Author: Zaheena Rasheed

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

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers refused to appear in court today in protest of the Criminal Court’s alleged failure to provide adequate time to prepare defense.

Nasheed is accused of terrorism over the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

In a letter to the Criminal Court at 8pm, lawyers Hisaan Hussein, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, Ibrahim Riffath and Abdulla Shaairu excused themselves from the seventh hearing stating they had not had enough time to prepare.

State prosecutors were scheduled to screen audio and video evidence today. The hearing was initially scheduled for 4pm, but was delayed to 8pm.

Speaking to the press outside, Hisaan said the Prosecutor General’s Office had provided defence lawyers with unlabeled CDs this morning. Some were not functioning while others were left blank.

Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman began the hearing an hour late at 9pm. The defense team’s no-show was unacceptable, Didi said.

The Criminal Court had already ruled Nasheed had been afforded enough time, Judge Didi said. If lawyers disagreed with the court’s rulings, they could lodge an appeal at the High Court, but they cannot protest the court’s rulings or obstruct court proceedings, he continued.

The bench would consider penalizing Nasheed’s lawyers under contempt of court regulations, he warned.

Nasheed once again requested the bench for 15 additional days to examine state evidence.

But Didi adjourned tonight’s hearing ordering Nasheed to ensure lawyers turned up tomorrow or appoint new lawyers for tomorrow’s hearing.

After the hearing ended, Nasheed asked court staff to pass on the following message to the bench: “I cannot appoint lawyers by tomorrow. I am under custody in Dhoonidhoo.”

Nasheed was arrested on February 22 on the Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin’s claim the former president may abscond from justice. At the time of his arrest, Nasheed was not aware Muhsin had pressed new terror charges against him.

The first hearing was scheduled for the next day.

The new charges came after Muhsin withdrew previous charges of ordering an arbitrary detention in early February.

Nasheed appeared in court on February 23 with his arm in a makeshift sling after police officers manhandled and dragged him into the courtroom when he attempted to speak with journalists.

The former president was denied legal representation with the Criminal Court claiming lawyers must get appointed two days before a hearing is scheduled.

Nasheed pointed out he did know he would be charged with terrorism two days before. Judges then ruled he be kept in police custody until the end of the trial.

Nasheed’s lawyers have repeatedly requested for more time, claiming they required additional time to prepare for the new charges. But judges said the state had submitted the same documents during the previous arbitrary detention trial, and pointed out lawyers had been provided case documents in 2012.

At yesterday’s hearing, Nasheed said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without sufficient time to prepare his defense.

Nasheed’s lawyers have also pointed to what they call several irregularities in the case, including Judges Didi and Yoosuf having provided witness statements during the 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

PG Muhsin also had a conflict of interest in the case, they said, as he had been present at Judge Abdulla’s house at the time of his arrest.

The Criminal Court, however, ruled it had no conflict of interest and ordered state prosecutors and defense lawyers not to name them as witnesses.

Nasheed has also objected to police and military officers testifying against him, arguing they may be biased due to their role in his ouster in February 2012.

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

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)

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers objected last night to the state’s alleged influencing of witnesses in a terrorism trial over the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu admitted state prosecutors had met with witnesses, and shared statements they had provided to two separate 2012 investigations both by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the police in order to “refresh memories. ”

Rabiu stressed the meetings were routine, but Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussein said refreshing a witness’s memory amounted to influencing witnesses.

Two of three police officers who testified in Nasheed’s trial so far and Judge Abdulla’s sister-in-law Sobira said they had met with state prosecutors and reread their statements before testifying.

If convicted, the opposition leader faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

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.”

Abducted

Testifying via telephone last night, Judge Abdulla’s wife, Aminath Shareef, and sister-in-law, Sobira, said Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) officers had forcibly taken the judge from his home on January 16.

Despite Judge Abdulla’s mother-in-law’s repeated requests for a court warrant, masked officers pushed the door open and entered the dining room where Judge Abdulla was having dinner.

