Author: Mohamed Naahee

Actor Ali Seezan newest addition to government’s list of political appointees

Local Actor Ali Seezan has been appointed as technical advisor to Minister of Tourism Arts and Culture Ahmed Adheeb, reports local media.

According to the President’s Office, Seezan was appointed to the position last Thursday with a salary of MVR 15,000 (US$ 972.76) and an additional allowance of MVR 10,000 (US$ 648.50), a total monthly income of MVR 25,000 (US$1,621.27).

Seezan – who is the nephew of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik – has won National Film Awards and Maldives Film Association Award twice and is a member of business tycoon and MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP).

He has recently been seen attending President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) rallies.

Minister Adheeb – who was recently pictured in the media with an infamous pair of Armenian brothers linked with drug trafficking, money laundering, raids on media outlets and other serious crimes in Kenya – told local newspaper Haveeru that he had no role in the appointment of Seezan.

According to statistics obtained by local media outlet Sun Online, the government is spending MVR 5 million (US$325,000) a month on 136 political appointees, approximately US$4 million a year.

The monthly spend includes 19 Minister-level posts at MVR 57,500 (US$3730), 42 State Ministers (MVR 40,000-45,000, US$2600-2900), 58 Deputy Ministers (MVR 35,000, US$2250), five Deputy Under-Secretaries (MVR 30,000, US$1950) and 10 advisors to ministers (MVR 25,000, US$1620).

President Mohamed Waheed is officially paid (MVR 100,000, US$6500) a month, Vice President Waheed Deen (MVR 75,000, US$4850).

Waheed’s Special Advisor Hassan Saeed, the Chancellor of the National University and the Controller of Immigration are paid at ministerial level.

The country’s 77 MPs are meanwhile paid a base salary of MVR 42,500 (US$2,750) per month, a further MVR 20,000 (US$1,300) per month in allowances for phone, travel, and living expenses, and a further MVR 20,000 in committee allowances.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile criticised President Mohamed Waheed for appointing family members and activists “who took part in the coup that ousted the democratically elected president.”

President Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) was earlier accused of offering illegitimate inducements to join his party to people ranging from youths to employees of government companies, in a bid to shore up the party’s membership base ahead of parliament’s dissolution of parties with less than 10,000 members.

In October 2012, a number of young people came forward and alleged to Minivan News that they were offered government positions, promotions, jobs with salaries of more than MVR 10,000 (US$650) a month, music equipment and even hosted parties, if they joined GIP.

GIP Secretary General Ahmed Mushrif dismissed the allegations at the time as an “outright lie”, and said that the party from its formation had never attempted to add members illegally.

A young Maldivian working in the tourism sector told Minivan News on condition of anonymity that a parliament member and prominent figure in the industry had called him and asked him to sign with GIP “as a favor”.

“He told me that in return for me joining the party, I would be rewarded with a position in the current government that I could never have even imagined. He further tried to convince me that all I needed to do was join the party – I could vote for anybody I wanted,” he said.

Another person who has worked in the civil service for the last 15 years told Minivan News that he was contacted by GIP with a promise that he would “easily be promoted” to a supervisor level job if he joined the party.

“A GIP member called me and told me that I could easily get promoted to supervisor level if I left my current party and joined GIP. Even though I am not an active MDP member I said I would think about it, but later did not respond to his calls,” the civil servant said.

A third person – aged 20 – claimed that he and his group of friends aged around 18 to 22 were approached by GIP through a friend and were invited to the party’s office where they were received by the party’s Deputy Leader  and the former Maldives High Commissioner to Malaysia, Mohamed ‘Nazaki’ Zaki.

“When we arrived we were received by ‘Nazaki’ Zaki and treated with pizza. He said that in return for joining GIP, he would offer each of us a job with a salary not less than MVR 10,000, but asked us not to question where the jobs would be allocated from,” the youngster claimed.

Apart from the job, the source alleged that Zaki had offered him and his friends “music equipment and a place to play for free” to those among them who wished to play music. He added that the group were also promised various entertainment activities such as “hosted shows and parties”.

“They asked us to join the party and work in the party’s youth wing,” the source said.

When they asked what they were supposed to do as members of the party’s youth wing, the source said Zaki had told them that their main task would be to increase the party’s membership as it was “currently very low”.

At the end of the meeting, the high commissioner reportedly suggested the holding of a party event that would be fully funded by GIP.

“They said we should all party sometime. Maybe they said that because we had long hair and looked stylish,” the source suggested.

