Author: Minivan News

On 19 September 2003, prison guards beat to death 19-year-old prisoner Hassan Evan Naseem in Maafushi jail after he was suspected of creating a disturbance in the prison.
Evan was taken out of his cell to be savagely beaten by at least eight security officers with planks and batons. He died late that night in Malé’s Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital. His death would change the Maldives irreversibly.
In the prison, an uprising sparked shootings by prison guards that injured 17 and killed three inmates. Outside the prison, Evan’s mother, Mariyam Manike, refused to let her son leave this world quietly.
She uncovered his battered body, delayed his burial, and insisted the public should know of his brutal killing. Demonstrations and riots began in the capital, Malé. Maldivians had lost patience, and demanded reform from President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, then in power for 25 years.
Mariyam Manike, made instantly political by her son’s murder, became a key member of the reform movement, which built momentum in parliament and on the streets. Five years after Evan’s death, the country stands on the brink of its first ever multi-party presidential elections, the culmination of that process of change.
Mother of five and political activist Mariyam Manike, now 46, speaks to Minivan News about her memories of the past five years.
What is your recollection of Evan Naseem’s death?
On 20 September 2003, at 2am, a guard came and asked me to call Ismail Moosa, who was the head of the jail then. I didn’t realise how important it was. But I called and Ismail Moosa asked me to come to the hospital. I questioned him, and he said, “A sad thing happened last night. He died last night.” He swore he didn’t know how it had happened.
I went to the hospital, and at first, the police said I could not see my son’s body until a doctor had examined him. Dr Ahmed Razi came, he examined him, and then allowed me to go in.
I went into the room with his body. Only Evan’s head was uncovered. But I saw that both his eyes were soiled, and something was coming out of his nose. There was sand in his ears.
The nurse and the police were holding on to the cover. By force, I took it off up to his stomach. I saw that he had been tortured and beaten. I screamed, “They killed my son.”
The nurses came with stretchers and they tried to give me an injection, because I was screaming. My friend told me they were going to give me an injection, so I kept screaming, and they left.
How did the public come to know of his death?
I wanted the authorities to release the body, but no one would take responsibility and say the body could go. Eventually, a staff member at the hospital told me the report was done, and they were not holding onto the body any more.
They took Evan to the cemetery, Aa Sahara, and immediately they made preparations for burial. But I told them they couldn’t do it. “He’s my son. You can’t do this without my approval,” I said.
The man assigned to prepare the body told me Evan should be buried as soon as possible, because his body was going bad. I told them: “The body cannot go any worse than it is right now.”
Many people were in the cemetery. I did not let them bury him, or let the police come in. I wanted people to know.
President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom came. He lied on the “Siyaasath” programme last week [in which Gayoom said he had not been informed of the prison shooting that followed Evan’s death].
When he came to see me at the cemetery, I told Maumoon there was a shooting in the jail. I heard it on the phone – people had three or four mobile phones in the jail then. I received a call from someone in jail, who said, “Even now they are shooting.” I heard it. And I told Maumoon. He said he didn’t know – he was not aware of it.
I couldn’t sleep for two months afterwards. Even now when that day comes, it is as if he died yesterday. I hope and wish that no mother or father will have to see such a day.
Who do you believe was responsible for Evan’s death?
The President of Maldives and police commissioner Adam Zahir. Also Adam Mohamed, “Fusfaru” [National Security Service captain, who was tried for taking part in Evan’s murder, but sentenced to six months for “disobedience to order”].