They took him by the hand, and ordered him to accompany them outside. They refused Judge Abdulla’s request to be allowed inside his room to change clothes, forcing him to change his trousers in the hallway. MNDF officers surrounded him at the time.

Aminath said she refused to let go of her husband’s hand, but an MNDF officer forced them apart.

Sobira said officers did not answer the family’s questions on where Judge Abdulla was being taken.

Despite having said she remembered former Criminal Court Judge and current Prosecutor General Muhthaz Mushin being present during the arrest at their home in her testimony to the HRCM, Sobira last night said she did not remember if he had been present at all.  She said she did not know who Muhsin was at the time.

Nasheed’s lawyers objected to witnesses testifying by telephone, but Judge Abdulla Didi said the procedure was routine.

Hatred

Chief Superintendent of Police Abdul Mannan Yoosuf also testified last night, claiming Nasheed said he would never release Judge Abdulla and would not let the judge within 100 meters of a courtroom during a meeting with the police after the judge’s arrest.

Nasheed objected to Mannan testifying, saying the officer harboured deep animosity towards him.

Judges blocked defence lawyer’s attempts at questioning Mannan on his whereabouts during February 7, when he had received his promotion and whether he had called for Nasheed’s resignation.

Judge Didi said Nasheed should have raised objections before a witness was called to the stand, but lawyers countered stating they had not had adequate time to prepare the former president’s defence.

Lawyers argued Nasheed had first been charged with arbitrary detention, but was now facing new terror charges. They once again requested 30 extra days to prepare for the new charges.

The Criminal Court refused saying the same case documents were used for the new charges and said Nasheed’s lawyers had been provided the documents in 2012.

Judge Didi said witness statements only consisted of one or two pages, suggesting lawyers did not require much preparation before hearings.

Nasheed said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without adequate time for defense. His next hearing has been scheduled for 4pm today. The state is to present documentary evidence against the former president.

Judge Didi assured Nasheed he would be allowed to view or hear documentary evidence along with his lawyers before the hearing.

Nasheed had previously contested the credibility of police and military officers as state witnesses, and contended the role of the police and military officers in his February 2012 ouster and Judge Abdulla’s arrest raised questions over their trustworthiness.

On March 2, the presiding bench waved away the concerns of Nasheed’s lawyers, who objected that two of the presiding judges, and the Prosecutor General, had provided witness testimony during the HRCM investigation.

The judges also warned President Nasheed’s legal team not to speak to journalists in a “manner that might defame the judiciary.”

Related to this story

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)

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu must bear responsibility for the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, the Chief of Defense Forces Major General Ahmed Shiyam has said.

Testifying in two separate hearings into terrorism charges against Nasheed and Tholhath on Thursday, Shiyam said the Maldives National Defense Forces could not carry out such an operation without the pair’s orders.

“As soldiers, we are obliged to follow their orders,” he told the court at Nasheed’s 9pm hearing.

Both Nasheed and Tholhath have denied ordering Judge Abdulla’s arrest. If convicted of terrorism, they face a jail term or banishment between 10 and 15 years.

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.”

According to Shiyam, Nasheed and Tholhath had met with senior MNDF officers after the judge’s arrest, where now retired Brigadier General Ahmed Mohamed spoke out against the long term damage the MNDF might suffer due to the military’s role in the judge’s arrest.

Nasheed then assured officers the military would not have to bear responsibility for the judge’s detention, Shiyam said.

State prosecutors then asked if Nasheed had said he would bear responsibility for the arrest. Shiyam said yes.

Speaking to the press afterwards, Nasheed’s lawyers noted Shiyam had not said the former president had issued the order to arrest Judge Abdulla.

Meanwhile, at a separate 2pm hearing into charges against Tholhath, Shiyam said the former Defense Minister had at the same meeting declared he would bear responsibility for the arrest even if he were to be jailed for forty years.