Download a ‘Who’s Who’ spreadsheet of Dr Waheed’s ministerial appointees (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC rejects complaint by High Court judges against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has rejected the case submitted by eight members of the High Court against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef over his suspension of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Last Wednesday eight of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed the case claiming that the chief judge had issued the stay order without registering the case, had failed to assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

The judges also accused the chief judge of taking the matter into his own hands by not discussing the matter with them before issuing the order.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News at the time that the commission had received a “letter” from the eight judges regarding Judge Shareef.

A High Court official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court the previous week and that the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the following day.  He also added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

During a meeting held on Thursday the JSC decided to not look into the case, claiming that a conflict of interest existed in the commission probing the matter, as it had appointed the three member judges panel to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court. The court is currently hearing all trials concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The members of the judicial watchdog also came to the conclusion that the case filed by the eight judges included issues concerning High Court procedure, which it claimed could only be looked into after the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the matter.

Six of the 10-member commission were reportedly against looking into the case while only one member was voted in favour, according to local media.

The High Court Chief Judge issued the injunction after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejected a request by former President Nasheed’s legal team to defer his trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections, despite no objection from the state prosecutors.

The former president – who stands charged of unlawfully detaining the Chief Judge of Criminal Court during his last days in power in January 2012 – appealed the decision at the High Court while also contesting that the JSC had appointed the panel of judges to the magistrate court arbitrarily.

Following the appeal, the High Court granted a stay order ordering the magistrate court to halt Nasheed’s trial until it decided on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order was signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, and stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case at the JSC against Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed his concern as to whether JSC would look into the matter impartially and transparently.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency –  argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended. “Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case.”

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

JSC under heavy scrutiny

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning the arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of the JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

First time entire panel of judges have ganged up on a chief judge after a verdict: Nasheed’s lawyer

Member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed concern over the case filed against the Chief Judge of High Court, Ahmed Shareef.

The judges filed the case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the High Court’s decision to issue a stay order on the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed’s legal team had appealed the decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejecting their request to delay the trial of the former President until the end of the presidential election on September 2013, in which Nasheed is contesting on behalf of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The team also contested the legitimacy of the panel of the judges appointed to hear the case.

Nasheed is currently being tried in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Following the appeal, the High Court ordered the magistrate court to halt the former president’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The Hulhumale Magistrate Court subsequently suspended all trials concerning the arrest of judge.

Last Wednesday, eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed a case against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef at the JSC challenging the decision and claiming that the chief judge had issued the order arbitrarily.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News that the commission had received a “letter” from eight judges of High Court regarding Judge Shareef. However, he declined to provide any details of the case.

However, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency –  argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They also claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended.

The former minister said it was very concerning to see all the judges of High Court teaming up against the chief judge and taking the matter to the JSC following the decision.

The JSC is mandated with the oversight, appointment and discipline of judges, and was also responsible for both creating the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and controversially appointing the panel of judges overseeing the Nasheed trial.

The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim.

Latheef alleged that two out of the eight High Court Judges who had filed the case against the chief judge had also acted in a similar manner, but no complaint had been filed.

He also questioned the motive behind the filing of the case at the JSC – which is mandated with oversight of appointing judges and looking into their disciplinary issues – arguing that the JSC was the one of respondents in the appeal case.

Owing to the fact that the case of the chief judge is being looked into by the JSC who is a party to the case, Latheef cast doubt as to whether justice would be served in the court case.

“Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case,” Latheef said.

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

He also questioned as to why the High Court judges had not rebelled against an order issued by a single judge, invalidating a Civil Court order halting a police raid on the MDP protest camp in May 2012.

On May 31, 2012 the Civil Court ordered to halt to the dismantling of the Usfasgandu site by the security forces, after police had obtained a search warrant from the Criminal Court on the grounds that the MDP had been using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

However, the High Court the following day – which happened to be a Friday and not a government working day – overturned the Civil Court order. The order was similarly issued by a single High Court judge.

Latheef criticised the court’s inconsistency and alleged the courts were giving selective justice depending on who had filed the case.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP dismisses prospect of power-sharing coalition

Senior figures of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) including former President Mohamed Nasheed have said that sharing cabinet positions among different political parties will not result in an efficient government in the Maldives.

The party’s stand on coalitions come at a time where President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) and other smaller political parties have claimed that the September 7 elections can only be won through a broad coalition of political parties.

