Author: Mohamed Naahee

Prepared to go “to any depth” to win 2013 presidential elections: PPM presidential candidate

Winner of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)’s presidential primary and now the party’s official Presidential Candidate MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom has said that he is willing “to go any depths” necessary in order to secure a PPM victory in the 2013 Presidential Elections, scheduled for September 7.

The remark was made in a statement released by Yameen following his victory in PPM’s presidential primary.

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s half brother was selected as the party’s presidential candidate on Saturday (March 30) in a landslide victory in the party’s presidential primary, securing 63 percent of the vote.  The preliminary results revealed Yameen had won the election with a total of 13,096 votes, while his sole competitor Umar Naseer received just 7,450 votes – a margin of 5,646 votes.

Yameen – who is also the PPM’s parliamentary group leader – in his victory statement said that he would remain “firm and determined” in protecting the “faith and trust” placed in him by the party members.

“The decision that you beloved people have made is a very important decision that concerns the future of both PPM and the Maldivian soil,” read Yameen’s statement. “All of you party members have placed a huge trust and faith in me. By the will of Allah, I am ever more determined to protect that trust and faith you have placed in me. I have rolled up my sleeves and am prepared to serve PPM and this beloved nation.”

The PPM parliamentary group leader also promised to work towards broadening the party in terms of membership through membership drives and campaigns.

He also appealed to  Umar Naseer whom he referred to as “fellow brother”, asking him to “not let down your courage in despair” and to join him side by side to work on establishing a PPM government by winning the presidential elections.

“As you would all know, this is the time in which the PPM should unite as one and start working in spirit to win the upcoming presidential elections. I am with all you party members, prepared to make any sacrifices required to ensure that PPM wins the presidential elections 2013,” the statement added.

Umar Naseer’s team pledge to back Yameen

Following the election results, Yameen’s presidential rival Umar Naseer accepted defeat and congratulated Yameen on his election victory.

“If it’s a free and fair election, I will always accept the final result. I believe so far the election has been fair. As I said we will know how to proceed once we assess the complaints,” Naseer told local newspaper Haveeru.

“The party won’t be divided. I believe this will further strengthen the party as this exercise shows the strength of democracy within this party,” he added.

Speaking to local media outlet CNM, Umar Naseer’s Campaign Manager Ahmed ‘Maaz’ Saleem said that Umar’s team would back Yameen and was prepared to work together with him.

“This is something like a practice match played by two groups of one football team. During the practice match, players will tackle and they will even score goals. However, when you face a tournament, the team comes out as one to compete with other teams. This is something like that,” he said.

Saleem stated that the team had received some complaints during the voting period, and that these complaints were forwarded to those in charge of holding the elections. However, Saleem added that it was no longer an issue and that “the primary is over now”.

Saleem – who is a close aide of Umar Naseer – also earlier claimed that he personally doubted the fairness of the election claiming that Yameen had attempted to create disruptions at the polling stations by sending “groups of thugs”.

During the time of voting, local TV station Raajje TV captured a brief scuffle on camera between supporters of the two presidential primary candidates.

The footage shows police being brought in to control the crowd, who are dressed in the party’s pink colour scheme.

Yameen told local media shortly after casting his vote outside the Aminiya School in Male’ that despite the minor conflicts, the party would not split.

“Overall, the voting is alright. But people from within the party have entered voting centres and have tried to start fights,” he was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

“They have raised they voices, used foul language, this should not happen in an internal election. It is very sad.”

PPM’s elections committee has said that the party will announce the official results of the election within a week’s time.  Chair of PPM’s Election Committee, Mohamed Tholal said that the election took place in a very peaceful environment and the voting proceeded very swiftly.

Meanwhil,e former President of the Maldives and PPM president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, called for PPM members to show the world what a “responsible party” the PPM was during Saturday’s primary.

Gayoom also said following the elections that he would work with PPM members to see its candidate win the presidential election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We met Brigadier General Didi at MNDF Headquarters the night the judge was arrested”, police tell court

Two police witnesses presented to court by the prosecution against retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi have said they met Didi inside the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Headquarters the night Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military detention.

Ibrahim Didi is charged for the controversial military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Along with Didi, former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are all facing the same charges, of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code.

Article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code 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.”

Didi however denied the charges levied against him during the first hearing of the trial, contending that he should not be facing charges as an individual for an act carried out by the then Defence Ministry.

The former Brigadier General claimed that the charges levied against him by the state were unfair and raised question over the credibility of the witnesses presented by the state against him. He also argued that the arrest was made by the Defence Minister under the direct orders of the president, and that he had no role to play in it.

During the hearing of the trial held at Hulhumale Magistrate Court on Wednesday, two witnesses, Police Sergeant Hassan Irash and Police Lance Corporal Ibrahim Hameed, told the court that they had met the former Male Area Commander at Bandaara Koshi together with a group of police officers.

Sergeant Irash claimed that he and the group of police officers including Lance Corporal Hameed went to the MNDF headquarters on the order of former Police Superintendent Mohamed Jinah. He added that Didi met the group and had asked whether they were the police.

However, Lance Corporal Hameed claimed that he did not know whose order the group of police officers were following, when they were on their way to the MNDF headquarters on the night of February 6, 2012.

State prosecutors did not disclose what they were trying to prove through the witness statements given by the two police officers.