The words still resound in his ears, Shiyam said.

Tholhath had also told an MNDF advisory council he believed Judge Abdulla must be arrested, a day before the operation—dubbed liberty shield—was carried out, Shiyam said.

Tholhath’s lawyer asked Shiyam if former President Nasheed had given the arrest order, but Shiyam said he did not remember Tholhath saying so.

At yesterday’s hearing, Lieutenant Ali Ihusan, who served as Tholhath’s personal assistant, told the court that he heard the former minister saying he would not release Judge Abdulla even if he faced 30 years in jail as a consequence.

At the second hearing of his trial, Tholhath claimed the operation to arrest Judge Abdulla was initiated by Nasheed and carried out by then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, currently opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency.

Commander of MNDF’s Medical Services Dr Ali Shahid also testified at Nasheed and Tholhath’s hearings. Shahid had been assigned as Judge Abdulla’s doctor during his 21 days of detention on the military training island Girifushi.

Shahid said he had met with the Judge several times a day, and observed he was under military watch.

Tholhath, Didi and now retired Colonel Mohamed Ziyad called Shahid regularly to monitor Judge Abdulla’s well-being, he said.

At the 2pm hearing, Shahid also said Tholhath had assigned psychologist Aishath Zeena to Judge Abdulla after receiving reports he was not eating at all.

In a statement following tonight’s hearing, the office of former President Mohamed Nasheed said summoning the Chief of Defense Forces to the Criminal Court undermined his dignity and honor.

Nasheed had appealed to the presiding Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman to refrain from asking the Chief of Defense Forces to testify if at all possible.

The judges ignored the plea.

When given the opportunity to cross examine Shiyam, Nasheed declined, saying he had no questions for the Chief of Defense Forces.

Nasheed had previously contested the credibility of police and military officers as state witnesses, contended the role of the police and military officers in his February 2012 ouster and Judge Abdulla’s arrest raised questions over their trustworthiness.

The state has also named Tholhath as a witness against Nasheed.

Nasheed’s next hearing is scheduled for Saturday.

Ziyad and Didi are also standing trial over Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

Related to this story

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Tholhath vowed not to release Judge Abdulla even if he were to be jailed for 30 years, says witness

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 contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has contested the credibility of police and military officers as state witnesses in a terrorism trial over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

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 President Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

The opposition leader, who has denied ordering the arrest of Judge Abdulla, contended the role of the police and military officers in his February 2012 ouster and Judge Abdulla’s arrest raised questions over their credibility.

Chief Inspectors of Police Ahmed Shakir and Mohamed Jamsheed testified at a third hearing last night, and claimed Nasheed —in a meeting with senior police officers on January 18— had said he would not allow Judge Abdulla within 100 feet of the courthouse.

The Criminal Court blocked Nasheed’s lawyers’ attempts to determine credibility of witnesses, at times ordering lawyers to focus on the content of the statement rather than the identity of the witness or the level of their involvement in the events of February 7.

Presiding Judge Abdulla Didi said judges would decide how much weight each witnesses’ statement would carry.

The three judge panel—Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman—also refused to revise its ruling to keep Nasheed in police custody until the end of the trial.

Credibility

Shakir told the court Nasheed in the January 2012 meeting had said Judge Abdulla was destroying the criminal justice system, and undermining the judicial watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) by disobeying its orders, and would bar him from within 100 meters of the courthouse.

A visibly nervous Jamsheed, however, first said he had also heard Nasheed say he would order the arrest of Judge Abdulla at the meeting with police officers.

When Nasheed’s lawyers pointed out the January 18 meeting had taken place after the judge’s arrest, Jamsheed said he had heard Nasheed say the judge must be isolated.

Lawyer Abdulla Shaairu then questioned Jamsheed on his whereabouts on February 7, whether he had been active inside or outside the police head quarters, and when he had received a promotion from Inspector to Chief Inspector.