The smallest chance I get, I will hold them responsible for it. If the law allows it, I will take legal action. We will never forgive anyone who is responsible for what happened to him. Even at the court, myself and his father wanted the death penalty. We did not want to accept blood money. It is God who should pardon them. Maumoon cannot pardon. [Eight security officers sentenced to death for Evan’s killing saw their sentences commuted to 25 years in jail.]
Torture in jail still continues – it may not be as it was then, but it still happens. A boy’s knee was broken because he prays too much. A boy’s shoulder was broken.
How did Evan end up in jail?
Evan was taken to jail not long after he started to use drugs. He was jailed at 17 for six years. My sister and I had given him up to the police, because we wanted him to have the chance of rehabilitation treatment.
He was on house arrest prior to rehabilitation, but then he got into a fight with the brother of a police officer. His sentence was immediately changed to jail, even though the law states the sentence can only be changed to jail after the second [drug] offence.
This area is all full of drugs: there is always a group that sells drugs here. They are sent to jail one day, and the next day we see them on the streets. We have to live in this tiny house, so the kids go out onto the streets. And the friends and neighbours are on drugs, so this is how it goes. It has not changed – there was a group sentenced recently but a new group came, and now it’s the same again.
You have spent time in jail yourself, is that right?
Yes, after August 12-13 [protests in 2004], I spent 57 days in jail. I was tortured a lot – no other woman would be tortured like this.
They came into this house to arrest me, and beat me. They took me in a bus, using foul language. They took me to Banderige [the treasury building]. They put me in a room and about 20 or 30 people came and beat me with their ankle boots, and kicked me everywhere. When I bent down, they took off my veil and hit me in the pelvic region. They blindfolded and handcuffed me, and tied my ankles.
They said, “We are taking you to the same place where Evan Naseem was killed. We will take your entire family. By coincidence you’re wearing the same handcuffs Evan Naseem wore.”
One of my sister’s friends, who was in charge of me, escorted me to the toilet. I thought I was bleeding but I was blindfolded and my hands were cuffed still. Someone came and hit me, I think with a stick, on my head. Then I blacked out.
That night they took me to Girifushi, the police training centre, still blindfolded. I told them I was injured and they took me to a gynaecologist. I was bleeding and the doctor gave me medication, and the bleeding worsened. I spent seven days in Girifushi, then in Dhoonidhoo detention centre in the small cells for 50 days. It was better there, with no torture.
Yes, I had participated in August 12-13 protests, but I didn’t do anything against the law. When Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra) was talking, I asked for the microphone and said two things: to let me into the court hearings, and for the death penalty for the people who killed my son. That’s all I said.
Later, I went to India twice for medical treatment for my internal injuries resulting from the beating. It was better after that, but I still have some problems.
Were you ever involved in politics before Evan’s death?
No – I was never a political person before that. Only afterwards. But from the hospital on, I knew I had to get people in the streets. I told everyone who came there to go on the streets and say someone has been killed in jail.
I believe the only political party is the Maldivian Democratic Party. They began this reform, and they are the only party who took action amid all the fear and intimidation. I have been with them ever since the party formed. Everything they do, I am involved with. MDP is very strong now.
Is it true that Evan’s killers are no longer in jail?
Yes, it is true. I attended all the court hearings. The men who killed him are on house arrest now. For possessing one gram of drugs, people are sentenced to 25 years. But child abusers and murderers are not jailed.
Do you believe others suffered the same fate as Evan? And have things changed?
Many, so many. And even though things have changed a little, torture in the jails is not finished.
I want to tell all parents not to let this pass by. If we allow it, it will continue to happen.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Immunity for gangsters is basically an obvious thing…After that news conference these gangs got immunity from being prosecuted. But are they loyal to the ministers who did that? No they are not.”

