Author: Zaheena Rasheed

Nasheed’s house arrest extended, opposition backs age-limits for presidency

Former president Mohamed Nasheed’s temporary transfer to house arrest has been extended as opposition parties announced tonight support for a constitutional amendment setting new age-limits for the presidency.

A family member has confirmed Nasheed’s three-day house arrest was extended to eight weeks, after a doctor advised a stress-free environment and rest for back pain.

The opposition leader is serving a 13-year jail term on a terrorism conviction relating to the arrest of a judge during his tenure. The rushed trial was widely criticized for its apparent lack of due process.

MPs of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party and the Jumhooree Party (JP), at separate meetings, decided to back a ruling coalition proposed law to set an age limit of 30 – 65 years for the presidency.

The decision has fuelled speculation of a deal between the government and the MDP conditioning backing for the amendment on Nasheed’s transfer to house arrest.

Nasheed’s imprisonment has triggered a political crisis with three months of daily protests, historic marches and arrests numbering in the hundreds. Several foreign governments and the EU have called for his release.

The ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) is seeking to replace vice-president Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed with tourism minister Ahmed Adeeb. Adeeb is 33 now and ineligible for the vice-presidency as the Constitution states candidates must be 35.

PPM MPs have accused Jameel of disloyalty and incompetence, but opposition politicians and some media outlets have claimed President Abdulla Yameen is fatally ill and is seeking a loyal deputy ahead of a surgery.

The government has previously dismissed rumors regarding the president’s health.

Wednesday vote

The amendment is up for the vote at Wednesday’s sitting. A three-quarters majority or 64 votes will be required for it to pass.

The PPM and its ally the Maldivian Development Alliance only control 48 seats of the 85-member house. The JP has 11 MPs while the MDP has 22 MPs.

The JP, at a parliamentary group meeting, issued a three-line whip. Only seven of the 11 MPs reportedly attended the meeting.

Gasim Ibrahim, the JP leader and MP for Maamigili, is out of the country. The tourism tycoon has urged JP MPs to back the amendment and announced he will retire from politics when his five-year term as MP expires in 2019.

The government has frozen several accounts of companies belonging to Gasim’s Villa Group after slapping a US$90.4million fine claiming the money is owed in unpaid rents, fees and fines.

The MDP decided to back the constitutional amendment at a national executive council meeting tonight.

Even if the amendment passes, Dr Jameel can only be replaced if he resigns or if he is impeached with another two-thirds majority in the parliament.

House arrest

The Department of Correctional Services extended Nasheed’s house arrest to eight weeks tonight following a consultation with a neurosurgeon at the ADK hospital, a family member said.

Nasheed, who was previously held at a high security jail in Maafushi Island, was transferred to house arrest on Sunday. President Yameen authorized the transfer.

An unnamed senior government official told newspaper Haveeru that the extension came on the doctor’s recommendation.

“The doctor, after doing an MRI, has recommended [Nasheed] two months of bed rest. The neurosurgeon says he needs bed rest and a stress-free environment,” he said.

Nasheed was brought to Malé on Sunday nearly a month after a doctor first recommended an MRI scan.

President Yameen has ruled out negotiations over Nasheed’s release in talks with opposition parties, and has recently rejected a clemency plea.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: Supreme Court v. HRCM

Case number: 2014/SC-SM/42
Defendant: Human Rights Commission of the Maldives
Type: Suomoto
Date trial began: 16 September 2014
Date trial ended: 16 June 2015
Bench: Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Abdulla Areef, Ali Hameed Mohamed, Adam Mohamed Abdulla, Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi

Case summary:

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in the Universal Periodic Review Report, April- May 2014 (session 22), under the subheading access to justice (page 4), unlawfully spread false information about the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, the constitutional and legal procedures followed by the courts of the Maldivian judiciary in conducting trials and ensuring justice, and the procedures followed by the courts in releasing information. The commission has circulated this report in the Maldives and abroad. In the report, the commission described the Supreme Court’s mandate – acting in its role as the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives and as per international best practices and the Maldivian Constitution—as controlling the courts of the Maldives. In doing so, the commission has deliberately attempted to undermine the independence of one of the three branches of the Maldivian state, i.e. the independent judiciary. The commission has also damaged the Maldives’ independence and sovereignty, and deliberately attempted to undermine the Constitution of the Maldives. This case was initiated by the Supreme Court to hold accountable the members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives in a court of law, under powers vested in the Supreme Court as the highest administrator of justice in the Maldives, under Article 141 (b) of the Constitution, Article 9 (f) of the Judicature Act (Law no: 22/2010), and Article 86 of the Supreme Court regulations. The defendant in this case is the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives.