Last week, President Waheed announced plans to form a coalition between his party and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP), ahead of the presidential elections.

Meanwhile President Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) has also announced its plans to join Waheed’s GIP and back for the president’s re-election.

The three parties are among the eight political parties currently comprising of an informal coalition backing President Waheed’s government, following his controversial ascension to power on February 7, 2012 after the sudden resignation of President Nasheed.

Coalitions result in weak governments: Nasheed

Speaking during a party gathering of his own party MDP on Tuesday evening, President Nasheed stated that leaders of political parties had learned “bitter lessons” surrounding the inability to run a government by sharing cabinet positions among different political parties over the last four years.

“A cabinet in which one minister belongs to this party and another belongs to that party, cannot run a government,” he said.

Nasheed said he could not understand the relationship between national development and political coalition, reflecting on the coalition of parties currently involved with President Waheed, which he described as not a real cabinet but rather a mixture of individuals with different political ideologies.

Highlighting the developments that took place his post-resignation, the former President said the UN had urged his party MDP to join the government of President Waheed, but the MDP refused to the offer because it did not see how development could be brought to the country at a table with people who lacked commitment in coming to common terms.

“I want the people of this country to remember that, when there is word of coalition, it means of forming a weak government,” said the former president.

Nasheed defeated former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the second round of the 2008 election under the “Wathan Edhey Gothah” coalition. The MDP steadily shed its coalition partners during its term in office, falling out with the DQP, business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP), the Adhaalath Party and President Waheed’s GIP.

The Wathan Edhey Gothah Alliance was short lived and almost all parties left the government within the first two years. Gasim Ibrahim left the government within 21 days while the DQP left within the first four months.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said it was an uphill task to run a stable government with political parties of different views, and stressed that political stability was pivotal for development and attracting foreign investment.

Common political ideology not political positions

Chairperson of the MDP MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik echoed similar sentiments claiming that the MDP could not work with political parties which demanded political positions first hand.

However, Moosa said the MDP would welcome colleagues who had sincerity and commitment to an MDP-led government’s policies.

“There is no place in the MDP for those who come to us and demand a package of four cabinet positions, 12 judges, three warehouses and the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA). But it doesn’t mean all doors are closed for those parties interested in working under a common political ideology,” Manik said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP, MP Ali Waheed, argued that coalitions would not work in presidential systems such as in the Maldives.

“We don’t need to divide government portfolios among political parties. Even MDP should not do that by saying that it is an MDP alliance. That is not how we can run the country. Youth Minister from a different sect, the Finance Minister in a different sect, the Islamic Minister in a different sect and the Economic Minister keeps his eyes closed. Is that a cabinet? You cannot call that a cabinet,” said Ali Waheed.

Ali Waheed argued that cabinet ministers should hold common views with the President in charge, and should follow the president’s plans and policies.

Elect one political ideology, not a mixture

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP spokesperson MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy said coalitions do not work in a proper presidential system and that it would be better for the country to have a single political party with a single political ideology to govern the country rather than a group of parties with different views on issues.

He also contended that sometimes a coalition may limit proper representation of people where a smaller political party is given larger political portfolios in the government.

“For example with this government, the Adhaalath Party does not have even a single seat in parliament nor does it control any local council. But they are given several cabinet portfolios, so it is not actually representing the people,” he said.

Fahmy contended that if the country was to see fast development and a stable economy it needed to adopt a stable government.

“If people are electing a government, they should vote for a single ideology. Especially in presidential systems it does not work like that because the government is not formed from the parliament,” he added.

Meanwhile speaking to Minivan News previously, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of government aligned Dhivehi Rayythunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom said the word coalition was “not very meaningful in the Maldives”.

Mausoom at the time suggested that legislation would be required to enforce coalition arrangements before they could become a serious feature of Maldivian politics. DRP had previously argued that the current alliance of political parties in support of President Waheed as a national-unity government rather than a coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ministers fail to attend parliament committee hearing on proposed pork and alcohol ban

Government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Shifag Mufeed has heavily criticised President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and his ministers for failing to cooperate with parliament.

Shifag made the remark while speaking during  parliament’s National Security Committee on Wednesday, during the committee’s review of a bill proposing a nationwide ban on sale of pork and alcohol.

In October 2012, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashad submitted the bill, which was accepted to parliament in a narrow vote in which Speaker Abdulla Shahid cast the deciding vote after it reached a stalemate, with 24 votes on either side.