At a time of political uncertainty in the run-up to the country’s first multi-party presidential elections, as parties vie for influence , there is increasing concern that street violence – so often intertwined with politics in the past – will flare up again.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior member of the government speaks openly about soaring crime levels, failures in the system, and how the relationship between politicians and gangs is only likely to worsen over the election period.

We are seeing a significant increase in recorded crime in Maldives, especially in Malé. What are the main reasons for the high levels of crime?

If you look at the structure of the population pyramid, there is a disproportionately larger number of young people. Some people call this a youth bulge. That’s part of the problem – it is an underlying cause.

Unfortunately, we as a society have not been very successful at bringing up our children as useful young adults. The whole system has not been working well. I think about 80 per cent of the children drop out of school; if they don’t drop out then they graduate with hardly any grades that will give them opportunities to a good job or education institution. So 80 per cent of the children end their school careers as failures.

Even out of the remaining 20 per cent, half of them also don’t get the opportunities they need even if they have the grades. So it is only about 10 per cent of the youth that really become something.

Overcrowding is also an issue. When they were divided on the islands they didn’t form street gangs. Gangs are an urban phenomenon. Around twenty years ago Malé only held 15 per cent of the population, but now it holds about a third of the overall population.

What is the answer? Criminalisation or a different approach?

It needs a combined approach. Criminalisation is only part of a spectrum of action that needs to be taken. There needs to be a range of activities starting from at home, school and the community level – and finally at the level of the police and the juvenile justice system.

All children are born innocent. The problem we have involves a failure of parents to teach the baby how to become a good child, because of a lack of parenting skills among young parents.

Later on, the school is the place the child learns these antisocial activities so once early symptoms show themselves, teachers should identify and remedy them. Once a child doesn’t do well in school, they get into minor difficulties with the teachers, and somehow it alienates them and they end up going out on the streets, smoking and then drugs – this is the usual route.

So the children that are likely to do this, if they can be identified, they could get counselling or alternative classes.

There are counsellors in schools at the moment, aren’t there?

There are counsellors, but it doesn’t seem to work very well because of a lack of cohesive programmes. The school doesn’t have a system to absorb them. The principal and the supervisors hardly have an idea what counselling is or what the counsellors should be doing.
So this counselling system – even though there are counsellors, it hasn’t really worked.

So ultimately, by the time they are 15 or 16 years of age, these children invariably get into criminal activities, like serious crimes – armed robbery and these things.

If all the preventative measures were there, very few children would end up like this. But unfortunately at the present time, a very large number of children end up as serious criminals.

Once a person has committed a serious crime it has to be criminalised and punished according to the age of the child. It cannot be condoned.

These children are sensitive to these deterrents. A lot of would-be criminals who are making nuisances of themselves – at that stage, a single warning can change their life forever.

If you have a proper system, out of possible offenders, 90 per cent of them can be kept away from the courts. What we need is a system of general justice that involves all these steps.

There is an overall big picture where everyone needs to play a role. It is a very complicated situation that has arisen out of an overall failure of all the systems including housing, education, including a lack of law enforcement system. If you consider this, nothing really works. So it can be very frustrating.

Why is there so much heroin on the streets?

There is a lot of demand. As long as there is demand there will be supply.

Is there enough drug rehabilitation?

At any given time, perhaps up to 400 people are on rehabilitation. The problem with the figures by the NNCB [National Narcotics Control Bureau] is that no one really knows how many addicts there are.

One reason why some people have very high estimates is because of a difference of opinion as to who is a drug addict. Anyone who has taken a drug, even alcohol, once in their lifetime they could be counted as a drug abuser by some groups. But a drug addict is somebody that is totally physically dependent on drugs, from one fix to another.

Do you think strict laws help or hinder the problem?

A large number of young kids [who get picked up by police] apart from their drug habits are just normal kids. They are not hardened drug addicts or anything like that. A life of crime is the last thing on their mind.

But this person is taken and sentenced for 6 years in jail. Even if he gets a rehabilitation chance, he is still in prison for some time. And that initiation is a very traumatizing experience. You are put with hardened criminals and that sort of labels that guy as a life-long criminal.

If he was taken straightway to a rehabilitation centre or if there were other alternatives routes, this child could recover but this is not the case. Everybody gets all the encouragement they need to become a criminal under this system.

Why haven’t the laws been changed already?

When the drug law was made, this was ten years back. At that time the drug situation was not so bad; a lot of people – especially the conservative elements in society – thought severe punishment would cure this problem. It was only later that the mistake was realised.

And now, a large number of laws need to be passed and the parliament is working overtime. Then they were working on this constitution – and somehow this went into the background.

If it had been changed earlier, do you think this would have saved some kids from a life of crime?

Sure. One hundred per cent.

I talk to a lot of young people in gangs who say politicians give them money to carry out different acts for them. Do you think there is a truth to this?

I think so. I think it cuts across the whole political spectrum. Perhaps apart from Adhaalath party – I have no reliable information that Adhaalath uses them. All other parties have been using gangsters for their purposes. It’s rather easy to use them. They’d be fools if they didn’t use them. For a small amount of money, they will disrupt rallies.

For example, I am holding a political rally. And you give some drug addicts some money to disrupt my rally. It is so tempting and cost-effective that you would be a fool not to. It’s not good, but it happens.

What kind of things do politicians pay these groups to do?

