Author: Mohamed Naahee

Speaker Shahid to boycott JSC meetings should Fahmy participate

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid has warned President of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Adam Mohamed that he would boycott the commission’s meetings should Chair of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy Hassan continue to be a part of it.

Shahid’s warning came shortly after Attorney General Aishath Bisham conceded during a meeting with Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) that any JSC meetings including Fahmy would have no legal effect.

In response to a question by the committee chair, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, Bisham insisted that Mohamed Fahmy Hassan would not have to be reinstated as chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) after the Supreme Court ruled that his removal by parliament was unconstitutional.

Fahmy was dismissed from his CSC post in November 2012 in a no-confidence vote in parliament following an inquiry by the Independent Institutions Committee into allegations of sexual harassment against a CSC employee.

Both Fahmy and the victim were summoned to the committee after the complaint was lodged in the first week of June.

Fahmy was alleged to have called the female staff member over to him, taken her hand and asked her to stand in front of him so that others in the office could not see, and caressed her stomach saying “It won’t do for a beautiful single woman like you to get fat.”

MPs voted 38-32 to approve the committee’s recommendation to remove Fahmy from the post.

The Supreme Court however ruled 6-1 in March 2013 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy).

The Supreme court contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and principles of criminal justice procedure in dealing with the accused.

In a letter sent on Monday, Speaker of Parliament – who is by virtue of his position, a member of JSC – stressed that even though the chair of CSC is also by virtue of his position a member of JSC,  Fahmy cannot sit in JSC because he had been deposed from his position by parliament.

He added the parliament had informed President Mohamed Waheed Hassan about its decision.

“In that letter, when the parliament came to the decision [to remove Fahmy], then-Attorney General Aishath Azima Shukoor and current Attorney General Aishath Bisham stated that Mohamed Fahmy Hassan could not sit in JSC as the President of CSC as that position had become vacant with the parliament’s decision.”

“The Attorney General Aishath Bisham had also said that JSC meetings attended by Fahmy cannot be deemed legal, during the 46th committee meeting of parliament’s executive oversight committee on June 4, 2013,” Shahid wrote.

Therefore, Shahid claimed that he would not take part in any meetings attended by Fahmy.

Speaking to Minivan News on Monday JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen confirmed receipt of the letter from Speaker Shahid but said he did not see the need for the commission discuss the matter as it was “not part of the commission’s mandate as per the law”.

Don’t put me in a trap – President Waheed

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan speaking on the issue said it was “very complicating” for him to make a decision about Fahmy.

Fahmy had previously claimed in the media that he would only take a decision on whether to continue being part of CSC  after President Waheed made a decision on the issue, claiming that it was the President who had given him the letter of appointment.

Instead of addressing the issue directly, Waheed, who appeared unwilling to address the matter during a press conference on Monday, told the media that Parliament and the Supreme Court were in dispute over the matter.

At such a complicated time, Waheed said, “Even individuals must help in resolving conflicts peacefully”.

“Always doing something that puts the President or the government in a trap is not a very good thing. I think the best thing to do at this time is let Fahmy take the initiative and decide on the matter. That is my position,” he said.

The parliament has meantime opened the opportunity for interested candidates to apply for the “vacant” position of CSC President.

Waheed however maintained that, prior to any appointments to the commission, the parliament should discuss the matter with the Supreme Court to avoid any further conflict.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed pledges housing policy as part of election campaign

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has pledged to establish a housing policy for the people of Male’ as part of his bid to secure election in the upcoming presidential elections.

President Waheed assumed power after the sudden resignation of his predecessor, former President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, 2012, following a mutiny by police and the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF).

Speaking during a rally held by his own party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) on Saturday night, President Waheed claimed that it was his hope to provide separate housing for every Maldivian.

A website was also launched in collaboration with the GIP and a local NGO, Magey Male’ Foundation, to brief the public about congestion in Male’.

Social issues

President Waheed during the rally claimed that one of the major reasons contributing to increased criminal activities, drug abuse and divorce rates was the lack of housing available within the country to build a family.

Waheed noted that there were approximately 80,000 residents in Male’ including those who had migrated to the capital for various purposes, while population of the city stood at 150,000 – half of whom do not have their own housing.

“This is not something we can delay. Therefore, the government has planned to speed up the land reclamation from Hulhumale and I would like to inform on this occasion that the government has begun evaluating bids proposed by parties who expressed interests in carrying out the project. The result would mean Hulhumale’ will in the future be twice the size it is today,” President Waheed said.