Points of note:

The Supreme Court –with reference to the facts, documents, evidence, testimony provided by the members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives in court, the Constitution, the Judicature Act, other relevant laws, and norms accepted in democratic societies – notes the following:

a) First, the most fundamental principle of international law is the principle of non-intervention in the sovereignty and the domestic affairs of another state. This is also the foremost pillar of the Maldivian democratic system. The Maldives has the right, based on the principle of sovereign equality and sovereign immunity, to participate in the international community as an equal to other states. It is unlawful for any party or individual to commit acts against national security and interests, as per the Constitution of the Maldives. Further, similar to other states, it is only the executive function (Sultha – Siyasiyya) that can represent the Maldivian state. According to international law, the Maldivian state is mandated to fulfill the three conditions of statehood i.e. territory, the citizens and the executive function. There is no legal dispute over the fact that the executive function has the sovereign power to conduct its own affairs in accordance with constitutional principles designated by the state within the state’s sovereign jurisdiction. Further, Article 2 of the Constitution states that the Maldives is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic based on the principles of Islam, and is a unitary state. The three branches of the executive function are the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. The powers of these three branches are clearly defined in Article 5,6 and 7 of the Constitution.

b) Second, given Article 115 (j) (k) of the Constitution states that it is the president who is authorized to determine, conduct and oversee the foreign policy of the country, to conduct political relations with foreign nations and international organizations, to enter into general treaties and agreements with foreign states and international organizations, which do not impose any obligations on citizens, and to enter into and ratify, with the approval of the People’s Majlis, treaties and agreements with foreign states and international organizations, which impose obligations on citizens,

and given that the legal procedures of the sovereign and legal system and international procedures state that acts such as dissemination of information and reports in the name of the state to foreign bodies, to meet international obligations, must be organized within the state,

It is clear that any act committed by any party or institution that contravenes these procedures is unlawful and violates the principle of supremacy of the Constitution laid out in Article 299 of the Constitution and the principle of rule of law.

c) Third, in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. Article 8 and 10 of the UDHR state that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by courts or national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted to them by the constitution or by law, and that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charges against them. Hence, it is known that the final authority to apply legal principles lies with the courts.

With reference to the principle of the rule of law, and to Article 42 (a) of the Constitution of the Maldives that states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent court or tribunal established by law to determine one’s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge, and with reference to the abovementioned clauses of the UDHR, and with reference to the supervisory role granted to the Supreme Court – in order to uphold the responsibility of protecting individual and communal rights and to strengthen and improve access to justice – by Article 141 (b) of the Maldives Constitution,

and while Article 143 (b) and (d), and Article 144 and Article 145, grant the Maldives Supreme Court, similar to the apex courts in other democratic societies, the power, in its supervisory authority to ensure basic rights, to issue habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, writ of prohibition, and quo warranto prerogative writs, and while the procedures to issue such rulings have been decided by the Maldives’ legal system and by the Supreme Court’s rulings,

the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has prepared a report that provides false information about these legal procedures, without referring to official sources such as the Constitution, laws and regulations, and court rulings.

It is clear this information is baseless from the confession of the members of the Human Rights Commission in court. Even though members in court said they had provided information in such a manner because the Supreme Court had not responded to requests for information on these procedures, they were unable to prove to any extent that they had made a request for such information. While laws and regulations concerning the courts, and court rulings are made available to the public, there is no law that allows the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives to write a report containing false information regarding these provisions.