Basically intimidating their rivals and disrupting any sort of political rallies. I mean, even people who you would not suspect of using street gangs, they also use them.

Do you think they will do this over these elections?

Let me ask you this instead: is there any reason why they wouldn’t?

Are politicians involved in the drugs trade?

As far as I know, no minister is directly involved in any drug-related business. This is my belief. I don’t think there is any minister directly involved. I don’t even think a prominent parliament member is directly involved. But I don’t know more than that.

In terms of involvement with politicians, I’ve heard of cases of gang members getting immunity. Does this sort of thing happen?

I mean that is basically an obvious thing. These people would do this. But in my opinion it is debatable whether the politicians are controlling the street gangs or the street gangs are controlling the politicians.

The street gangs always co-operate with them when they need something to be done. For example, there was a famous gang leader who mutilated his girlfriend’s face and he needed some sort of protection from prosecution. Now he got it. But does that person remain loyal to the politician that got it?

The gangs go along with these politicians as long as their paths converge. But the moment their interests differ, they always go their own way. So I think the street gangs are controlling the politicians: this is my personal opinion.

The government is afraid a massive street demonstration could topple the government. In this situation, if any politician comes and says, “I control all the street gangs in Malé”, he becomes a hero for the government.

So a large number of ministers and senior politicians try to control the street gangs and show that to the government. Based on this they get a lot of favours from the government.

But is it really true that these politicians – can they really control their groups? It doesn’t happen. The moment their needs are fulfilled, they lose interest.

I mean like that particular press conference, after that news conference these gangs got immunity from being prosecuted. Are they loyal to the ministers who did that? No they are not. They continue to do what they want to do.

Part of the reason why the street gangs have been able to play this game is because their leadership is very experienced and very talented. They are basically natural born dealers.

Whereas the ministers or the politicians who try to control these gangs they are basically inexperienced people who have no idea what they are dealing with.

Will the gang violence get worse over elections?

With the presidential elections coming up, I don’t think it could get any better.

Will it be all political sides that use the gangs?

I’m sure it will.

Is there any solution?

I think in this particular election, where the rivalry between the opposing groups is so high, and people are willing to go to any lengths to win this election, I don’t think the political groups can really come up with any agreed code of conduct.

Theoretically it is possible. If they can come up with a code of conduct saying look here, none of us will use street gangs.

If they agree this, that would be very nice. But that’s not going to happen.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

In April 2007, a report on the Maldives Police Service (MPS) by Scottish consultant John Robertson caused a storm when it was leaked to Minivan News, who published it in full – including its portrait of the service as overstaffed, undertrained, and on occasions brutal.

Robertson described the MPS Special Operations Command as an “openly paramilitary organisation” and a “macho elite…most of whom lack basic police training.”

But in the ensuing correspondence with readers, Robertson himself leapt to the defence of the force, highlighting what he said was a “willing[ness] to…develop into a thoroughly modern and professional organisation…[and] to implement 95 per cent of my recommendations”.

A year after the visit that prompted Robertson’s original report, Judith Evans caught up with the policeman of thirty years’ experience, to see what he now makes of Maldivian policing.

Success?

“I am very happy with the way that things are going,” says Robertson. “There have been some hiccups” in the reforms, “but I fully expected that – some were quite radical changes.”

Robertson was brought in as an expert in “front line, operational” police work – what he describes as “coal-face policing,” an apt phrase from a man who policed the UK miners’ strikes in the 1980s.

One achievement, he says, is the recruitment of women officers for front-line duty, a recommendation implemented “within days” of his suggesting it. Of the current crop of new recruits, he says, 15% are female.

Statistics recording has improved, he adds; police are on the path to “proactive policing” rather than just responding to events; and an internal complaints department is in place, though still in its infancy.

Robertson also claims improvements in the relationship between police and the public. A new Malé keyholders’ register kept by police has had the advantage of bringing police into contact with local businesses, he says.

Plus a scheme to send “school liaison officers” to meet with children should help young people to realise police are “people that they can turn to”.

Violence

But for many, such moves are merely public relations, with trust in the police limited by a belief the MPS is guilty of continuing brutality.