The former MDP MP who defected to PPM claimed that it was evident that President Waheed did not approve of his cabinet ministers appearing before parliament and parliamentary committees, which the MP claimed was essential in a system of separated powers.

“Evidence suggests that the head of state of this country does not intend to cooperate with the parliament,” Mufeed claimed.

He contended that all the parties in parliament aside from the opposition MDP were working very hard to defend the government and ensure its survival until the scheduled 2013 Presidential Elections, but said the government had found little time to appreciate the work of the parties.

The Fuvamulah MP’s remarks followed the failure of several cabinet ministers to appear before the parliamentary select committee in relation to its review of the bill concerning banning of sale of alcohol and pork.

Parliament had requested presence of Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – who is set to face a no-confidence motion on April 8 – Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Minister for Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed.

Members of the National Security Committee claimed parliament had requested the ministers to appear before the committee on three different occasions, but said they were yet to receive any form of communication in response.

The bill

Presenting the bill, MP Nazim Rashad argued that the import of haraam (prohibited) products violates article 10(b) of the constitution which states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“We often hear rumours that people have alcohol at home in their fridge, available any time. We’ve heard that kids take alcohol to school to drink during their break. The issue is more serious than we think, it should not be ignored,” Nazim told the house.

The consumption of intoxicants and pork products are prohibited under Islamic law, although these products are available to foreign tourists in the country’s resorts – including those run by Maldivian resort owners.

In response to the December 23 coalition‘s campaign to protect Islam, which saw a number of these tycoons publicly back allegations that the party was ‘anti-Islamic’, the MDP government announced it was considering banning the import of pork and alcohol products.

After being asked in January 2012 for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives could import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

The Court did note, however, that pork and alcohol have been imported under provisions of the Contraband Act and that there is a regulation in favor of the trade. As no law has declared the regulation unlawful, the import of pork and alcohol is indeed legal, the court claimed.

At the same time, the country’s constitution prohibits the enactment of any laws “contrary to the tenets of Islam”.

Debate

During the preliminary debate on the bill, former Chairperson of MDP, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi called for debate over the sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses, in a bid to promote mid-market travel to local islands.

She further argued that the issue of alcohol needed to be “clarified” and “addressed”.

“If this is a religious issue, that is if Islam bans sale of alcohol, it should not be sold in the Maldives as we are a 100 percent Islamic nation. If the sale is allowed, then the question to ask is whether alcohol is needed for the tourist trade to flourish,” she said.

She added that if alcohol proved to be a vital element in the tourism sector, then the sale of alcohol should be allowed for “registered places” to which a permit is given to accommodate tourists including resorts, safari boats and guest houses.

“If the objection to the sale of alcohol is on [religious] grounds, it should not be sold in places where Maldivians reside. But Maldivians do reside on resorts as employees. If we deny Maldivians the employment opportunities in the resorts, then the income from resorts will be restricted to those who own resorts, that would give way to increase in expatriate workers and foreign currency drainage,” she explained.

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem – who voted in favour of accepting the bill – stated that as alcohol was banned under Islam, it was illegal in the Maldives to create laws and regulations concerning it.

Local resort and business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim – who owns the Villa Hotels chain and is one of the largest importers of pork and alcohol – abstained from the vote, along with fellow resort owners Abdulla Jabir and Ahmed Hamza.

Gasim was a central figure during the December 2011 demonstration, declaring that there was “no such thing as moderate Islam”.

“We don’t know there is a moderate, higher or lower Islam. We only know Islam, which is above all the religion. The only road we must follow is based of Allah’s callings,” the resort tycoon told the crowds.

According to customs records for 2011, Gasim’s properties – including the Royal, Paradise, Sun, and Holiday Island resorts, in 2011 imported approximately 121,234.51 litres of beer, 2048 litres of whiskey, 3684 litres of vodka and 219.96 kilograms of pork sausages.

Resort owner and leader of newly formed Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) Leader Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam voted in favour of accepting the bill, while Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed and PPM Parliamentary Group Leader and now Presidential Candidate Abdulla Yameen voted against accepting the bill.

Regulation permitting the sale of pork and alcohol in tourism establishments was passed by the Ministry of Economic Development in 1975. Parliament did not reject the regulation on the sale of pork and alcohol in 2009 following the introduction of the new constitution, thus allowing it to stand by default.

However the 2008 constitution explicitly states that no regulations against a tenet of Islam may be passed in the Maldives, in apparent contradiction of those laws allowing the import and sale of haraam commodities.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court judges file case against Chief Judge over suspension of Nasheed trial

Eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench have filed a case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef , for suspending the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed without allegedly registering the case in court.