When state prosecutors objected to the questions, Shaairu said the defence must determine if witnesses had any animosity towards Nasheed, given their role in the events leading up to his resignation.

Judge Yoosuf then directly asked Jamsheed whether he harboured any animosity towards Nasheed, and defence lawyers immediately objected to the bench’s questions, saying judges were “putting words in the witnesses’ mouths.”

Judge Didi dismissed the defence’s claim, saying judges regularly posed questions to witnesses.

Custody

Lawyer Ibrahim Riffath appealed to judges to release Nasheed from detention, stating the High Court had rejected the former president’s appeal of the Criminal Court’s decision to deny him bail.

Despite lawyer’s assurances to the contrary, the Criminal Court said they feared Nasheed may abscond from trial and rejected the request.

Nasheed was denied legal representation during his first hearing. He was arrested on February 22, and his trial under new charges of ‘terrorism’ began the next day.

Speaking to the press outside, lawyer Hisaan Hussain said the High Court threw the appeal out, claiming the Criminal Court’s detention ruling was in fact a court summons.

In a statement before the trial began, the lawyers expressed concern over inadequate time to prepare their case. In a March 2 hearing, the legal team requested 30 days to mount a credible defence, but judges gave them one day.

The Criminal Court, however, has argued Nasheed’s team has had case documents for three years, as the new terrorism charges are based on the same documents as a previous arbitrary detention charge, now withdrawn.

The statement also noted the judges’ refusal to withdraw from the bench on the March 2 hearing, despite their involvement on the scene during Judge Abdulla’s arrest and involvement as witnesses during the police and Human Rights Commission investigation.

The next hearing is to be held at 9pm tonight.

Related to this story

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)

Evidence against Nazim consists only of 13 anonymised police statements

Evidence against former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim consists only of statements by 13 anonymised police officers, defence lawyers claimed last night.

At a second hearing into an illegal weapons charge, Nazim’s lawyers insisted evidence had been fabricated, and asked the Criminal Court’s three-judge panel to examine the legality of the means used to obtain evidence.

Nazim was charged with illegal weapons possession after police raided the then-defence minister’s apartment on January 18 and discovered a pistol and three bullets in a bedside drawer. Nazim was subsequently dismissed from the cabinet and arrested on additional charges of treason and terrorism.

Nazim’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed said some of the police statements were dated a year back, and argued anonymised witnesses would obstruct Nazim’s right to a free and fair trial as it would be impossible for the defence to determine if the officer had in fact been present on the scene during the raid.

But presiding Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf told Hameed to focus on the content of the statements, and suggested judges would determine the authenticity of the witnesses.

Meanwhile, state prosecutors claimed it was necessary to anonymise witnesses to ensure their safety.

Major blunders

Hameed also pointed to what he called major blunders by state prosecutors, including a decision to withdraw charges against Nazim’s wife during the first hearing, allegedly in light of new information found in a pen drive confiscated during the raid.

According to prosecutors, the documents show Nazim was conspiring with opposition Jumhooree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim’s Villa group to harm senior government officials.

State prosecutors were also forced to change charges from illegal weapons possession to importing and possessing illegal weapons midway through yesterday’s hearing due to an error in the charge sheet.

Noting that evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in court, Hameed contended the search warrant issued by Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed was unlawful.

Station Inspector Ahmed Azmath Abdulla had obtained the warrant on his superior’s orders, not on information he had received, Hameed said.

Further, there had been no police intelligence reports on the presence of illegal weapons at Nazim’s apartment, he alleged.

Police must scrutinise and verify information before obtaining a warrant that violates a citizen’s privacy, he added.

The bench, however, pointed to a High Court ruling in which the appellate court said it could not rule on the legality of the search warrant as the case was ongoing at the Criminal Court.