I put it to Robertson that cases such as the death of Hussein Solah – who was found dead six days after being taken into police custody, shortly after Robertson’s report was leaked last year – do far more damage than school liaison officers can repair.

The case also exposed huge gaps in police procedures, which were acknowledged even as police denied responsibility for Solah’s death.

“I’m not going to get into the mechanism of that particular case,” says Robertson. “I don’t know enough about it.” Robertson has not been involved with police detention centres, and highlights that neither is he “privy to all the intelligence” that police receive.

But he believes “police are always an easy target, in any form of society… Bad news is endemic in the police service, because we deal with bad things and bad people.”

And he highlights the difficulty of judging how to react to situations on the street, especially for young officers.

Yet allegations of violence have recently emerged not from the streets, but from custody – with ex-detainees from the Dhoonidhoo detention centre telling Minivan News that beatings are once more on the rise.

Robertson concedes that with a focus on front line policing, he may not have the full picture.

“I’ve got no doubt that there are still areas where things are probably not what they should be, but I can’t speak at first hand about that… I’m quite sure that…there is violence that goes on.”

In any case, he believes, the entire running of Dhoonidhoo should change. “There shouldn’t be police staffing [the detention centre] anyway. It’s not a police role, it’s a prison service role. I’m hoping that over time, that will change.”

Star Force

One of the most contentious areas of Robertson’s leaked report, completed in 2006, dealt with the Special Operations Command (SOC) of the police, which includes the notorious Star Force.

Robertson acknowledges: “I still don’t like the idea of a semi-paramilitary organisation being aligned with a civil police service.

“[The SOC] doesn’t really have an [equivalent] in the UK, but I think that’s by necessity of the situation here…the political situation is a bit more in turmoil. They see a need here for having that kind of backup.”

And the SOC may be called for in “situations, shall we say, on the street which are likely to…arise in the leadup to an election.”

Yet opposition figures, many of whom have been arrested for political activity, argue it is only political change that can temper the traditional violence of the Star Force, which has been censured by the Human Rights Commission.

Photographic evidence of Star Force officers surrounding and punching then Maldivian Democratic Party Chairperson Mohamed Nasheed (Anni) emerged as recently as April 2007 – after Robertson’s first visit – making it hard to stomach the argument that political change has necessitated the Star Force, and not the other way round.

Things are changing here too, says Robertson, with a new “take your time” approach in place for tense situations, and negotiation training planned.

“But don’t get the idea that I’m taking the view that what [the Star Force] were doing was totally wrong,” he is keen to emphasise – because “they saw it as a necessity.”

Soldiers To Victims

Robertson reminds me: “You’re only talking about three years ago that this was a military dominated country.

“The police force was [originally] about 400 officers detached from the MNDF [Maldives National Defence Force]. They’re now approaching 3,000. You can imagine the difficulties that’s causing, just with lack of experience apart from anything else.”

Police may also be victims, he argues. From what he has heard in the Maldives, Robertson believes “disturbances… in the street” can be “manipulated by others to get the police involved,” so that “that peaceful demonstrations had in their background an element who were there to cause trouble.”

And on recent gang violence, “my understanding is that some of the street disturbances were … set up to lure police officers into the area, so… officers could be attacked.”

Good Stories

As I prepare to leave, Robertson issues a plea which echoes his response to the original leak of his report. “You need to tell the good stories as well as the bad stories,” he urges.

I tell him some changes in the police have been evident on the ground, with police officers knocking on doors to introduce themselves as part of a new community policing initiative in recent weeks.

It seems John Robertson has had more opportunity to see this friendly side of Maldivian policing than the side which produces allegations of beatings, torture, and arbitrary arrest.

But with the Solah case still resonating in the public consciousness, it remains to be seen whether a balance of “good” or “bad” stories will emerge from his revamped Maldives Police Force.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mohamed Mustafa Hussein, former Ambassador to the United Nations and health minister during President Gayoom’s first term, returned to the political stage last month after a twenty-year break.

Now a representative of the National Unity Alliance, the man who was once considered a potential president tells Minivan News why he is unhappy with political activism and who he holds responsible for thirty years of Gayoom rule.

“Too radical”

So why did the self-proclaimed “servant of the people” not join the reform movement earlier?