Waheed also said that the capital Male’ belonged to all the people of the country and therefore services provided in the capital should have the capacity to provide these services all people.

He also said that projects seeking to provide fundamental needs of the people should not be fashioned around “the problems faced yesterday”, but rather address the issues that would be faced in the future.

“As these are the circumstances we are facing, I intend to form a committee consisting of technocrats and experts in the field to see how the problems faced by the capital Male’ can be addressed and resolved. At the same time, within our broad coalition, we will work on policies that would better the current situation of Male’,” he said.

Situation on the islands

Waheed highlighted that people from islands are still unable to get basic services and conceded that his government was unable to take adequate measures to develop these islands.

“[The lack of basic services] was significantly noticed during the 2004 tsunami crisis. The whole world has witnessed the difficulties endured by the people,” he said.

Furthermore, Waheed said that the ratification of the 2008 constitution meant that people who were in charge of the country were forced to address the issues faced by the people instead of consolidating power. It also forced the speeding up of infrastructure developments such as harbours, airports and sewerage systems, President Waheed said.

The solution to the problems, the President said, was to developing well populated islands throughout the country.

“Our hope is to build more housing facilities on such islands and provide basic services such as electricity, water and sewerage systems and let the population in those islands grow further.  I hope that land reclamation on such islands will begin soon,” he said.

“AT this critical time, political parties uniting with one another for the sake of the country is similar to that of two neighbours teaming up to address big issues. Therefore, unity and cooperation do not have a set time or a set venue to take place and neither do they belong to a separate system,” he added.

Waheed during his speech also claimed that he was a person who considered advice, rather than taking matters into his own hands, and said he would therefore only make important decisions after discussing them with necessary stakeholders.

Party reinforcements

During the rally, two members of parliament, former Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Shareef and Independent MP Ahmed ‘Kurendhoo’ Moosa, officially announced they would be joining GIP.

Male City Council member and former Male Mayor ‘Sarangu’ Adam Manik also announced his defection from the MDP to GIP. Along with Manik, former PPM member and former MP Jaufar ‘Jausa Jaufar’ Easa Adam joined the party.

The GIP spokesperson’s phone was switched off at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Eight new seats to be added to parliament for next general election: Elections Commission

Elections Commission (EC) President Fuad Thaufeeg has said parliament will be increased by an additional eight constituencies for the next election.

As a result, the country’s 18th parliament elected in 2014 will have 85 parliament members.

The Maldives currently has a unicameral parliament consisting of 77 members who were elected in May 2009, replacing the previous 50 member parliament following the ratification of the new constitution in August 2008.

In an interview given to local media outlet Sun Online, Thaufeeg said that based on population statisticss received by the commission, the capital Male’ and seven other atolls will have new seats in parliament.

He also said the commission is currently working on drawing up the new constituencies and completing necessary documents which will then be submitted to parliament for endorsement.

The new parliament composition will include an additional seat for Haa Dhaal Atoll, Noonu Atoll, Alif Dhaal atoll, Thaa Atoll, Gaaf Dhaal Atoll and Addu City, while Male’ City will have two new seats.

Thaufeeg stated that the current number of seats decided by the elections will not be changed, and the figure until the election will remain as 85.

The elections chief also said that the constituencies are currently complied based on geographic location and population density.

However, even though the total number of seats to be elected will remain at 85, Thaufeeg said that there may be alterations brought in as to how the commission would draw the constituencies.

“The commission will consult with leaders of political parties and people of the atolls. The decision will be final after the parliament endorses the changes,” Thaufeeg said.

The Elections Commission is meanwhile facilitating the presidential elections scheduled to take place on September 7.

The commission has previously said that approximately 240,302 will be eligible to cast their vote in the presidential elections – 31,008 more than the number of eligible voters in the 2008 presidential elections (209,294).

The commission will formally declare the start of campaign season in July. However all major political parties including the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and government-aligned parties such as the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Jumhoree Party (JP), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and current President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s Gaumee Ithiaad Party (GIP) have already begun their presidential campaigns.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PIC concludes investigation into “brutal and inhuman conduct” by police during power transfer

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has declared it has concluded its investigation into all cases of police misconduct during the controversial transfer of power that took place on February 6-8, 2012.

On February 7 an anti-government protest led by then-opposition political parties and religious scholars,   led to a mutiny by a segment of both police and military officers against Nasheed, resulting in his premature resignation from office.

The following day, Nasheed along with the MDP and thousands of people, took to the streets in protest claiming that Nasheed was ousted in a bloodless coup d’état.