The High Court on Monday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order, signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Following the decision, the Hulhumale-based magistrate court suspended all trials concerning the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012.

According to local media reports, the High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News that the commission had received a “letter” from eight judges of High Court regarding Judge Shareef. However, he declined to provide any details of the case.

This is the second such case filed against Judge Shareef by the other members of the bench.

However, speaking to local media, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

He also said that the usual practice was that a person was asked to pay the charges only after the court decided to accept a case, and that therefore the order was issued after the court had registered the case.

Last year in June, seven High Court Judges lodged a case against Judge Shareef regarding similar conduct in which the seven judges accused him of tampering with decisions made by the majority of the High Court bench.

Other claims by the seven judges included assigning cases to judges arbitrarily, discriminating between judges in assigning cases and of not correcting these issues despite repeated requests.

The case is still pending in the JSC and Minivan News understands that no action has been taken against Judge Shareef so far.

In July 2012, the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), that Chief Judge Shareef had met officials from Malaysian mobile security solutions provider Nexbis – who was given contract to develop a border control system for the department of Immigration – in Bangkok.

Judge Shareef had returned home from a conference in Singapore after spending a week in Bangkok, where he was alleged to have met Nexbis representatives.

However, Nexbis denied that any such meeting took place, and filed a case in a bid to stop the ACC from publicly sharing information on the investigation while the matter was in court, and seeking an apology for the damage to its reputation.

Asking police to investigate the allegations made to the ACC, the High Court meanwhile stressed in a statement that “no individual Judge can simply influence a decision of the Court, as all cases in the High Court are presided by a minimum of three judges  and a ruling is only made by the majority of a particular bench.”

The accusations sent to the ACC were an “extremely irresponsible act with intentions to deceive and manipulate the truth,” the Court’s statement read.

Meanwhile, local media outlet Sun Online claimed that Judge Ahmed Shareef’s name was also included in the Judicial Reform Commission – a commission formed by presidential decree, which opponents of former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged that was to be formed to remove the existing lower courts and reappoint the judges.

However, the commission was never formed after President Nasheed suddenly and controversially resigned on February 7, 2012 which he maintains was forced.

Despite the new case filed against Judge Ahmed Shareef, no decision has been made to revoke the stay order issued by the High Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale Magistrate Court suspends all trials concerning arrest of judge following High Court order

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court  has suspended all trials concerned the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012, following the High Court’s order yesterday to suspend the trial against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Meanwhile eight High Court judges today submitted a case to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) against the Chief Judge of the High Court.

The High Court on Sunday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to halt President Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order signed by Judge Ahmed Shareef of the High Court stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Following the resumption of the trials after a Supreme Court battle between President Nasheed’s legal team and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which ended in favour of JSC after Supreme Court declared the court legitimate – Nasheed’s legal team again filed a case at the High Court requesting that it look into the legitimacy of the appointment of the three member judges panel.

The decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court means trials of former Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defence Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and former MNDF Operations Director Colonel Mohamed Ziyad’s will be suspended until the High Court comes to a decision on the matter – or the Supreme Court takes over the case, as it did following the previous injunction.

An official from the magistrate court was quoted in local media as stating that the suspension of the trials came because the case that is currently being heard in the High Court is closely linked to all cases.

At the time of suspension of the trials, all defendants including Nasheed had denied the charges levied against them.

Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention in January 2012, following a request made by then Home Minister Hassan Afeef to then Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu.

Justifying the arrest, former Home Minister Afeef claimed that the judge had taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist which posed threats to the country’s national security.

All the individuals are facing the same charge under section 81 of the Penal Code – the offence of “arbitrarily arresting and detaining an innocent person”.

Section 81 states – “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to law innocent persons. Persons guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00”.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it was due to the large amount of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,” he added.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer alleges PPM primaries rigged, declares “war within the party”

Former Interim Deputy Leader of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Umar Naseer, has declared a “war within the party” against the “dark forces” he claimed had taken root within the party and vowed to bring in a “white revolution” to cleanse it from what he alleged included drug lords, gangsters and corruption rings.

Naseer made the remarks during a rally held on Tuesday evening, following his humiliating defeat in the PPM’s presidential primary.

The former military sergeant was at the losing end of the party’s primary held to determine its official presidential candidate, gaining just 7,450 votes – 5,646 votes less than his rival, the Parliamentary Group Leader of PPM MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom, who won with 13,096 votes – 63 percent of the vote.

