismissal on Tuesday.

The state prosecutor also said the documents revealed that Nazim had engineered December’s water crisis in Malé when a fire at the water plant had left over 150,000 people in the capital without water for two weeks.

Nazim had also attempted to influence three Majlis votes, the prosecution said, which included the no-confidence vote against former Health Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela, the vote to appoint a new Prosecutor General, and the vote to reduce the Supreme Court bench.

Defence witnesses

 

Nazim has named President Yameen as a witness in order to prove Home Minister Naseer had notified the president of Adeeb’s alleged threat to “destroy” Nazim, defence lawyers said.

On March 7, Hameed claimed Adeeb framed Nazim after the former defence minister alerted Yameen of the tourism minister using SO SWAT officers to commit criminal acts, including the chopping down of all of Malé City’s Areca palms in October last year.

Defence lawyers have also called Superintendent of Police Ahmed Nafiz and former head of police’s intelligence directorate Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed to prove a complaint was lodged over SO officer’s alleged criminal activities, and that SO officers had engaged in criminal activity.

The defence has also called senior ranking police and military officers to prove:

  • a Special Protection Group Corporal had lost a 9mm Browning pistol at Shangri-La resort in 2014
  • weapons are routinely imported into the Maldives illegally and used illegally
  • police officers did not follow due process in raiding and searching Nazim’s residence
  • police intelligence had not received any information that illegal weapons were smuggled into Malé prior to the raid

The tourism minister has previously said he was “shocked” by the allegations, and dismissed them as lies.

Related to this story

Adeeb framed Nazim after fallout over Malé City’s Areca palms, lawyers claim

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

Ex defense minister’s wife charged with illegal weapons possession

Nazim remains in custody as High Court rejects appeal

Former Defence Minister Nazim remanded for 15 days

Police deny framing Nazim as former Commissioner alleges politicisation

No forensic evidence against Nazim, says legal team

Police raid Defence Minister Nazim’s home in early hours

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I was not afforded the rights of the accused,” says Judge Abdulla

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed testified in a terrorism trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed tonight, stating the former Commander in Chief must bear responsibility for his “unlawful arrest” in January 2012.

“I was not afforded the rights of the accused. My basic human rights were violated. I had no access to a lawyer,” Judge Abdulla told the court.

He claimed he is still unclear as to why he was kept detained from January 16 to February 7.

Nasheed is accused of abducting Judge Abdulla and is standing trial for terrorism. He has denied charges. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

The opposition leader once again reiterated a request for legal counsel and adequate time to mount a defence, pointing out that he had difficulty in appointing a lawyer while detained in Dhoonidhoo.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit yesterday over the Criminal Court’s alleged failure to provide sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and prepare to defend the former president against new terror charges pressed two weeks ago on February 22.

Nasheed has previously called the Criminal Court’s rushed trial an “injustice” and “the biggest circus the Maldives has seen in constitutional history.”

But presiding Judge Abdulla Didi insisted there was no obstruction to Nasheed appointing a lawyer, and said the former president had been given ample opportunity to obtain legal counsel.

Judge Didi adjourned the hearing after scheduling the next hearing for Friday night (March 13), where the defence and prosecution are to present concluding statements.

Judges could issue a verdict at their discretion afterwards.

“This is what the President wants…”

Recounting his arrest, Judge Abdulla said he had gone home from work late on January 16, and was having dinner with his wife when masked men in military uniform entered his home without a court warrant and “dragged me off to Girifushi.”

In the process, his arm was hurt, he said. Since he had been arrested at 12am, he did not know where he was being taken, and only found out he was in Girifushi much later, Judge Abdulla said.

Senior government officials including former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, then-Minister of Youth Hassan Latheef and former Presidential Envoy Ibrahim Hussein Zaki visited Judge Abdulla in Girifushi, he said.

Judge Abdulla said the meetings with government officials made it clear to him they did not have authority to make a decision on his detention.

Their use of phrases such as “this is what the President wants,” made it clear the then-Commander In Chief was responsible for his detention on Girifushi, Judge Abdulla said.

Government officials offered him four options, to step down as the Criminal Court Chief Judge, to transfer to another job, to leave Malé or leave the country, he continued.