However the en masse demonstration met a brutal crackdown from both police and military officers during which MDP MPs and members of the public sustained injuries.

During a parliamentary inquiry by the Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC), the PIC claimed that actions by police during the mutiny which led to the change in government were  unlawful and amounted to crimes worthy of prosecution by the state.

PIC Vice President Haala Hameed said during the session that the PIC had identified 29 cases of police misconduct, out of which cases concerning six police officers had been sent to the prosecutor general (PG) for prosecution.

The PIC at the time claimed it had urged then-Home Minister Mohamed Jameel to suspend the officers immediately, however the request was not adhered to, and instead at least one of the accused was promoted.

Hameed said the commission had failed to identify the police officers in five of the remaining cases while 11 other cases lacked supporting evidence. She also said the PIC was still investigating seven cases of police misconduct during the transfer of power.

“These are not disciplinary issues, but crimes. Aside from sending cases to the Prosecutor General, we also recommended the Home Minister suspend these officers, because of the delays in prosecution. We believe these officers should not be serving in the police,” Hameed said.

However in an interview with local media on Monday, President of the PIC Abdulla Waheed said the commission had investigated a total of 20 cases of police misconduct that took place on February 6,7 and 8.

Waheed said these included cases initiated by the commission itself, and cases investigated based on complaints filed at the commission, out of which only two are pending at the moment.

Out of the 20 cases, 12 cases concerned police brutality during the crackdown on protests and during the events that unfolded, while eight concerned issuance of unlawful orders, obeying unlawful orders and officers failing to comply with the law while on duty, said Waheed.

“There are very serious issues in these cases. They include brutal and inhuman conduct by police officers,” he said.

Waheed also claimed that it had sent cases of four police officers to Prosecutor General (PG) office for criminal prosecution. He added that out of the four officers, three were commissioned officers however he declined to reveal any names.

The PIC Chair also said that while there remained cases filed on allegations lacking any basis, the cases that needed to be investigated had now been completed and sent to the PG while at the same time the commission would also send recommendations to address issues with the police to Home Ministry.

“We will address the issues highlighted in the recommendations made by independent institutions and the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report. There are no cases being investigated regarding the events of February 6 and 7,” Waheed said.

Some police officers are currently facing criminal charges for their misconduct during the events including two police officers who had allegedly assaulted and attacked opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs Mariya Ahmed Didi and ‘Reeko’ Moosa.

Police Officer Ibrahim Faisal is currently being charged for attacking Mariya Ahmed Didi on February 8 while another officer, Mohamed Waheed, is also facing criminal charges for assaulting MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa, hitting him on the head with a metal canister.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP Imthiyaz to face charges of “disobeying orders” for criticising judiciary

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy – who is also one of the party’s spokespersons – is set to face another criminal charge of “disobeying orders” over allegedly contemptuous remarks he made against the judiciary during a television show.

Earlier in April, Fahmy told Minivan News that Police had begun investigation of a case filed by the Department of Judicial Administration against him, over his allegedly “contemptuous remarks” against the Supreme Court and its judges.

Police Media Official Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News at the time he was “unsure” whether police were currently investigating the matter, but said cases concerning contempt of court had previously been investigated and sent for prosecution.

In June 2012, police sent a case concerning Imthiyaz Fahmy for prosecution, requesting he be charged with disobeying orders, obstructing police duty and physically assaulting a female police officer during an MDP demonstration on May 29, which had followed the dismantling of the party’s protest camp at Usfasgandu.

In a subsequent statement condemning “excessive use of force” against demonstrators, Amnesty International stated that according to Fahmy, “police in Dhoonidhoo told him he was arrested for ‘disrupting peace’.”

“The next day in court, police stated that he had been detained for ‘physically attacking a woman police officer.’”

Fahmy denied the charges pressed against him by the prosecution.

In the  latest case, Fahmy will be prosecuted under section 88 of the Penal Code for disobeying legal orders.

Section 88(a) states – “It is an offence to disobey an order issued lawfully within the Shari’ah or Law, person guilty of this offence shall be subjected to a punishment of exile or imprisonment or house detention not exceeding 6 months or fine not exceeding MVR 150.00 (US$9.73)”

Speaking to Minivan News earlier regarding the charges, Fahmy claimed the judiciary was attempting to silence elected members of the public, and that allegations of contempt of court were a facade.

“People elected me to find faults in institutions such as the courts and find ways to reform them, to correct those faults. I have been elected as a member of parliament by the people to talk about such issues and that is my responsibility. It is a duty vested in me by the people and I will remain firm in executing that duty,” Fahmy said at the time.