Naseer – who is one of the founding members of the PPM – told supporters he had to battle the “entire machine” of the party during the primary, claiming that his opponent had every advantage in the race.

“Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s children were with Yameen, the largest gangsters in the country were with Yameen, all the drug cartels in the country were with Yameen, the most corrupted people were with Yameen, the whole elections committee was with Yameen and a large chunk of PPM’s parliament members gathered around Yameen.

“We came out knowing that the referee, the linesman and even the match commissioner along with his 11 players were playing on his side. Our team had the poor and the middle class players,” Naseer claimed.

Even though Naseer admitted defeat, he claimed the party’s election had huge discrepancies including influencing of voters, vote buying and intimidation of his supporters.  He also alleged that many of his supporters were denied the right to vote, claiming that their names had not been on the lists.

“We even witnessed that those who are heavily involved in drug trafficking were present at the polling station wearing Yameen’s campaign caps,” he said. “Not only did they exert undue influence, they travelled to islands with stashes of black money and attempted to turn the votes. In fact they even did turn some votes.”

Naseer further alleged that the hands of the elections officials involved in administrating the elections were tainted and had played a significant part in his defeat.

“On Kelaa in Haa Alif Atoll, they added the remaining ballot papers as votes for Yameen. On Fodhdhoo in Noonu Atoll, they took ballot papers that had my name ticked and invalidated it by ticking next to Yameen’s name. No ballot box was placed on Thulhaadhoo in Baa Atoll, but astonishingly results came from that island too,” he claimed.

“White revolution”

Despite the discrepancies, Naseer contended that he would not take a “single step back” and would remain firm in cleansing it of “dark forces”.

Naseer claimed his team would bring about a “white revolution” within the party, and declared war against corruption and gangs within PPM.

“This battle will be fought within PPM’s grounds and this battle will also be won within the lines of PPM,” he claimed, as supporters roared in support.

Naseer stated that although he had congratulated Yameen regardless of how he had won the primary, Naseer warned that he would not back him should he associate himself with people Naseer believed were corrupt.

Referring to recent remarks made by the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim – who claimed that he would join PPM very soon – Umar Naseer expressed his concern over “people who are renowned for corruption” joining the party.

“Remember, I told you about a corruption network. In just less than 24 hours after our colleague Yameen won the PPM primary, the most notorious figure within this corruption network, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Nazim, announces that he is joining the PPM. This is not a sheer coincidence,” Naseer claimed.

“I want to tell my colleague Yameen that he will never get my support if he keeps corrupt people like Nazim behind him. Some people may say that certain things should be done in the party interest, but there are times where this country should be bigger than the party to us,” he said.

“Money money cash cash okay?”

Meanwhile, in an audio clip of a phone conversation leaked to social media, a profession Yameen supporter attempts to buy the votes of Naseer supporters through a person identified in the clip as Ahmed ‘Mujey’ Mujthaba.

Mujthaba – who seemed to have been involved in Yameen’s primary election campaign on Gemanafushi in Gaaf Alif Atol – was given instructions to trade cash for votes on the island.

According to the audio recording, MVR 300,000 (US$ 19,455.25) was wired to Mujthaba, of which he was to distribute MVR 200,000 (US$ 12,970.17) among potential voters while he was to keep the remaining MVR 100,000 (US$ 6,485.08) for himself as “a small reward”.

“Hey Mujey, don’t tell this to anyone,” speaks a voice, who identifies himself as ‘Ismael’ and claims to be one of Yameen’s campaign managers.

“Not even a single person okay Mujey? This is between me and Mujey. This is between us.  What you should do is, distribute the 200,000 rufiyaa. The remaining 100,000 rufiyaa you keep it to yourself. Okay? You should do this very secretly, no one should know about this.”

Ismael is also heard asking Mujthaba to “destroy PPM MP Ilham Ahmed’s family” during the process. MP Ilham – who is the MP for Gemanafushi Island constituency – had supported Umar Naseer in the primaries.

Mujthaba claims that MP Ilham’s brothers in Male’ had called PPM members on the island and had said “they would give them a two-way ticket to India in return for vote”, to which Ismael responded that Ilham did not have the funds to pay such a large sum of money.