Judge Abdulla was summoned to court tonight by presiding Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman. He was not listed among the prosecution’s witnesses and neither the state prosecutors nor Nasheed posed any questioned to the judge tonight.

Mount a defence

Nasheed requested ten additional days to appoint new lawyers stating: “You have to give a detainee the opportunity. You know very well the laws and rules you have to follow.”

But Judge Didi said the Criminal Court would not give the former president special access or privileges and said he could appoint new lawyers whenever he wishes.

Nasheed’s legal team had been given access to Dhoonidhoo Island even today, Judge Didi noted.

However, the opposition leader argued the four lawyers had dropped the case due to the Criminal Court’s denial of due process and adequate time to prepare defence, and said he required time to appoint a new lawyer of his choosing.

“Lawyers don’t grow on trees,” he said.

The office of the former President Mohamed Nasheed issued a statement tonight, pointing out defendants in other high profile cases had been given over a month to find legal representation, and the court proceedings last more than a year.

The statement also expressed concern over the Criminal Court’s decision not to hear the witnesses Nashed had submitted in his defence.

The judges said they did not believe the witnesses would negate the testimony of witnesses produced by the state, and were therefore unnecessary.

Related to this story

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court
Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

The Criminal Court tonight continued to hear evidence against former President Mohamed Nasheed in an ongoing terrorism trial, dismissing the opposition leader’s repeated requests for legal counsel.

“I want a lawyer. This is not a court of law. This is injustice. This is the biggest circus this country has seen in its constitutional history,” Nasheed told Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit today in protest of the Criminal Court’s alleged failure to provide adequate time to mount a defense.

The former president is accused of ordering the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted under the 1990 Anti-Terrorism Act, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

“I call on all Maldivian citizens to stop this atrocity the three of you are committing here, to summon you before a court of law and ensure justice,” Nasheed said in court today.

He accused the three judges of authoritarianism, taking the law in to their hands and ripping the 2008 Constitution to shreds. The opposition leader also said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without legal representation.

The Criminal Court adjourned today’s hearing after announcing Judge Abdulla would be called to court tomorrow night. However, the four defence witnesses would not be summoned as they do not appear to counter the state’s claims, judges said.

Nasheed was arrested on February 22, ahead of the surprise terrorism hearing scheduled for the next day. The Criminal Court has held eight hearings since then.

Documentary evidence

State prosecutors tonight presented video recordings of two speeches Nasheed had made in public on January 22, 2012 and on July 2, 2012, and an audio recording of comments made at the police HQ on January 18, 2012.

A video of Judge Abdulla’s arrest was also screened in court, showing masked soldiers escorting the judge out of his home and into a military vehicle. The video showed Judges Didi and Yoosuf active at the scene of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, Nasheed pointed out.

In the January 22 speech at Raalhugandu area in Malé, Nasheed said judges were undermining the constitutional powers of the judicial watchdog body tasked with disciplining judges. As the head of state, he said he was obliged to take action, but said arresting individuals gave him no satisfaction.

Nasheed also said judges must have the required qualifications, honesty and integrity.

In the July 2 speech, Nasheed described Judge Abdulla Mohamed as a national security threat and said he had ordered the Maldives National Defence Forces (MNDF) to treat Judge Abdulla as such, upon a request from the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police.

Meanwhile, in an audio clip of comments made to police officers on January 18, Nasheed said he would not allow Judge Abdulla within 100 meters of a courthouse during his presidency.

State prosecutors also read from a transcript of a conversation between Nasheed and his cabinet on January 17, 2012, in which the former president asked his ministers their opinion on releasing Judge Abdulla or keeping him detained.

A log of MNDF’s observations of Judge Abdulla’s activities while at Girifushi, and several Supreme Court and High Court rulings ordering the judge’s release were also presented.

State prosecutors said Nasheed’s comments demonstrated he had directly ordered the judge’s arrest, while the video of the arrest, the military logs and court orders demonstrated the judge had been incarcerated against his will on military training island Girifushi.

At every opportunity, Nasheed repeated a request for legal counsel of his choosing, and reiterated his belief that the trial was unjust and unlawful.