He further claimed that discrepancies and flaws within the courts were already being widely discussed by the general public.

“The courts themselves do not comprehend the real meaning of the concept of judicial independence,” he claimed.

“They should also understand that dignity and honour is not a one-way train. It goes both ways. Their actions should be of a standard and performed in a transparent fashion so as to have dignity,” he said.

“The first thing is that the judges were wrongfully reappointed. The constitutional provisions indicate that the judges were appointed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) wrongly without proper consideration being given to Article 285 of the constitution. That is unconstitutional.”

Fahmy – who is a lawyer himself – claimed that other powers of the state including the legislature and the executive had been set up in accordance with the 2008 constitution and that it was only the courts and the judiciary that had failed to be established in accordance with the new constitution.

“Am I being punished for coming out and speaking the truth? What is so wrong about reiterating the same facts that are being highlighted by several respected international authorities on the same issue?” he questioned.

Apart from Fahmy, cases against several other MDP MPs are either being currently investigated or being heard in the courts including that of MP Ali Waheed (the party’s Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader), MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor (the party’s spokesperson for international affairs), MP Abdulla Jabir, MP Mohamed ‘Matrix’ Rasheed and MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed.

Charges faced by the MPs include contempt of court, obstruction of police duty as well as the offence of consumption of alcohol.  According to the constitution, a member of parliament loses his seat should he be convicted of a criminal offense that requires serving a sentence longer than a period of 12 months.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP files motion calling government to address judicial issues highlighted by Special Rapporteur

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has filed a motion calling the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to address issues highlighted in the report by United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, concerning the country’s judiciary.

Knaul’s final report to the UN Human Rights Council extensively outlined the political, budgetary and societal challenges facing the judiciary and wider legal community, as well as the politicisation of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and its failure to appoint qualified judges under Article 285 of the constitution.

The Special Rapporteur also expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.

“It is indeed difficult to understand why one former President is being tried for an act he took outside of his prerogative, while another has not had to answer for any of the alleged human rights violations documented over the years,” Knaul wrote.

The motion, filed by MDP MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy, was debated during the parliamentary session held on Monday. The motion was passed by 23 out of 34 members present during the session, while nine members voted against it.

Presenting the motion, Fahmy said the judiciary was impaired after it appointed the judges for life, without considering the constitutional provisions specified in article 285 of the constitution.

He contested that the JSC, instead of ensuring that the judges met the required standards befitting an independent judiciary, had lowered the standards to ensure all existing judges were qualified to sit on the bench for life, plunging the whole judicial system into chaos.

Due to the JSC’s decision to lower the standards, judges accused and in some cases convicted of criminal wrongdoing had been reinstated, he contended.

Fahmy further contested that every citizen of the country was entitled to the right to get a fair hearing and that not even the Supreme Court could undermine such a fundamental right.

He noted that the judiciary disregards any remark made that highlight its own flaws, dismissing them as attempts to tarnish the image of the judiciary and lower its image among the public.

Parliamentary debate

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdul Raheem Abdulla raised doubts over the legitimacy of the current membership of the JSC, highlighting that current Attorney General Aishath Bisham – who by virtue of her position is also a member of JSC – is yet to be endorsed by the parliament.

Local media alleged that Aishath Bisham had taken part in the vote taken during the JSC meeting in which it decided to indefinitely suspend the Chief Judge of High Court over a complaint filed a year ago.

Abdul Raheem Abdulla also questioned the legitimacy of the position of Civil Service Commission (CSC) President Mohamed Fahmy Hassan, who was removed from his post by parliament reinstated after the Supreme Court overturned parliament’s decision.

In March, the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Mohamed Fahmy Hassan would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy).

The doubts surrounding the legality of these people sitting in the JSC posed questions over how just a decision by JSC could be, Abdulla Abdul Raheem said.

He further contended that the JSC had been overpowered by political influence both internal and external, however maintained that no one should meddle with the affairs of the court.

JP’s own leader, resort tycoon and MP Gasim Ibrahim, also sits on the commission.

However, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) MP Ahmed ‘Aims’ Amir spoke in favour of JSC, stating that he saluted the commission for completing the appointment of judges within the time frame required by the constitution.

Amir claimed that the two parties had agreed with the appointment of the permanent Supreme Court bench, but were now criticising the bench because it did not work to their pleasure.

Government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Parliamentary Group Leader, Ahmed Mausoom, said Special Rapporteur Knaul had asked to resolve the issues through dialog between the authorities, and noted that her recommendations included amending the constitution.