Hameed noted the High Court’s ruling ordered the Criminal Court to rule on the warrant’s legality during the trial. Judge Yoosuf said the defence’s request had been noted and asked Hameed to speak on the evidence itself.

Hameed also asked for an open and public trial in a larger hall, saying Nazim had no confidence in Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin.

But judges said the trial was already public as media and members of the public were allowed to observe hearings. Ten reporters and ten members of the public were allowed into the courtroom.

Evidence

Hameed asked the state to provide additional information, including a video recording of the raid, forensic analysis reports, copies of data obtained from the pen drive, copies of the forms submitted to the Criminal Court to obtain the search warrant, statements by all police officers during the investigation, video recordings of interviews with Nazim, his family and his security officers, and lists of police officers on duty on the night of the raid.

The extensive list was necessary to determine if the evidence had been fabricated, he said.

State prosecutors said they would issue the requested documents upon further review.

Nazim’s family in a statement last week urged the international community to step up pressure on President Yameen’s administration, claiming “there is no hope that Nazim can expect a fair trial” due to a “notoriously politicised judiciary.”

“Nazim never expected to be where he is now. But he has fallen foul of a political conspiracy, one in which powerful forces within the Maldivian government have sought to destroy him and thus prevent him from challenging for the leadership of the ruling party,” Nazim’s family explained in a letter to the international community.

The Maldives Police Services have denied planting evidence and framing the former minister, insisting officers had acted professionally during the midnight raid.

The government has maintained the arrests and charges against Nazim demonstrate “no one is above the law,” and says it has no influence over the trial, claiming charges were initiated by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an impartial judiciary.

Related to this story:

Ex-Defence Minister calls for an open, public trial

No hope for fair trial, says former defense minister’s family

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

A three-judge Criminal Court panel has ruled it has no conflict of interest in overseeing former President Mohamed Nasheed’s terrorism trial, despite two of the three judges having testified as witnesses in the case’s investigation.

Nasheed is accused of ordering the abduction of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted under anti-terrorism laws, he faces a jail term between ten and 15 years.

The opposition leader’s lawyers tonight requested Judges Abdulla Didi and Abdul Bari Yoosuf step down from the bench.

Citing statements provided during a police and Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) investigation, lawyers said Judge Abdulla had first called Judge Yoosuf on receiving news of his impending arrest, while Didi had been present at the scene of the arrest.

But, Judges Didi, Bari and Sujau Usman unanimously ruled there were no legal barriers preventing them from passing judgment, stating legal norms allowed judges to choose between acting as a judge or a witness.

They subsequently prohibited either state prosecutors or Nasheed’s lawyers from naming them as witnesses in the ongoing trial.

The judges also overruled Nasheed’s second procedural issue, in which he contended Prosecutor General (PG) Muhthaz Muhsin’s decision to re-prosecute him—after withdrawing lesser charges of arbitrary detention in early February—was unlawful.

The third hearing in the terrorism trial concluded with state prosecutors and Nasheed naming witnesses and outlining key pieces of evidence.

Nasheed has named Muhsin as a defence witness. State prosecutors today assured the former president that Muhsin would step out from the trial if he is called to the witness stand.

Presiding Judge Didi also warned Nasheed’s lawyers against publicly implying the former president may not receive a free and fair trial, noting such comments amount to contempt of court.

Conflict of interest

Nasheed’s legal team contended judges must be free of bias and be perceived to be without a conflict of interest to ensure the former president a free and fair trial.

Didi and Yoosuf’s involvement in the investigations into Judge Abdulla’s arrest, and their long history of working together indicated a special relationship, lawyers argued.

Lawyers also questioned Muhsin’s motivation in re-prosecuting Nasheed, noting he too had worked with Judge Abdulla for years up until his appointment as Prosecutor General in July 2014. Muhsin had also testified during police and HRCM investigations, they said.