This act by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives contravenes Article 189 of the Constitution that states that the commission must be an independent and impartial commission that shall promote respect for human rights, impartially without favor and prejudice. It also contravenes the Human Rights Commission Act (Law no: 6/2006) that states the commission must promote human rights in line with the Constitution of the Maldives.

d) Fourth, the preparation of the above-mentioned report was unlawful as it contained information that is false, and information that misleads [the public] about the jurisdiction of the courts. Hence, the preparation and the dissemination of the report by the Human Rights Commission amounts to interference with the judiciary’ work and undue influence of the judiciary. It also contravenes Article 141 (c) and (d) of the Constitution and international norms, and clearly violates the independence granted to the judiciary by international laws. It is known from the commission members’ testimony in court that the information included in the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives’ report is false and based on unreliable sources. It is clearly known from the Constitution, laws and regulations regarding judicial procedures, and from court verdicts, that the Maldivian courts conduct trials, as in other democratic societies, according to legal procedures which are written to ensure fair trial. The Maldivians state is one that maintains respect for obligations under international covenants that it is party to, and on its own initiative, passes laws to protect human rights in line with international standards, and the Maldivian state abides by these laws. The Maldivian state has established the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives as a national body according to the Paris Principles. Given that the three branches of the Maldivian state protect and promote human rights, the members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, have shown bias, undermined the commission’s credibility, been willfully negligent towards the progress the state has made and continues to make in [establishing] democracy and upholding the rule of law and human rights, and has been oblivious to those who commit terrorist acts against the people, state institutions and security forces, and acts that endanger peace and order, and undermine the state’s independence and sovereignty, and those who commit such acts. It is clear that the commission, by failing to rely on credible information and by preparing a false report and by disseminating this report, has acted unlawfully and encouraged acts that undermine the Maldives’ independence, sovereignty, constitutional system, and peace and order.

e) Fifth, state institutions must function according to societal truths and values, and with regard to the state’s capabilities and facilities that are available to it, and without spreading unlawful information that endangers the state, and without allowing room for unlawful acts, and by prioritizing prudent and peaceful solutions, and based on principles that bring out the best results. Although there are rights afforded to individuals, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the national body on human rights (The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives) is to refrain from acts that undermine the nation and public interest. It is clear that the national body on human rights must function impartially and as a national institution according to the UN resolution passed in the 1993 Vienna Conference and according to the Paris Principles. The role of the national body on human rights, established within the state’s sovereign system, must be to promote human rights and to advise the government and other authorities on protecting human rights, and conducting awareness programs. Hence, such a national body must not overstep into the jurisdiction of any institution within the executive power or that of the security forces or the judiciary or the legislature. It is not legal to make a law in such a manner or interpret a law in such a manner. The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives is a body that listens to complaints by the citizens, and works to address such complaints, and interacts directly with the people. It is clear that for such an institution to act in ways that overlap with the mandate of other state institutions, in fact, undermines its own mandate.

f) Sixth, the national body on human rights must work within the sovereign legal system of the state, in the spirit of cooperation with the branches of the state and its institutions, without bias, to provide recommendations on matters concerning human rights and matters violating human rights, to review complaints of violations of human rights and to provide redress, to advise on bills protecting human rights and revisions for such laws, to assess the situation of human rights, to provide advice in such situations, and to conduct educational and awareness programs on human rights, or conduct such programs in association with other state offices, in order to promote and protect human rights.

Verdict

Whereas the Article 141 (b) of the Maldives Constitution clearly states that the highest authority for the administration of justice is the Maldives Supreme Court,
Whereas [the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives] has described steps taken by the Supreme Court, in its role as the guardian of the Maldives Constitution and laws, to uphold the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and to ensure justice without fear and prejudice, and according to the Islamic Shariah and laws, and to uphold the rule of law, as controlling the judiciary,

Whereas the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in the subheading access to Justice in the report, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which was made public on September 16, 2014, has mislead [the public] on the jurisdiction of the highest authority in the administration of justice, the Supreme Court, and on the legal procedures used by the courts in conducting trials, and on the procedures used by courts in providing information

Whereas the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has prepared the abovementioned report, shared this report with parties in the Maldives and abroad, and whereas this report contains false information regarding the procedures accepted and followed by the courts,

Given that Article 145 (c) of the Maldives Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law, and