“When the movement … got started,” Mustafa explains, its activities were “not the kind of things I would have wanted to be a part of” – they were simply “too radical”.

A Maldivian aristocrat and the founder of Malé’s English School, Mustafa has always operated through public institutions rather than fighting them.

Questioning whether politics as such even exists in the Maldives, he says “the closest you get to politics [here] is…being arrested for criticising the government.”

Whilst denying he has a problem with activism in itself, he believes opposition campaigners have in the past gone “to the extent of breaking certain laws and rules” – which as a “law-abiding citizen” he would not have considered doing.

The extent of opposition lawbreaking has long been a bone of contention between activists and government. Opposition leaders argue peaceful protests have been branded as riots – whilst the government and police say they have genuinely turned violent.

Mustafa identifies the opposition movement, pioneered by members of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in the early years of the new century, as “the kind of thing that could have been only started by very young people – people young enough to be looked after by parents”.

Though older activists have repeatedly been jailed, he believes anyone who was “the provider to the family” would have found it difficult to take the “bold step” of becoming an activist.

“I blame the people”

But in a surprising sequel to his indictment of activism, Mustafa tells me, “I blame the people” for the length of time the president has ruled.

He believes around 75% of Maldivians would happily vote for the current government – a trend he attributes to poor education outside Malé, where citizens “don’t care whether the sun rises or the sun sets” and “can be bought”.

Payment for votes is a significant problem in the country, he believes.

And identifying a new “hypocrisy” in Maldivian culture, he says “about 80% of the people who are in very good positions in the government now … don’t like President Gayoom.”

Similarly, Mustafa says, ordinary citizens revere Gayoom’s position as the country’s leader, even as they complain about the direction the country is taking.

Yet whilst hypocrisy is not the way forward, neither is outspokenness.

“He will be more hurt,” Mustafa believes, “if you speak politely.”

Growing up

Sharing a platform with the younger generation is, it seems, a problematic area and some factions of the opposition may still be too much for Mustafa to stomach.

“We mustn’t be activists all the time,” he believes. “We can be babies when we are babies” – but “you have to grow up.”

He will not be drawn on which party’s policies attract him most, but says “there is not a single party in the Maldives which is showing maturity – this includes the president’s party”, though he does feel there are mature individuals in the political scene.

Some have argued Mustafa’s return to politics represents a new generation of elder statesmen adding gravitas to the opposition.

“I think I can offer a lending hand to the alliance who are going to unite as a political force,” he says.

Opposition parties have formed the National Unity Alliance to lobby for an interim government to implement the country’s new constitution ahead of next year’s multi-party elections.

“The next constitution can only take hold of its roots by a very fair electoral process,” Mustafa adds.

“I don’t know how a government that has been in power for so long can guarantee that to the people without stepping aside.”

Gayoom: Mr nice guy?

“Maumoon Abdul Gayoom…had been a very nice person, very honest, very concerned for people,” reflects Mustafa, recalling his past links with the president.

Like many Maldivians, he believes Gayoom’s character changed after he was “ushered” onto a “political pedestal,” and blames this change on “family members, in laws, who were not political people”.

Aware he was being sidelined, Mustafa eventually resigned. But he compares his fate wryly with that of recent defectors from government.

“Now you are a big shot when you resign – you are a star!” Mustafa observes – even if you were “very unpopular just before, and…really ridiculed” whilst in government.

The “New Maldives” group of former ministers, along with the president’s half-brother Abdullah Yameen, all left government in 2007 to join the opposition.

But leaving the government in the 1980s meant losing friends and becoming “a hostile enemy of the government”.

“Even my own friends were scared of me,” he recalls.

Yet it seems that despite his reservations, the politician who was “labelled a bad boy” by ministers in the Gayoom government is now prepared to campaign for the other side.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

When the Special Majlis was formed to agree an amended constitution for the Maldives, no-one thought it would be a walk in the park.

But fast-forward three years; endless procedural debates, sniping among members and poor attendance have threatened to derail the process altogether.

Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra), Chair of the constitution Drafting Committee, tells Minivan News why the constitution will be complete by the end of the year, hits out at game playing, and talks up his own Presidential hopes.

End of The Year?