Other recommendations, Mausoom said, included changing the composition of the JSC, and calling on political parties to work on creating awareness among the public of the laws of the country and its constitution, and speeding up the legislative process.

Opposition MDP Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader MP Ali Waheed meanwhile accused the JSC Chair Justice Adam Mohamed of being a “gang leader”, and said the only way to reform the judiciary was through direct action by the people.

Another MDP MP, Abdul Ghafoor Moosa, claimed that presidential candidate of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Abdulla Yameen, and JP MP Gasim Ibrahim were key conspirators behind the sabotage of the judiciary.

Government’s response

Following Knaul’s report, the government of President Waheed responded with a statement that “international actors should not undermine national jurisdiction and the court system of any country”.

The statement was issued on May 28 via Permanent Representative at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam, who further said that the Maldivian delegation, in light of the report, “wishes to discuss specific matters contained in the report with the Rapporteur”.

At the same time the statement “welcomed” the UN Rapporteur’s report and “fully acknowledge[s] that the various challenges she has identified and raised in her report are in fact the residue challenges present in a system in the midst of democratic consolidation.The Maldives judicial system continues to be hampered by structural deficiencies and resource constraints in addressing the difficult challenges facing the country in general.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police officer testifies to police brutality against former MDP Chairperson Mariya Didi

A police officer has testified against a fellow officer, Ibrahim Faisal, who is currently being charged for attacking former opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi on February 8, 2012.

On February 7, 2012, the continuous anti-government protest led by then-opposition political parties and religious scholars following the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed gave way to a mutiny by a segment from both the police and military officers against Nasheed, resulting in his premature resignation from office.

The following day, Nasheed along with the MDP and thousands of people, took to the streets in protest claiming that Nasheed was ousted in a bloodless coup d’état. However the en masse demonstration met by a brutal crackdown from both police and military officers during which several MDP MPs and politicians backing the MDP suffered injuries.

Testifying against Faisal, Lance Corporal Mohamed Saarim told the court that he was with Faisal in the ranks of police during the time the protests were dismantled.

Saarim testified that Faisal was among the police officers who went inside a shop to arrest senior MDP figures, including current Party Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Mariya Didi and former President Nasheed, who took refuge inside after the police led the heavy crackdown on protesters.

During this incident, Saarim claimed that he saw Faisal attacking Mariya Didi, punching her in the abdomen. According to Saarim, Faisal dragged Mariya Didi out of the shop, before handing her over to another officer.

The Lance Corporal also claimed that he had told Faisal not to act so aggressively, but he had disregarded his call. Saarim also recalled that Faisal was not in his uniform and was clothed as a civilian, and had used his bare hands to attack the MP.

During the hearings, Saarim also acknowledged the statement he gave to Police Integrity Commission (PIC) which was presented to the court. Saarim stated that the statement was a true statement given based on what he witnessed on the day.

When the sitting Judge Muhuthaaz Fahmy questioned Faisal about the statements by Saarim, he denied the claim saying that he did not harm anyone. He further told the court that he was not present with the group of police officers who entered into the shop, but was instead having a coffee.

Faisal made the same statement to the PIC, which was also heard in court.

Concluding the hearing, the judge stated that the only witness presented to the court by the prosecution was Saarim. He did not mention a date for the next hearing.

Along with Faisal, police officer Mohamed Waheed from the island of Thinadhoo in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll is also facing criminal charges for assaulting MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa, hitting him on the head with a metal canister.

Mariya recalls the attack

Mariya Didi described the moment when the officers barged into the shop as an “attempt on our lives”.

“On February 8, after the police dispersed those who marched to protest their government being over thrown by police and military, President Nasheed and Ahmed ‘Dhonbilai’ Haleem saw me fall and gasp for breath, almost falling tinto the sea as the police and military used the yellow gas they used at such close range,” she said.

“They picked me up and as they knew I was suffering from the injuries of the previous day (February 7,2012), I looked in a state with all the bruises to my face and body, and also a black eye from a beating the previous day,” she said.

“They wanted to put me to safety in the shop as they knew these officers wanted us all dead,” she added.

“Moosa, Nasheed and myself entered the shop. As I was standing inside the shop, the police came and took Moosa first,” she recalled.

“In a moment, some other police came and pulled me up. They handcuffed me at the back with bands they had and kept pulling my hair. They kept beating me all over. They sprayed my whole body with pepper spray, especially in the black eye from the previous day, and into my nostrils. I recently had a sinus operation in Bangkok and just returned. These police officers were all over beating me, my whole body was black and blue,” she explained.