Given Article 20 of the Maldives Judicature Act (22/2010) clearly states that the government, the parliament and the state institutions must obey and abide by the Supreme Court’s rulings

It is ruled that the statement made by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives which describes the previous, current and future work of the Supreme Court, acting in its role as the highest authority in the administration of justice, and according to the Maldives Constitution, relevant laws and international best practices, as controlling the judiciary, and disseminating information that is false and undermines trust in the judiciary via the above mentioned report to parties in the Maldives and abroad, is an act that contravenes Article 141, Article 145 (c), Article 299 (a) of the Maldives Constitution, and Article 20 (a) and (b) of Law no 22/2010 (Judicature Act)

Hence, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives is ordered to respect the Maldives Constitution and not to repeat such an act deliberately.

Further, given that the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, established under Article 189 (a) of the Maldives Constitution, similar to other state institutions, has no obligations other than those mandated by the Islamic Sharia, the Maldives Constitution and laws, international covenants the Maldives is party to, and part of the international covenants the Maldives is party to,

And given that the Maldives is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic based on the principles of Islam, and is a unitary state,

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in conducting activities to promote and protect human rights, is ordered to:

  1. Act within the ambit of the Maldives Constitution and laws to ensure the full protection of the interests of Maldivian state and its citizens
  2. Ensure the commission does not in any manner disrupt the Maldivian citizen’s unity and homogeny
  3. Ensure the commission does not undermine peace, security, order, and age-old norms of behavior
  4. Ensure the commission does not overlap with and take over the responsibilities and mandate of other state institutions
  5. Ensure such activities are permitted in Maldivian society by the Maldives Constitution and its laws
  6. Ensure such activities are in line with the Maldivian faith, accepted societal norms, and good behavior
  7. Ensure such activities are based on policies compiled in light of credible research in line with the Maldivian faith, accepted societal norms, good behavior, the Maldivian Constitution and laws, and in a manner that protects national security, peace and unity, and with the full cooperation of other institutions of the Maldivian state
  8. In the event the commission has to work with foreign bodies, the commission, as an organ of the sovereign and independent Maldivian state, must follow procedures established by the state and work with the mediation of the relevant state institution
  9. Uphold the lawful government, ensure respect for the rule of law, and ensure such activities increase the citizens’ obedience to the rule of law
  10. Ensure such activities are free from political bias, and without the intention of furthering the interests of a specific party or to defame a specific party
  11. Ensure such activities do not encourage political, social and religious extremism, and do not facilitate hardship for the Maldives, and do not tarnish the Maldivian nation’s good reputation.
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex-defence minister’s appeal stalled

The High Court today cancelled the third hearing into an appeal filed by former defence minister Mohamed Nazim following the Supreme Court’s transfer of two judges on the panel to a newly created appellate court in the south.

Nazim is serving an 11-year jail term on weapons smuggling charges. The retired colonel maintains he was framed by rogue police officers.

Appeal hearings began on Sunday and were to continue daily and conclude this week.

The Supreme Court yesterday transferred Judges Abbas Shareef and Shuaib Hassan Zakariyya to the southern branch of the High Court. The two are among the five-judge panel overseeing Nazim’s appeal.

A family member said they have not been informed when the next hearing is to take place.

There are now a number of issues that could stall Nazim’s appeal. A panel of at least three judges must preside over the case.

Two criminal court judges who had sentenced Nazim were recently appointed to vacant seats on the nine-member High Court bench. The High Court has previously said the pair – Judges Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman – will not oversee the appeal.

Of the seven judges left, judge Azmiralda Zahir was also transferred along with Shareef and Zakariyya to the southern branch.

This leaves only four judges to oversee Nazim’s appeal.

The High Court could proceed with a three-member panel. But the Supreme Court could at any time transfer any three of the remaining six High Court judges in Malé to a second regional branch in the north.

If any of the two former criminal court judges sit on the Malé bench, the appeal cannot proceed.

The division of the High Court into three regional branches with three judges each was required through amendments to the Judicature Act in December last year.

The regional branches can only hear appeals of magistrate court verdicts, while only the main branch in Malé can hear appeals of challenges to laws and regulations.