The Criminal Court dismissed Nasheed’s requests, claiming the former president and his legal team had been afforded adequate time. They have previously argued case documents had been provided three years ago when charges of ordering Judge Abdulla’s “arbitrary detention” were filed against Nasheed.

However, lawyers in a statement on Monday evening noted Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin had withdrawn the lesser charges and pressed harsher terrorism charges on February 22.

“Even though we had the case documents for three years, we were reviewing and researching those documents and evidence to mount a defence for the intial charges,” the lawyers said.

“We have to start work all over again in order to build a defence for the new terror charges. This is why we keep reiterating requests for additional time in the ongoing hearings.”

The basis of defence arguments are now different, lawyers argued, stating it was “impossible” to provide Nasheed with proper legal counsel without sufficient time.

Meanwhile, the High Court on Monday threw out an appeal filed by Nasheed in which he claimed the Prosecutor General was not authorised to re-prosecute on new charges.

The appellate court claimed the appeal required interpreting the Constitution and said it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

Nasheed had also appealed the Criminal Court’s decision to keep him under custody until the trial ended. Lawyer Hisaan Hissein has previously said the High Court had rejected the appeal by classifying the Criminal Court’s bail denial ruling as a court summons.

Lawyers have also appealed the initial arrest warrant, and the Criminal Court’s refusal to recuse Judges Abdulla Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf despite the pair having provided witness statements to a 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

Related to this story

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers quit today in protest of the Criminal Court’s alleged refusal to provide sufficient time to mount a defence on terrorism charges.

Lawyers Hisaan Hussein, Abdulla Shaairu, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef and Ibrahim Riffath said they are unable to dispense legal advise and counsel to President Nasheed and represent him on a fair and just basis.

Nasheed is charged with ordering the abduction of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

The Criminal Court has dismissed the lawyer’s repeated requests for additional time, arguing case documents had been provided three years ago when charges of ordering Judge Abdulla’s “arbitrary detention” were filed against Nasheed.

However, lawyers noted Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin had withdrawn the initial lesser charges and pressed newer and harsher terrorism charges.

“Even though we had the case documents for three years, we were reviewing and researching those documents and evidence to mount a defence for the intial charges,” the lawyers said in a statement today.

“We have to start work all over again in order to build a defence for the new terror charges. This is why we keep reiterating requests for additional time in the ongoing hearings.”

The basis of defence arguments are different, lawyers argued, stating it was “impossible” to provide Nasheed with proper legal counsel without sufficient time.

“Our consciences do not allow us to continue when we are unable to carry out our duties according to the oaths we swore as lawyers,” they added.

The defence team’s resignation comes after they staged a no-show last night over the court’s alleged failure to provide important documentary evidence on time.

In Sunday evening’s hearing, the legal team was supposed to evaluate the prosecution’s audio and video evidence, but the CDs of this evidence were either un-labeled, dysfunctional or left blank, lawyers alleged.

The Criminal Court last night warned Nasheed’s legal team against protesting the court’s rulings, and warned Nasheed they would continue tonight’s hearing without legal representation if he is unable to appoint new lawyers.

Nasheed was arrested on February 22 on Muhsin’s claim he may abscond from a hearing scheduled for the next day. At the time of his arrest, Nasheed was not aware of Muhsin’s decision to press new charges.

The former president has expressed concern over the Criminal Court’s decision to expedite hearings, especially as he continues to be held in police custody.

Meanwhile, the High Court today threw out an appeal filed by Nasheed in which he claimed the Prosecutor General was not authorised to withdraw charges and re-prosecute on new charges.

The appellate court claimed the appeal required interpreting the Constitution and said it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

Nasheed had also appealed the Criminal Court’s decision to keep him under custody until the trial ended. Lawyer Hisaan said the High Court rejected the appeal by classifying the Criminal Court’s bail denial ruling as a court summons.

Lawyers have also appealed the first warrant to arrest Nasheed, and the Criminal Court’s refusal to recuse Judges Abdulla Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf despite the pair having provided witness statements to a 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

Over 70 lawyers submitted a petition to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) yesterday urging the commission to investigate unlawful acts committed by courts within the criminal justice system.

The petition outlined seven issues, including court’s denying the accused their right to legal representation and right to adequate time to prepare defence, as well as obstructions in appealing court rulings.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)