“It was rather shameful that people in uniform thought it fit that they beat up a woman who was already handcuffed tightly behind her back. The scars are still there on my wrists,” she said.

“I hope our men in uniform learn to behave with discipline and professionalism and not let their political views overtake their oath and duty to this country,” she said.

“Jazbaath (‘being emotional’) is no excuse,” she stressed.

Human Rights Commission inquiry

On August 22, 2012, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) released an investigative report (Dhivehi) which concluded that the police crackdown on the MDP march, which left dozens of demonstrators injured, was “brutal” and “without prior warning.”

Thirty-two people filed complaints with the HRCM concerning the varying degrees of injuries they sustained in the crackdown, while 20 people also submitted medical documents pertaining to the treatment of those wounds.

Among the injuries caused by the police baton charge, the HRCM report noted that several people were bruised and battered, one person had a fractured leg bone, another person’s arm was broken, and six people sustained head wounds.

Two fingers on the left hand of one demonstrator were crushed, the report also noted, and the victim had to undergo a corrective operation.

Meanwhile, the former ruling party informed the HRCM that their march across Male’ was spontaneous and that the party had not planned to stage any protests on February 8.

The crackdown

While riot police baton-charged the front line of protesters on February 8, Minivan News observed riot police also charging the crowd from a narrow alley leading to the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) area.

The SO police officers used obscene language, pointed to and chased after individual MDP activists and severely beat unarmed civilians.

Al Jazeera news filmed parts of the attack from the rear and reported that on February 8 “police and military charged, beating demonstrators as they ran – women, the elderly, [with] dozens left nursing their wounds,”

Amid the clashes, a group of opposition demonstrators infiltrated the crowds, attacking MDP supporters, according to witnesses.

Former President Nasheed was reported among the injured, having received head injuries during the clashes.

Minivan News also observed several youth with head injuries queuing up for x-rays in the waiting area outside the reception area of Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

One young woman who went into IGMH with her sister was being treated for a head wound. The gauze wrapped around her head was spotted with blood, and she claimed the wound was still bleeding as she went in for an X-ray.

“The police were just standing there and suddenly we were being beaten with batons and pepper spray was thrown in our face. They threw us to the ground and kept beating us,” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief suspect in Afrasheem murder case retracts confession, claims to have been coerced

The chief suspect alleged to have murder parliament member and prominent religious scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali, Hussain Humam, has retracted his previous confession to the crime, claiming it was obtained by police through coercive means.

Humam – who has been linked with smuggling drugs, gang violence and several other high profile crimes – confessed to the killing on May 22, answering “yes” in court when state prosecutors produced a statement detailing the murder and asked him if it was his.

According to that statement, Humam claimed the idea of killing Dr Afrasheem was given to him by Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer Azleef Rauf, whom he met at a baibalaa tournament held in 2012.

The pair later met in person again at a coffee, according to the statement, along with two other individuals Humam identified as Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid (son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik) and his brother ‘Jana’.

According to the prosecutor’s statement, Humam was promised a sum of MVR 4 million (US$260,000) for murdering the religious scholar. The statement said Humam later asked Azleef Rauf why Afrasheem was to be murdered, and was told that one of the reasons were Afrasheem’s remarks during the day former President Mohamed Nasheed controversially resigned.

State prosecutors accused Humam, along with Ali Shan – who is also facing the same charges – and a minor identified as ‘Nangi’, of going to the residence of Dr Afrasheem and murdering him with a machete and a bayonet knife.

Humam’s retraction of his statement during yesterday’s court hearing is the second time he has denied committing the murder.

Court denies request for psychological testing

During the hearings, Humam’s defence lawyer requested the judge allow Humam’s sanity and mental stability be tested, claiming that Humam’s father had told him that the suspect had a mental disorder. He stressed that Humam himself had told Haseen that he wanted to consult a psychologist.

Haseen also took an oath swearing that he had never asked Humam to deny the charges levied against him, in response to ongoing public rumour that Haseen was behind Humam’s new denial.

Responding to the request made by Haseen, Judge Abdulla Didi denied the request for psychological testing, stating that Humam’s lawyer had not mentioned such a psychological disorder during the hearings held to extend Humam’s detention.

The judge further claimed Humam had pleaded with him to continue the trial behind closed doors.

Humam’s defence lawyer was allowed to enter the court only after Humam stood up without the permission of the judge and requested that his lawyer be present , and that he wished to proceed with his lawyer.

Speaking in the defence of the accused, Haseen contended that Humam had told him that the confession that he had given during the previous hearing was a result of threats by police.