Critics have previously questioned the need to divide the high court bench, noting magistrate courts typically only hold trials on petty crimes. The bulk of complicated civil and criminal matters are heard at the Malé’s superior courts.

The opposition has described the judges’ transfer to the regional branches as a demotion, and said it will allow the Supreme Court to transfer judges it is not happy with to the regional branches.

The apex court’s decision to divide the High Court comes at a much later date than that required by law. The amendments said the Supreme Court must establish the regional branches within 90 days of the ratification of the law.

On Sunday, Nazim highlighted several lapses in due process at the criminal court, including judge’s failure to call defence witnesses, discrepancies in testimony by anonymous police officers and police failure to follow standard procedures in the midnight raid on his apartment.

State prosecutors on Monday said police are authorised to change their standard operating procedures at any time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom ‘unhappy’ with age limits for presidency

MPs of the ruling coalition have backed a constitutional amendment setting age limits for the presidency against the wishes of ex-president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Gayoom, who heads the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), had sent a letter to the party’s parliamentary group leader Ahmed Nihan stating that MPs should wait on approval from the PPM executive council before supporting the amendment.

However, at an emergency meeting tonight, MPs of the PPM and its ally the Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) decided that the parliamentary group does not require approval from the council.

The amendment – proposed by MDA MP Mohamed Ismail – proposes setting an age limit of 30 to 65 years for the presidency. The constitution currently only says a candidate must be 35 years of age.

If passed, the bill would bar Gayoom from contesting presidential polls. The former president, who is now in his early 80s, had served six terms from 1978 to 2008.

“Deeply saddened”

Minivan News has learnt that Gayoom had sent a text message to Nihan on the morning of June 9 expressing disapproval with the proposal. “I reject the proposal to set age limits for the presidency. It will only bring President Yameen into disrepute. Setting a cap on the age of a presidential candidate is not done anywhere in the world.”

Shortly after the message was sent, some 44 MPs voted to consider the amendment and sent it to a sub committee for review.

After the vote, Gayoom, in a second text message to Nihan said: “I am deeply saddened. There is no point to a man whose opinions are not considered staying on as PPM president.”

The parliamentary committee has since voted to accept the bill. It will now be sent to the parliament floor for approval.

The bill has fuelled speculation that President Abdulla Yameen plans to replace vice-president Mohamed Jameel Ahmed with tourism minister Ahmed Adeeb, who is now 33 and ineligible for the position.

Yameen is Gayoom’s half-brother.

The relationship between President Yameen and Dr Jameel is reportedly under strain. Jameel’s cousin, Mohamed Maleeh Jamal, was dismissed from the cabinet last month. The government did not provide a reason for the dismissal.

Yameen is currently in Germany in an unannounced visit and is due back on Sunday.

Three-quarters

A three- quarters majority or 64 votes will be needed to amend the constitution. The ruling coalition controls 48 seats in the 85-member house, and will need the backing of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Jumhooree Party (JP).

A three-quarters majority will also be needed to impeach Jameel.

JP leader Gasim Ibrahim has urged the nine JP MPs to back the amendment, although it would bar him from contesting the next presidential elections. He will be 66 in 2018.

Gasim announced last week that he will retire from politics once his five-year term as Maamigili MP expires in 2019. The tourism tycoon’s announcement comes weeks after the government slapped a US$90.4million fine on his Villa Group and froze the accounts of five of Villa Group’s subsidiary companies.

The claim was issued after the JP split from the PPM and allied with the MDP in a campaign against President Yameen’s alleged authoritarianism.

Gasim has since suspended the JP campaign and remained silent on the imprisonment of MDP leader and ex-president Mohamed Nasheed. The JP is in disarray with two senior officials facing terrorism charges.

The MDP, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and several JP MPs are continuing the campaign for Nasheed’s release.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government defends Supreme Court’s HRCM ruling

A Supreme Court judgment that bars the human rights watchdog from communicating with foreign organization without oversight “clearly stresses” the commission’s independence, the Maldivian foreign ministry has said.

The 11-point guideline issued by the apex court, in a ruling that also found the a human rights assessment submitted by the watchdog to the UN unlawful, simply prescribes how the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives should operate within the law, the ministry said.