Noting Nasheed’s terrorism charges came after he had effectively been on trial for arbitrarily detaining Judge Abdulla for three years, lawyers said the PG‘s decision to file new and harsher charges on the same facts allows Muhsin to abuse the criminal justice system by depriving the accused of finality.

However, state prosecutors contended the PG’s power to withdraw, review and re-submit charges translated into authority to re-prosecute on new charges.

Muhsin had testified in his personal capacity, not as the Prosecutor General of the Maldives, they said.

Witnesses

After the judges overruled Nasheed’s procedural issues, the state presented a list of witnesses.

They include former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, police officers Ismail Latheef, Ahmed Shakir, Mohamed Jamsheed and Abdul Mannan Yoosuf, Chief of Defense Forces Ahmed Shiyam, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers Ali Shahid and Aishath Zeena.

State prosecutors also plan to submit a video of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, speeches made by Nasheed at a cabinet meeting, a meeting with the police and in public during January 2012.

But Nasheed’s lawyers said the Criminal Court had failed to provide them with key evidence including the arrest video, and some transcripts of Nasheed’s speeches.

But Judge Didi ordered lawyers to name defense witnesses, assuring them the court would provide the items as soon as possible, and would allow them to name new witnesses to counter the new evidence if the court deems it necessary.

In addition to Muhsin, Nasheed’s witnesses include former head of police’s Drug Enforcement Department Mohamed Jinah, former Home Minister Hassan Afeef, and former Finance Secretary Ahmed Mausoom.

Nasheed’s lawyers requested 30 days to prepare his defence in light of new evidence that had not yet been provided, but judges said they would inform Nasheed of the date for a new hearing on Tuesday (March 3).

Judges also refused to revise an earlier decision to place Nasheed in custody until the trial concluded. The former president had been denied the right to legal counsel at the time.

Nasheed’s administration had justified Judge Abdulla’s military detention claiming he had had allowed “his judicial decisions to be determined by political and personal affiliations,” and repeatedly released then-opposition figures brought before the court on serious crimes.

Related to this story

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

Police arrest former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of terrorism trial

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex-Defence Minister calls for an open, public trial

In a letter to President Abdulla Yameen, former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim has appealed for open and public hearings in an ongoing illegal weapons trial.

The retired colonel alleged his charges were based on fabricated evidence and said he has no confidence that Prosecutor General (PG) Muhthaz Muhsin would uphold his constitutional rights.

Article 223 of the Constitution states the PG must assess evidence presented by investigating bodies before pursuing charges, oversee legality of preliminary investigations, and review the circumstances and conditions under which any person is arrested or otherwise deprived of freedom prior to trial.

“I cannot depend on the Prosecutor General to uphold his constitutional responsibilities. Hence, I believe the only means to ensure my rights are defended is a just trial open to the public,” he said.

Nazim was arrested on February 10 on treason and terrorism charges after police discovered a pistol and three bullets in the then-defence minister’s bedroom during a raid on January 18.

At a first hearing on a separate illegal weapons possession trial, state prosecutors alleged Nazim had conspired with opposition leader Gasim Ibrahim’s Villa Group to harm senior government officials, according to documents found in a pen drive confiscated during the police raid.

Some of the documents are to be kept confidential, state prosecutors have said. Nazim’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed has described the move as one that would obstruct the former minister’s right to a free and fair trial.

“We will not be able to respond to any of the confidential documents, which hampers his right to justice. We will object to this, and we will do everything within our means to protect Nazim’s rights.”

The Criminal Court at a subsequent hearing cited national security reasons, and ruled Nazim be held in police custody until the trial’s conclusion.

In today’s letter, Nazim offered to bear the expense for a public trial at the Dharubaaruge Convention Center in Malé if the state was unable to do so.

He noted the state had held public trials at Dharubaaruge over the 2003 Maafushi Jail custodial deaths and the 2005 terrorism charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The largest courtroom at the Criminal Court, used for Nazim’s trial, only accommodates twenty members of the public, including journalists.