His lawyer said Humam was warned that should he fail to comply with the deal offered by the police, they would charge him with other crimes of which he was accused.

The police also assured Humam that he would not be sentenced to death should he confess to the crime, Haseen alleged.

Witness’s narrative of the incident

During Saturday’s hearing the state presented two witnesses, included a minor alleged to have gone with Humam to Afrasheem’s residence, and the doctor who inspected the body.

The minor, who gave evidence over a distorted audio link and responded to questions from Humam’s defense lawyer Abdulla Haseen, said he knew Humam even before the events that led to the murder of the MP.

According to the minor, Humam had called him and told him that there was a ‘mission’. On the day the murder was carried out, Humam called him and requested him to meet up at Usfasgandu, while informing him that he had received briefings of what they needed to do to complete the said mission.

The witness told the court that he had gone to Usfasgandu, where he met with Humam and Ali Shan. After meeting up, the three then headed to ‘pad-park’ near Usfasgandu, where he claimed he saw Shan wielding a knife.

The witness told the court that they left the park and headed to ‘Kuda Kudhinge Bageecha’ – a children’s park located in front of Dr Afrasheem’s house. He claimed that Humam entered the residence and seconds later, a man carrying a stack of books entered into the same house, followed by Ali Shaan.

After a short while, Shaan called him. When he had entered the premises, he told the court he saw the man with the books brutally injured, lying on the floor.

The witness claimed that Humam was wielding a bloody knife and holding the hand of the injured man, which was also covered in blood. He also claimed that Ali Shan too had a knife.

Responding to the questions posed by Humam’s defence lawyer, the witness claimed  he had given evidence to the court on different occasions during November 2012.

When Haseen questioned whether the witness had been involved with previous criminal activities carried out by Humam, he answered stating that he had not, but said he had knowledge of what Humam had been doing.

As soon as Haseen began questioning the witness about his own criminal records, Judge Abdulla Didi stopped him stating that the questions did not have any relevance to the case at hand.

The doctor who had inspected the body of the deceased Afrasheem told the court through the assistance of a translator that there was no sign of life in Afrasheem’s body when he was brought to the hospital.

Explaining his observations, the doctor said that Afrasheem’s body had suffered severe injuries of the kind which could lead to death.

Next hearing

State prosecutors argued that Humam had confessed to the crime during the last hearing, as well as during a hearing held to determine the extension of his custody.

Therefore, the prosecution contested that it was a legitimate confession according to the constitution, that that therefore they felt that the court could issue a verdict based on the confession.

The judge concluded the hearing without announcing the date for a next hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC “fully controlled by political figures”: lawyer for Chief High Court judge

Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is set to face another court battle after attorneys representing Chief Judge of High Court Ahmed Shareef announced on Thursday that they would challenge the commission’s decision to suspend the judge.

Chair of JSC, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed, had earlier held a press conference declaring the commission had decided to “indefinitely suspended” Chief Judge Shareef, over a complaint filed against the judge last year.

That decision came hours after the High Court temporarily halting the hearings of a case against the JSC lodged by former President Nasheed – who has accused the judicial watch-dog of exceeding its mandate in appointing the three-member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently hearing a criminal case against him.

According to the JSC Chair, the suspension of Chief Judge Shareef – who is among the three judges presiding over the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed’s case – was a “precautionary” measure while investigation of the complaint was proceeding.

Judge Shareef in the new Civil Court lawsuit against the JSC will be represented by former Attorney General and veteran lawyer Husnu Al Suood and his law firm, Suood, Anwar and Co.

Briefing the media about the court case which is set to be filed on Sunday, Suood said that Chief Judge Shareef was suspended in contrast with the existing laws and the decision undermines the independence a Judge requires in executing his legal duties.

He said the Chief Judge’s team of counsels will plead in court that the decision by the JSC was an attempt to unduly exercise influence over judges.

He also added that once the case is registered at the Civil Court, a request will be made at the Supreme Court to take over the case, as has been the previous practice.

The Supreme Court previously took over the case filed at Civil Court by prominent lawyer Ismail Wisham against the JSC, challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court it created.

The case was also represented by Suood, which eventually led to the Supreme Court endorsing the legitimacy of the controversial court in a 4 to 3 majority decision in which Chair of JSC and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed cast the controversial deciding vote, despite initial pleas against the judge sitting on the bench by Suood on the ground of ‘presumption of bias’.

“Not a small thing”

Speaking of the JSC’s decision, Suood – who is also the President of Maldives Bar Association – said the suspension coming after the JSC sitting’s on the case for a year was “not a small thing”.