UN rights experts, the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and civil society groups have denounced the guideline as one that restricts the HRCM’s work and its right to share information freely with the UN.

But the foreign ministry said the guidelines “do no stipulate, in any specific terms, any restriction or limitation on the HRCM’s ability to submit reports to the UN or any other national or international organ in the future.”

The guideline was issued under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the Supreme Court to prosecute and pass judgment.

Point 7 of the guideline orders the commission to ensure “full cooperation” from other state institutions, while point 8 says the HRCM must communicate with foreign bodies according to procedures set by the state and through the relevant state institution.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said the verdict was “completely unacceptable.” The guideline is “yet another example of the judiciary undermining human rights protection in the Maldives,” he said.

The UN Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, and on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst described the verdict as “an act of reprisal.”

The charges relate to a report the HRCM had submitted to the Universal Periodic Review, a process that studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states with the aim of supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

In the report, the HRCM had said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

The apex court said the report was biased and undermined judicial independence and the Maldives constitution.

Defending the Supreme Court, the foreign ministry today said: “To suggest that the Supreme Court has, in this case, deliberately sought to curtail the activities of the HRCM, as a state institution appears to be a mischaracterization, in that the substance of the suomoto case is not concerned with the substance of the report prepared for the UPR, but issues concerning the compilation of that report.”

The Supreme Court judges, in fact, did take issue with the substance of the report, and also censured the HRCM for basing its assessment of the judiciary on reports written by Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and advocacy group Transparency Maldives.

Then- Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, in September last year, suggested the HRCM should not cite Knaul as the judiciary had rejected her 2013 report on the judiciary.

The Supreme Court verdict, delivered eight months after the charges were first pressed, comes as the parliament prepares to appoint three new members to the HRCM as the five-year terms of three members are due to expire in August and September.

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former ruling party MP, the wife of a current ruling party MP and a senior official at the gender ministry for the soon to be vacant seats.

The government has meanwhile hired a law firm owned by Cherie Blair, the wife of UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair, to “strengthen the legislative framework of the government.” Omnia Strategy also specializes in public relations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s appeal for clemency rejected

Rejecting jailed ex-president Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal for clemency, President Abdulla Yameen has urged him to first exhaust all appeal processes in his terrorism conviction.

“President Yameen responded to Nasheed’s letter with the same answer he’s always maintained – to complete all appeal processes,” said the president’s office spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali.

Nasheed is serving a 13-year-jailterm on a terrorism charge relating to the arrest of a judge during his tenure. The rushed trial was widely criticized for its apparent lack of due process.

President Yameen’s letter was sent to Maafushi Jail.

Nasheed’s lawyers maintain they have been blocked from filing an appeal after the criminal court failed to release a report into case proceedings within the shortened 10-day appeal period.

The Supreme Court has removed discretionary powers granted to high court judges to accept late appeals, in the same ruling that had shortened the 90-day appeal period to 10 days, lawyers have said.

The government, however, insists Nasheed can still appeal.

Meanwhile, two judges who sentenced Nasheed were promoted to the high court last week.

The opposition leader has previously said he does not trust the Maldivian judiciary to accord him justice unless recommendations of judicial reform are fully implemented.

Nasheed’s imprisonment has triggered a political crisis with daily protests for three months, two historic mass marches, and the arrest of hundreds of protesters. Three more opposition leaders have been charged with terrorism.

In the appeal for clemency, Nasheed’s lawyers noted that the Clemency Act grants the president the discretion, on the president’s own initiative, to commute the sentence of any individual convicted of a criminal offence.

Calls for Nasheed’s release are growing. Amnesty International called Nasheed’s conviction a “travesty of justice” while the UN human rights chief said Nasheed was sentenced after a “hasty and apparently unfair trial” and noted “flagrant irregularities.”

The UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers noted “serious due process violations” such as denial of the opportunity to present defence witnesses, which led her to believe “the outcome of the trial may have been pre-determined.”

The European parliament in April adopted a resolution condemning the “serious irregularities” of Nasheed’s terrorism trial and called for his immediate release.

The US secretary of state John Kerry said during a visit to Sri Lanka that Nasheed was “imprisoned without due process”.