Ibra, who has always been sceptical about the 30 November deadline agreed by Special Majlis members, says he is “optimistic” the constitution will be finished “by the end of the year.”

”Members are running out of gas,” he says, but public pressure will force them to complete the dragged out process.

“It’s increasingly more apparent to the public what is happening, and most members have aspirations to run for public office,” Ibra points out.

Despite Ibra’s optimism, members have been unable to agree final versions of several clauses of the bill of rights, the first draft chapter to be considered on the Special Majlis floor.

The Drafting Committee has the unenviable task of writing new versions more likely to receive majority backing from the Special Majlis floor.

So how can consensus be achieved when solutions have to be acceptable to everyone?

Ibra’s reply that it is “is possible,” because “it has to be possible,” is not massively convincing.

Personal Interest

Ibra blames political parties, the Government’s DRP and the opposition MDP account for most Special Majlis members, for failing to whip members behind particular amendments.

“We could have finished this chapter [a bill of rights] by now if there had been more cooperation from them,” he sighs.

But key issues appear to have cut across party lines. A decision on whether to incorporate the Islamic sharia into the draft bill of rights divided the Majlis completely last week, drawing passionate support and criticism from both major parties.

Ibra says these individual battles are tied up in “personal interest” and warns “playing to the public,” could still threaten the constitution’s passage.

Gayoom’s Shadow?

Ibra and the MDP have consistently accused President Gayoom of using his in built majority in the Special Majlis to stall the constitution reform process.

But Ibra says international pressure will prevent Gayoom undermining the process, “however much he would like to.”

“He’s on borrowed time, as far as the international community is concerned,” he says, confidently. “The Government can’t afford to go back on it’s word to major international stakeholders.”

Yet he tells me there has been “more than one occasion” when Gayoom has proposed amendments through party members, to try and slow the process and consolidate power.

“Abbas’ recent amendment was deliberately put on the floor by Gayoom,” he says, referring to the divisive proposal to incorporate sharia into the bill of rights.

“You have to look at these amendments as a sequence,” he adds, arguing Gayoom is plotting to ensure the executive retains significant power under the revised constitution.

Eventually incorporating sharia could give, “ultimate power to the Chief Justice over the Supreme court, by-passing the Majlis [parliament] altogether.”

Ibra for President?

Ibra was among the first to declare his candidacy for next year’s presidential poll. Yet his fledgling Social Liberal Party (SLP) is still not registered, and he faces stiff competition from President Gayoom among others.

So how does he believe he can win?

“I think I have an excellent chance,” he says, although he refuses to disclose exactly how many supporters his party has, because he doesn’t “trust the Electoral Commission.”

Last week former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, launched his own campaign.

Saeed, like Ibra a reform minded candidate, said he had contacted opposition parties to discuss a united front against Gayoom, but Ibra has yet to hear anything.

“It doesn’t bother me,” Ibra says on Dr Saeed’s candidacy. “Maybe Hassan doesn’t consider us a political force within the country, or a party worth consulting. But that’s his prerogative.”

“Good On Anni”

Ibra started his political career in the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party. He was the party’s first president before falling out with MDP chairman Mohamed Nasheed (Anni) over the latter’s refusal to engage with the Government.

Anni himself has been criticised party activists in recent weeks for meeting with representatives of President Gayoom. So does Ibra feel vindicated now Anni is following his own tactics?

Ibra refuses to say I told you so, instead congratulating Anni on taking a necessary political step.

“It’s about time MDP started behaving like a mature political organisation,” according to its former leader.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Yameen will back President Gayoom’s candidacy in 2008, he has revealed to Minivan News in an exclusive interview.

Abdullah Yameen, Gayoom’s half-brother, quit the Government in April to form the People’s Association (PA). Initially a non-governmental organisation Yameen announced this month PA will be registered as a political party.

The self-proclaimed “normal citizen” tells Susannah Peter why he is supporting his brother, lifts the lid on his own presidential ambitions, and talks more about his democratic credentials.

Gayoom’s My Man

Yameen is adamant that Gayoom is the man for the Maldives in next year’s presidential elections, even though PA have attacked Government policies in for several months.

“Public figures need to know pulse of the people,” he says emphatically. “And the public are looking for someone they can trust, with a good track record, and ability for the top job.