Pointing to the thousands of opposition supporters who had marched on the streets of Malé on February 27 urging President Yameen to release all political prisoners, Nazim said a public trial was in the public interest.

Nazim’s family in a statement last week urged the international community to step up pressure on President Yameen’s administration, claiming, “there is no hope that Nazim can expect a fair trial” due to a “notoriously politicised judiciary.”

“Nazim never expected to be where he is now. But he has fallen foul of a political conspiracy, one in which powerful forces within the Maldivian government have sought to destroy him and thus prevent him from challenging for the leadership of the ruling party,” Nazim’s family explained in a letter to the international community.

The Maldives Police Services have denied planting evidence and framing the former minister, insisting officers had acted professionally during the midnight raid.

The government has maintained the arrests and charges against Nazim demonstrate “no one is above the law,” and say it has no influence over the trial, claiming charges were initiated by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an impartial judiciary.

On February 24, Nazim filed civil charges against PG Muhthaz Muhsin, alleging the office had failed to protect the former minister’s constitutional rights.

Nazim’s lawyers on February 12 filed defamation charges at the Civil Court and a complaint at the Police Integrity Commission against the Commissioner of Police Hussein Waheed for spreading false information.

Waheed at a press conference following Nazim’s arrest said the police had found an improvised explosive device in a bag confiscated from his apartment.

But lawyers say a police document detailing items confiscated from Nazim’s apartment right after the raid did not list an IED.

Related to this story:

No hope for fair trial, says former defense minister’s family

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM Vice President under threat after police ‘traitor’ claim

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has condemned the Maldives Police Services’ claim its Vice President Ahmed Tholal had called police officers “traitors” on Friday.

In a live blog on the opposition’s mass Friday protest, police claimed Tholal had called officers traitors while disembarking from a speedboat returning from Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Center following a visit with former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Condemning the police’s “false accusations,” the HRCM in a statement yesterday said Tholal and his family had started receiving threatening phone calls and messages.

Meanwhile, Tholal, in a tweet described the accusation as “politically charged” and said he would resign if police are able to prove their claim.

“But if I’m proven right, who’ll resign from the police?” he asked.

Speaking to Minivan News, Tholal said the HRCM’s Secretary General (SG) Shamoon Hameed and staff who were present in the speedboat would testify no such incident had taken place and that there had been no confrontation with the police at all.

The police have asked the People’s Majlis’ Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to investigate the case.

The HRCM said the police’s accusations undermines public trust in the commission and obstructs it from carrying out its mandate. It has asked the Police Integrity Commission to investigate the incident.

Angry crowd

Last week, a group of five angry men entered the HRCM offices and threatened to assault the five Human Rights Commissioners.

According to HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoud, the group had been unhappy over a statement issued by the commission on February 23 condemning the police’s mistreatment of former President Nasheed at the Criminal Court.

The opposition leader, currently in pre-trial detention, claimed he had sustained injuries when police manhandled him and dragged him into the court on Monday prior to the first hearing of a sudden terrorism trial.

Nasheed limped into the courtroom with his arm in a makeshift sling.

The HRCM statement said police had used disproportionate force, and urged the state to immediately extend medical attention and access to a lawyer.

Meanwhile, Hameed last week said police refused to allow the HRCM to conduct an independent medical examination of the former president.

However, the police have denied Nasheed sustained any injuries, with Superintendent Hamdhoon Rasheed telling the press on Wednesday (February 25) that an X-ray taken of Nasheed’s shoulder at the doctor’s request did not reveal any injuries.

“Doctors have assured us that President Nasheed did not sustain any injuries,” Rasheed said.

Rasheed also condemned the HRCM for issuing a statement “immediately after the incident” without “conducting an investigation.”

The police ‘use of force review committee’ was also conducting an investigation to determine if excessive force was used, Rasheed revealed.