“This is an injustice that needs to be addressed soon,” he said.

US senators John McCain and Jack Reed have urged their government to press for the release Nasheed and all other political prisoners in the Maldives.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court verdict against HRCM ‘an act of reprisal,’ says UN experts

The Supreme Court’s ruling which imposes several restrictions on the Maldives human rights watchdog “is an act of reprisal” and contravenes both the Maldives’ Constitution and its international human rights obligations, two UN rights experts have said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled a report submitted by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to the UN in September last year as unlawful.

Judges set an 11-point guideline barring the commission from communicating with foreign bodies without oversight from “relevant state institutions.”

The guideline also orders the HRCM to ensure their activities are conducted with the full cooperation of other state institutions and that they “will not ruin the reputation of the Maldives.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision is purely and simply an act of reprisal against the Human Rights Commission for its legitimate cooperation with the UN human rights systems and its mechanisms,” said the UN special rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, and on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst.

Knaul and Forst have urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its verdict.

The Supreme Court had charged the HRCM with treason under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the court to prosecute and pass judgment.

The charges related to an HRCM report to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, in which the commission said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldives judiciary.

The UPR is a process that involves a review of the human rights records of all UN member states by other states, in order to improve the situation in all countries and address violations.

During a second hearing last year, the HRCM said its observations were based on reports by Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and advocacy NGO Transparency Maldives.

Judges censured the commission then, saying the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s 2013 report as “invalid.”

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed on Tuesday said the HRCM report was biased and undermined judicial independence in the Maldives.

Knaul and Forst said the Supreme Court verdict “is an undue interference into the independent work of the commission and their right to share information freely with the UN.”

The verdict is at attempt to strip the HRCM of its independence and “severely limit its constitutional prerogative to promote, as well as monitor and assess observance of, human rights in the country,” they said.

The Supreme Court has contravened the Maldives constitution which enshrines the independence of the Human Rights Commission, they added.

“While the judiciary is to decide matters before it without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, or threats, it is bound by the powers granted by the Constitution and the laws and must function in full compliance with the state’s international human rights obligations.”

Knaul and Forst said the government has not responded to an October 2014 letter they had written regarding the charges.

“We deeply regret that the government of the Maldives has failed to respond to this letter and urge the government to respond to the questions addressed in a timely manner.”

The main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party, civil society groups and lawyers have also condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling and said the court has infringed on the parliament’s mandate by “writing laws” for the HRCM.

In March last year, the court had sacked the Elections Commission’s president and vice-president when they criticized a 16-point electoral guideline issued by the court after it annulled the first round of presidential elections in September 2013.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-corruption watchdog was not authorized to suspend government contracts even if they suspected major corruption.

The president of the Anti – Corruption Commission at the time said the ruling rendered the ACC powerless to stop corruption.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives and Canada in diplomatic spat

Foreign minister Dunya Maumoon has accused the Canadian government of hypocrisy after it called on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to place a deteriorating human rights situation in the Maldives on its formal agenda.

“Canada should address the cultural genocide it is alleged to have committed against native Canadians before trying to teach other nations about values of democratic principles and human rights,” Dunya said in a statement on Tuesday.

Canada has condemned the imprisonment of ex-president Mohamed Nasheed and police crackdown on several mass protests organized by the allied opposition parties.

In a statement on Tuesday, Canada said it supported the June 12 protest in which protesters called for the release of political prisoners, an independent judiciary, and respect for freedom of expression.

Dunya said Canada’s “selective application of [democratic] principles is a highly hypocritical approach to adopt” after a Canadian truth and reconciliation commission said rules that required Canadian aboriginals to attend state funded church schools was responsible for “cultural genocide.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a historic apology in parliament in 2008, acknowledging the physical and sexual abuse that took place in the schools.

Dunya said the Maldives welcomes constructive engagement and acknowledged that democratic principles, including accountability, is an obligation on all states.

“We would encourage Canada to show good faith and engage positively with the government,” she added.

The CMAG in 2012 suspended the Maldives and placed it on the body’s formal agenda over Nasheed’s ouster in 2012. A Commonwealth inquiry later concluded that the transfer of power was constitutional, but the opposition now says the inquiry was flawed.