“I believe Gayoom tops the current list of candidates.”

He acknowledges there is “resentment and discontent” among many Maldivians towards his brother, who has ruled the Maldives uninterrupted for thirty years but insists the “alternative candidates just don’t compare.”

“Many young people say Gayoom has been in too long, that we need a change,” he says. “But although he has underperformed in some areas, he’s done a swell job in others.”

Since the birth of his own fledgling political party, his backing of his brother may seem a little surprising.

But he says he is “unsure” whether PA will put forward a candidate.

“We have members who are qualified, considering the list floating about at the moment,” he says. “But at present, Gayoom is still the top man.”

Three other ministers have resigned from the cabinet in recent months openly questioning Gayoom’s commitment to democratic reforms.

Buy Yameen reminds me it was “my brother” who “launched the Roadmap.”

“I think he has been harshly criticised over the reform process,” he adds. “Blame should not rest on one man’s shoulders.

And in an apparent swipe at the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party, Yameen’s political bedfellow in recent months, he says, “Responsibility for constitutional delay, lies with many parties, not just the President.”

An “Embarrassing” Question

“I can categorically say, at this point, I’m not interested,” says Yameen when asked about his own Presidential ambitions, a question he finds “embarrassing.”

“The President is my brother,” he helpfully reminds me. “So I don’t want to talk about myself as the one to take his presidential baton from him.

“And the presidency is not passed through inheritancy,” he adds.

But he would not rule out running for President in the future, even though he insists he has not “given it serious thought.”

“A lot is still open, and circumstances may change.” he smiles. “Ask me again in a few months.”

He disagrees he is tarnished by his relationship with Gayoom, and seems puzzled by the suggestion he is too unpopular to run himself.

“I think that would be a bit harsh,” he frowns.

“Any intelligent person would judge me on my track record. But public perception can be changed, I’m not overly concerned about that.”

“I’m a normal citizen,” he adds, reclining casually in his seat. “And I don’t discuss politics with the President anymore.”

DRP Future?

Gayoom has yet to fill Yameen’s position in his cabinet, although his brother resigned six months ago.

Neither has Yameen been expelled from the DRP despite openly campaigning against the party in parliament and the August referendum.

Former Attorney General Hassan Saeed and Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel have both been vilified by the DRP since resigning and removed from their elected positions within the party at President Gayoom’s request.

This vastly different treatment has prompted speculation that Yameen left Government with the President’s blessing and will return to the fold.

But Yameen says only the President can say why his cabinet position remains open.

“As far as I’m concerned, the job is done,” he says, “I’m not in the DRP any longer. I formally resigned when I announced PA will become a political party.”

The PA campaigned for a parliamentary system in August’s constitution referendum and lost, but “that was never a make or break issue,” he tells me. “And if the public want a presidential system, we have to respect that.”

He flatly denies that he backed a parliamentary system as it represents his most likely route into power, saying it “best reflects the voice of the people.”

He adds he wanted to debate it more when he was a Cabinet member, but it was “difficult” because the President was “flying the presidential flag.”

Born-again Democrat?

Yameen had a reputation as a hardliner within Gayoom’s cabinet.

He fiercely opposed the rapid elevation of young reformist ministers, like Saeed and Jameel, and was closely associated with the Police Commissioner Adam Zahir.

But Yameen denies his long service in Gayoom’s Cabinet undermines his commitment to a “democratic philosophy.” He is a “long-standing,” reformist he says, not a born again democrat.

He talks fondly of Gayoom’s “extensive cabinet consultations” in the 1990s, and cabinet meetings that continued “long into the night.”

“He was much more democratic than people realise,” Yameen suggests.

“But it’s impossible to consult the public on every issue. That would be very expensive. That’s the whole idea of a representative democracy.”

Yameen’s departure from Government came soon after the appointment of financial magnate Gasim Ibrahim as Finance Minister.

Yameen steers clear of questions on his personal relationship with the man many say stands in the way of Yameen’s own political ambitions.

But he does say Gasim “has a lot of explaining to do,” over the economy, which he promises will be the PA’s “main stress.”

“Everyone wants reform,” he explains. “But the best servant of the country is someone who can raise our dismal economy, provide the people with housing, more employment.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)