“They can’t give that to them now. They won’t have money even close to the amount of money we have. Not even close to ours. They’ll just keep bragging about that. So what you should do is go to their houses. Just go to their houses and wire in the cash and get all the votes. What you can do today is all that you can do, okay? There will be nothing else we can do after today,”

“Hey, you will also get a reward. If we can do this, you will get 100,000 rufiyaa, we have decided that. We have decided to give you 100,000 rufiyaa if you win this vote for us Mujey. Isn’t it a good reward?” he added. “Yes, if you can get the majority from that Island, you will get 100,000 rufiyaa,”

“Money money cash cash okay?” Ismael was repeatedly heard to say.

Minivan News sought to verify the authenticity of the recording, however Yameen and his campaign team were not responding to calls at time of press.

Speaking to Minivan News, Youth Wing Leader of PPM Ahmed Nazim – who is also involved in Umar Naseer’s campaign team – said that he did not wish to comment on the matter.

Translation of the audio clip

ISMAEL: Hey I am saying, everything is going alright now is it?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yes. It will be alright

ISMAEL: So, how are things with opponents? [Repeatedly asks]

AHMED MUJTHABA: They are also there. They will also work in their capacity right?

ISMAEL: Not too many [people] right?

AHMED MUJTHABA: We are all good here. Not too many [people] working with them.

ISMAEL: I’ve called to arrange some cash.

AHMED MUJTHABA: I don’t think it is going to be very bad.

ISMAEL: Why? We have been getting information that Umar’s people are really weak.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yeah. Last night, some of his supporters roamed around the island with cash. They even showed us the cash too. I don’t have any guarantee on their success; some people did not even accept the money.

ISMAEL: But for us…

AHMED MUJTHABA: They went to the house with the money.

ISMAEL: Aah…If they accept the money they would obviously vote in that manner. That is a big problem isn’t it? So, we also have to do that from our side, give a little bit more.

AHMED MUJTHABA: So then?

ISMAEL: Mujey we can arrange 200,000 rufiyaa immediately if you want.

AHMED MUJTHABA: We won’t be able to get it by today right?

ISMAEL: No. You can get it through Sheesha Ahmed. Isn’t Ahmed’s family [living] there, his wife’s family?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Hmm yeah.

ISMAEL: So when you say you want, handing over the money to Ahmed gets the job done.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yeah.

ISMAEL: So what should I do?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Well, then let me talk to others and call back?

ISMAEL: No wait, I have a condition too. You will have to destroy MP Ahmed Ilham’s family in the process. Can you do that?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Wait, he was the one who got me a job. He was very upset with me. My family members have called me bull shit.

ISMAEL: Is it?

AHMED MUJTHABA: So destroy these people.

ISMAEL: That is why I have come out with courage.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yes, this time this family should be destroyed. You have to be able to do this.

ISMAEL: He will be gone this time. This time very sure…yeah?

AHMED MUJTHABA:  This is something you should be able to do. On the other hand, islanders, people from your area are quite stupid. You should be able to control these people.

ISMAEL: I have a big family in this island. Our family is not an ordinary family. All our family members are against him. No one will be there to support them. That’s why, when it became intolerable, they have come out with cash.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Ilham’s brothers in Male have called us and said that they would give two-way ticket to India in return for vote. That is the level they had gone to. So they are very very desperate.

ISMAEL: They can’t give that to them now. They won’t have money even close to the amount of money we have. Not even close to ours. They’ll just keep bragging about that. So what you should do is go to their houses. Just go to their houses and wire in the cash and get all the votes. What you can do today is all that you can do, okay? There will be nothing else we can do after today.

ISMAEL: Then, people in your area are really dumb, isn’t it? Usually islanders are very dumb isn’t it? They have been made dumb and stupid.

ISMAEL: Hey, you will also get a reward. If we can do this, you will get 100,000 rufiyaa, we have decided that. We have decided to give you 100,000 rufiyaa if you win this vote for us Mujey. Isn’t it a good reward?

AHMED MUJTHABA: We will win you the votes from here. I am guaranteeing you that you will get majority from this island.

ISMAEL: Yes, if you can get the majority from that Island, you will get 100,000 rufiyaa. What?

AHMED MUJTHABA: I don’t want money for doing that.

ISMAEL: Yeah yeah…

[Voice becomes unclear as two begins to talk at the same time]

ISMAEL:  Hey listen to this. This money is something that is a secret between you and me. People giving money, this is not related to this. You should not tell this to even your friends.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yes…

ISMAEL: Understood?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Hmm…

ISMAEL: This is not something I am giving to your group or people helping you. So this shall remain between us only. This is how the boss as has asked me to do, okay?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Hmm… You called last night as well right?