Dunya in March slammed unnamed foreigners for working with local opposition politicians of pushing for CMAG action against the Maldives over Nasheed’s terrorism trial.

She has previously said Canadian statements on the ongoing political crisis are “blatantly untrue.”

The Maldives is grappling with increasing international criticism over the prosecution of opposition politicians. In addition to Nasheed, ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim is also in jail over charges of weapons smuggling.

Rights organizations have said the trials lacked due process.

Earlier this month, Dunya criticised the EU, UK, Canada and US over tweets in which diplomats raised concern over fresh terrorism charges against three more opposition leaders.

The European parliament in April adopted a resolution condemning the “serious irregularities” of Nasheed’s terrorism trial while US secretary of state John Kerry said during a visit to Sri Lanka that Nasheed was “imprisoned without due process”.

“This is an injustice that needs to be addressed soon,” he said.

Last week, US senators John McCain and Jack Reed urged their government to press for the release of all political prisoners in the Maldives.

President Abdulla Yameen has called for separate talks with the three opposition parties. The Jumhooree Party has held two meetings with government representatives, but there has been no progress with the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party.

In October 2013, then-President Mohamed Waheed wrote a letter of complaint to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, accusing Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird of posing “several harshly worded questions… concerning domestic politics in the Maldives” during a CMAG meeting on September 27.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court renders human rights watchdog toothless

The Supreme Court has declared a rights assessment submitted to the UN by the human rights watchdog as unlawful, and has issued an 11-point guideline barring the independent body from communicating with foreign organizations without government oversight.

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed delivered a verdict today, eight months after the apex court charged the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) with treason.

He said the September 2014 report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council was biased, encouraged terrorists and undermined judicial independence in the Maldives.

In the report, the HRCM had said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

Days after the report was publicised, the Supreme Court brought charges against the HRCM under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the apex court to prosecute and pass judgment.

The case had remained stalled after just two hearings.

The 11-point guideline issued today orders the HRCM to protect unity, peace and order, and uphold Maldivian norms, faith, etiquette and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court said the HRCM must not overstep its mandate and ordered the independent body to cooperate with government institutions, communicate with foreign bodies through the relevant government institutions, and protect the Maldives’ reputation.

The written verdict was not available at the time of going to press.

In March last year, the apex court sacked the Election Commission’s president and vice-president when they criticised a 16-point electoral guideline issued by the Supreme Court after annulling the first round of presidential elections in September 2013.

Judicial control

The HRCM’s two-page report submitted to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) said: “The judicial system is controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court, weakening judicial powers vested in other superior courts and lower courts.”

The UPR studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states and is aimed at supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

The Maldives was first reviewed in 2010 and underwent a second inspection in May.

During the review in Geneva, countries across the world blasted the Maldives for the ‘politicisation of the judiciary’ and raised concern over the Supreme Court’s prosecution of the HRCM.

Several countries then recommended that the Maldives ensure impartiality and independence of the judiciary and provide training to judges.

The foreign ministry has deferred accepting or rejecting the recommendations, pending “national level consultation.” A decision will be communicated before the 30th session of the human rights council in September or October 2015.

Trial summary

At the second hearing on September 30, 2014, the HRCM had denied charges and said that the commission’s observations on the judiciary were based on reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and the national chapter of Transparency International.

Then-Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s report as invalid and reprimanded the HRCM for alleged failure to consult the Supreme Court in writing the UPR submission.

Faiz and Judge Muthasim Adnan were removed from the seven-member bench in December.

The HRCM in March said the Supreme Court’s suomoto case was the biggest challenge the watchdog has faced in its 11-year history.

The HRCM Act grants members immunity from prosecution in relation to acts carried out as part of the commission’s duties.

Today’s ruling comes as the parliament prepares to appoint three new members to the HRCM as the five-year terms of three members are due to expire in August.

The three members are HRCM president Mariyam Azra, vice-president Ahmed Tholal and member Jeehan Mahmood.

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former ruling party MP to the position. The opposition has accused the president of stacking independent commissions through the ruling-party controlled parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)