The Supreme Court in September initiated suomoto proceedings against the HRCM, charging the commission with undermining the constitution and sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading lies about the judiciary in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submission to the UN Human Rights Council.

The case is still pending at the Supreme Court. The HRCM has denied the apex court’s claims.

Related to this story

Police denied Nasheed an independent medical examination, claims HRCM

Angry crowd threatens to assault Human Rights Commissioners

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

Supreme Court slams HRCM for basing rights assessment on “rejected” UN rapporteur findings

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

February 27 a historic success, claims opposition

The allied opposition parties have branded the mass protest of February 27 a success, claiming the demonstration was “the most well-attended peaceful political activity in Maldivian history.”

Estimating a turnout between 20,000 and 25,000, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson Ali Waheed said the party had decided to end the demonstration at 6pm against many of its supporters’ wishes in order to honour an agreement signed with the Jumhooree Party (JP).

“The rally was organised jointly by the MDP and JP. Our joint commission had agreed to end by 6pm. We wanted to show MDP is a party that honours agreements and is a trusted ally,” Waheed told the press this afternoon.

In a recorded message before the rally began, JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim announced the rally would end at 6pm and asked protesters to avoid any confrontations. Gasim is currently in Colombo, meeting with diplomatic missions.

Following the rally’s unexpected end, hundreds continued scattered protests in Malé calling for former President Mohamed Nasheed’s freedom. The opposition leader is in police custody until the end of a surprise terrorism trial.

According to the police, 28 were arrested from protests last night. Ten, including JP member and former Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi remain in custody.

Apologising for the leadership’s failure to communicate plans ahead of time, MDP Parliamentary Group leader, Ibrahim ‘Ibu’ Mohamed Solih, said plans had been evolving throughout the week and were only finalised at 12am on Friday.

Ending the rally at 6pm “was not part of the initial plan,” he said. In the lead up to the February 27 rally, many opposition leaders had pledged to topple the government.

Waheed said MDP would not ignore its members’ wishes, but Nasheed had instructed the leadership to follow the JP’s lead in conducting the rally.

Reminding supporters that Nasheed had resigned on February 7 “to prevent bloodshed,” Waheed said the party would never resort to violence.

“Remember, President Nasheed is under police custody. We had received reports there were threats to his life. Considering the events of his arrest and subsequent trial, MDP will not take rumours lightly. And we had to take that into consideration when we made our decision, regardless of whether that decision may be popular or unpopular,” he explained.

13 demands

Speaking alongside Waheed and Ibu, JP Deputy Leader Ameen Ibrahim said the opposition would scale up activities if the government failed to respond to their 13 demands.

The demands included calls for immediate release of former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim, repealing amendments to the Auditor General’s Act that saw the removal of former Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim, empowering local councils, and investigating serious corruption allegations against senior government officials.

“If we do not see the results we want, we will once again restart and scale up our activities. I do not think we will have to wait long,” Ameen said.

He also welcomed former ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP for Nolhivaram constituency Hussain Areef to the opposition and said many more MPs had communicated their desire to join the opposition, but were scared due to intimidation.

“The most secure platform is that of the people. And we, MDP and JP, now hold that platform. The citizens will protect you.”

The numbers had captured the international community’s attention, Ameen continued, claiming new international organisations and foreign countries were reaching out to the members of the MDP, JP delegation who remain in Colombo.

The JP and MDP parliamentarians would decide a timeframe for government response, and how to proceed at a joint parliamentary group meeting tomorrow, Ibu said.

“We are united, we are working together. Our work is still ahead of us, we will achieve results,” he said.

Home Minister Umar Naseer in a tweet last night said the government had seen and heard the protesters. The former JP member said the government is responsive and responsible.

Speaking to Minivan News last night, PPM parliamentary group leader MP Ahmed Nihan said the opposition had done a “commendable job” in making their voices heard.

Related to this story

JP Leader Gasim meets Sri Lankan President Sirisena

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

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)