“That is not a small thing when you get a suspension after one year. Suspending a country’s Chief Judge of High Court is not a small thing,” he said.

JSC Chair Adam Mohamed has meanwhile said “there are no legal grounds to stop looking into a complaint submitted [to the commission] or halt proceedings”.

According to local media reports, the call for an indefinite suspension of the Chief Judge was proposed to the JSC by the incumbent Attorney General Aishath Bisham – who is yet to receive parliament’s consent following her appointment – and was passed by the vote of three members out of the 10-member commission.

Those who voted in favour included two representatives of the executive branch, the attorney general herself, the President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s representive Mohamed ‘Reynis’ Saleem, and a third vote by Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi.

The public’s member to the JSC Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman opposed the motion while lawyers’ eepresentative Ahmed Rasheed and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan abstained. High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed did not participate in the vote.

Both the Speaker of parliament Abdulla Shahid and Parliament’s representee to the commission MP Gasim Ibrahim did not attend the meeting.

Politically motivated and influenced

Suood said the JSC’s passing of a motion to suspend the judge with a vote of just three members – two of whom represented the executive – lead to presumption that the vote had been influenced.

He said that such a grave motion being passed by the support of just three members also led to the belief that the JSC was seeking to undermine the independence of the judges.

“There is reason to believe this decision had political motives behind it,” said the veteran lawyer.

Suood further said the decision could also be perceived as a way to prevent a further delay of the case filed by Nasheed, who is contesting the legality of the three-member judges panel appointed to Hulhumale Magistrate Court by the JSC.

“The JSC is one party to the ongoing High Court case of which Chief Judge Shareef is among the judges who presiding over the case. It is wrong in every aspect for JSC to take action against the judge,” he said. “Due to such actions, public confidence in state institutions is being lowered day by day.”

“Entire judiciary under the influence of retired Supreme Court Judge Mujthaaz Fahmy” – Suood

Suood also alleged that two parliament members and a retired Supreme Court judge have long been influencing the work of judges and their verdicts on several cases.

Suood claimed that the presidential candidate for the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament and PPM MP Ahmed Nazim, and retired Supreme Court Judge Mujthaz Fahmy have long been in the business of influencing the judges and the verdicts they had been issuing.

He further contested that his allegations were based on evidence, and said he would do everything possible to make the judiciary free from such undue influences.

“The entire judiciary is under the influence of [retired Supreme Court Judge] Mujthaaz Fahmy ,” he alleged.

Suood further alleged that Deputy Speaker Nazim had close ties with members of the JSC, and said several judges had told him that Yameen Abdul Gayoom – half brother of  former President of 30 years, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – had on several occasions given instructions to the judges over the phone as to how their sentences should be phrased.

Despite claiming to have strong evidence to support his allegations, Suood admitted that it would be extremely difficult for the authorities to take action against the three individuals.

JSC juggling judges to appease politicians

Suood further contended that the JSC had been taken over “dark powers”, and that it was fully under the control of certain political figures.

He alleged that in a bid to serve the interests of a few politicians, the JSC was planning to juggle judges from court to court and even had planned to give salary increments to certain judges.

Among the planned switches, Suood claimed that Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – who was taken into military detention during former President Nasheed’s administration over allegations of gross judicial misconduct – is set to be transferred to Civil Court, while JSC member and Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi will become the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court.

Among other changes, Suood claimed that JSC had been working to transfer the two “best serving” Civil Court Judges – Judge Aisha Sujoon and Judge Mariyam Nihayath to the Drug Court.

“These things are carried out under a great plan. They are installing judges to courts as they please,” Suood said.

Denial

All the three individuals accused by Suood have dismissed the allegations in responses given to local media.

Speaking at a membership event held in PPM’s headquarters on Friday night, PPM’s presidential hopeful Yameen Abdul Gayoom denied the allegations, describing them as an “outright lie”.

“The JSC is taking action against a judge. They don’t have judges sitting on the JSC. Therefore I do not believe anyone can influence the JSC,” Yameen said.

He further expressed his frustration over the allegations claiming that it had become common for people to make erroneous and slanderous remarks against political figures.

“This would not have happened if defamation had been kept as a criminal offence. All this is happening because defamation has now been changed to a civil wrong,” he said.

He further said that even though he did not influence judges and their work, he admitted to speaking about lapses within the judiciary and the delaying of cases on public forums.

“It would be better for Suood to stop making such irresponsible comments and focus on working for his clients,” Yameen responded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)