ISMAEL: Yeah. Yes. Hey bro, [repeatedly calls]. Money money cash cash alright? Understood?

AHMED MUJTHABA: [Laughs].

ISMAEL: Money money cash cash okay?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Don’t worry. I am saying you will get majority from this island by the will [of God].

ISMAEL: Yeah…Yeah.

AHMED MUJTHABA: You wait and see at 4:00pm today. I will call you today.

ISMAEL: Ahh…very good.

[Separate phone call]

ISMAEL: Is it Mujey ?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yeah yeah true, it is Mujey.

ISMAEL: I called you, Ismael.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yeah.

ISMAEL: Yeah, I said issue with money has been settled and finished. The money has been given to Ahmed. Who would be receiving the money from your end?

AHMED MUJTHABA: I don’t mind giving it to me. You can give this number.

ISMAEL:  Ah okay. So I should give your number right?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Hmm.

ISMAEL: What should I say? You should tell your full name Mujey. Then only isn’t it we can settle it.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yes. Ahmed Mujthaba. Note it down.

ISMAEL:  Ahmed Mujthaba right?

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yes…Mujthaba. Should I give you my ID Card Number?

ISMAEL: Yes, tell me your ID Card Number [Mujthaba gives his ID Card Number]

ISMAEL: 2881…okay. Hey Mujey, don’t tell this to anyone. [Speaks in a hush voice] Not even a single person okay Mujey? This is between me and Mujey. This is between us.  What you should do is, distribute the 200,000 rufiyaa. The remaining 100,000 rufiyaa you keep it to yourself. Okay? You should do this very secretly, no one should know about this.

AHMED MUJTHABA: Yeah OK.

ISMAEL: Remember okay?

AHMED MUJTHABA:  OK.

ISMAEL: Alright then. We will inform the person that you will go to collect the money. Okay, take your ID Card with you.

AHMED MUJTHABA: OK.

ISMAEL: Thank you bro!

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders halt to Nasheed’s trial pending decision on legitimacy of judge panel

The High Court has ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to halt former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it decides on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case.

Nasheed is being tried in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The High Court has previously issued an injunction halting the case following the appeal made by Nasheed’s legal team contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court itself.

However, the Supreme Court took over the case from High Court and declared that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed in accordance to the law.

After the trial resumed, Nasheed’s lawyers again made a request to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013.

At the same hearing, the state prosecutors expressed no objections to the team’s request to delay the trial until the presidential elections, scheduled for September.

However, the magistrate court refused to delay the trial until the end of the elections, instead deferring the trial for a period of four weeks. The hearing was scheduled for April 4.

Nasheed’s legal team subsequently appealed the Magistrate Court’s decision not to grant a deferral until after the elections, and also filed a case regarding the legitimacy of the bench.

The High Court in the new stay order issued today and signed by Judge Ahmed Shareef, stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

The decision – if not quashed by Supreme Court – means that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s scheduled hearing of the trial set to take place on April 4 will be cancelled.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit was earlier quoted in the local media as stating that a summoning chit had been sent to Nasheed, and that the next hearing will see the confessions of witnesses presented by the prosecution.

The decision comes at a time when the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“Moosa Naseem (from the Hulhumale’ Court) initially submitted names of three magistrates, including himself. This means that he had taken responsibility for overseeing this case. Now once a judge assumes responsibility for a case, the JSC does not have the power to remove him from the case,” Sheikh Rahman explained. “However, the JSC did remove him from the case, and appointed three other magistrates of their choice.”

Sheikh Rahman stated that the commission had referred to Articles 48 to 51 of the Judge’s Act as justification.

“But then I note here that the JSC breached Article 48 itself. They did not gather any information as per this article. They stated that it was due to the large amount of paperwork that needs to be researched that they are appointing a panel. However, this is not reason enough to appoint a bench,” he said.

Rahman further stated that the judicial watchdog body was highly politicised, and openly attempting to eliminate former President Nasheed from contesting the presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members,” he added.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) – that has observed the ongoing trial of the former President – in its report concluded that charges against Nasheed appeared to be a politically motivated attempt to bar the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate from the 2013 presidential election.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Nasheed’s legal team, contended that the prosecution of his case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

She added that there remained a “strong argument” in the case that the prosecution of Nasheed was “not in the public interest”.

“It is a strong argument that a prosecution is not in the public interest. The currently constituted court comprises of judges who may be biased or have the appearance of bias. They should recuse themselves,” she argued at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)