Prior to the witness statements, Didi’s defence lawyer Ismail Wisham took a procedural point contending that the two police officers was not required to be brought before the court to give evidence.

This, he said, was because neither of the two statements given by the two officers had anything to do with the arrest of the judge and therefore, their statements did not carry any weight.

Dismissing the point, State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna Ahmed contended that the defendant’s lawyer had not objected to the list of witnesses presented to the court during the first hearing.

She also argued that debate on witness statements would take place after all the witness statements had been made in court and added that the state wished to prove certain elements through a combination of multiple witness statements.

Deciding on the matter, the panel of judges concluded that every party under the constitution was entitled to submit as much evidences as they could, and that therefore the court had decided to take evidences from the two police officers in a bid to respect that constitutional right.

The court concluded the hearings announcing that another would be scheduled on March 31 (Sunday).

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody in January 2012 after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge, stating that he posed a threat to both the national security of the country and a threat to the country’s criminal justice system.

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Didi was the Male Area Commander at the time the arrest took place.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Preliminary hearing on GMR-Maldives arbitration case scheduled for April 10 in London

The preliminary hearing of the arbitration case concerning the government’s voiding of its concession agreement with Indian Infrastructure giant GMR is scheduled to take place on April 10 in London, reports local media.

On February 3, the parties announced the appointment of arbitrators for the case.  According to the Attorney General’s office, the Maldives will be represented by Singapore National University Professor M Sonaraja, while former Chief Justice of the UK, Lord Nicholas Addison Phillips, will represent GMR.

The arbitrator mutually agreed by both GMR and the government is retired senior UK Judge, Lord Leonard Hubert Hoffman.

Speaking to the newspaper, Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham said that the meeting will take place at the presence of three arbitrators appointed to hear the case along with lawyers representing the government of Maldives, Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and GMR.

“It is not an official hearing of the arbitration case. It is a hearing in which a date for the commencement of the hearings would be agreed and to agree as to how the case should proceed. Decisions concerning how the proceedings should take place will be agreed,” Usham told Haveeru.

He also said that although the preliminary hearing was to take place in London, the official hearings of the case will be heard in Singapore.

In 2010, GMR-Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) consortium, government of former President Mohamed Nasheed and Maldives Airport Company Limited (MACL) entered into a 25-year concession agreement worth US$511 million (MVR 7.787 billion) – in which the GMR-MAHB Consortium was contracted with the management and upgrading of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) within the 25 year contract period.

However in November 2012, the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik declared the developer’s concession agreement void and ordered it to leave the country within seven days.

A last minute injunction from the Singapore High Court during arbitration proceedings was overturned on December 6, after Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon declared that “the Maldives government has the power to do what it wants, including expropriating the airport.”

GMR is seeking US$800 million in compensation for the sudden termination, while the Maldivian government is contending that it owes nothing as the contract was void ab initio – meaning the contract was invalid from the outset.

Should the argument of void ab initio fail, the government have claimed that its second legal ground on which it would argue in favour of termination of the contract would be that the contract had been ‘frustrated’.

‘Frustration of a contract’ is an English contract law doctrine which acts as a device to set aside contracts where an unforeseen event either renders contractual obligations impossible, or radically changes the party’s principle purpose for entering into the contract.

“The government has given a seven day notice to GMR to leave the airport. The agreement states that GMR should be given a 30 day notice but the government believes that since the contract is void, it need not be followed,” said Attorney General Azima Shukoor at the time of announcement of the contract.

The awarding of the bid in 2010 was overseen by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), which the Waheed government has accused of being “negligent” and “irresponsible”.

Should the matter be decided in the government’s favour, uncertainty remains as to the potential impact on foreign investor sentiment given the prospect of sudden asset seizure under the ‘void ab initio’ precedent.

If decided in GMR’s favour, the outcome of the case could potentially see the Maldives facing sovereign bankruptcy, with millions of dollars in additional debt emptying the state’s already dwindling reserves, crippling the country’s ability to obtain further credit, and potentially sparking an economic or currency crisis.

In December 2012, the Maldives government paid back US$50 million to the State Bank of India, after it refused to extend the period of the treasury bonds issued by the bank during the previous government. India has called in further installments of US$50 million, forcing the government to draw on the state reserves.

Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad has said the government is yet to come to an arrangement to pay the next US$50 million installment to SBI, explaining that the money will have to come from the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA).

“The US$50 million due in February will have to be paid from the reserve. We have been ordered to pay the amount. There has been no change to the order so far. So it must be paid,” Jihad told local media at the time.

At the start of 2013, state reserves had shrunk to MVR 4.9 billion (US$317.7 million), according to the MMA.

“Gross international reserves at the MMA have been declining slowly, and now account for just one and half months of imports, and could be more substantially pressured if major borrowings maturing in the next few months are not rolled over,” an International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation observed during a mission to the Maldives in November last year.

Moreover, one of GMR’s lenders, Axis Bank, is also seeking the repayment of loans for the airport project, which were guaranteed by the Ministry of Finance and approved by the Attorney General’s Office under the former government.

Attorney General’s office was not available for a comment at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament committee to probe Sheikh Ilyas Hussain’s “false preaching” over draft penal code

Parliament’s committee responsible for drafting the new penal code has slammed the “false preaching” of the Chair of Adhaalath Party’s Scholars Council Sheikh Ilyas Hussain over the bill.

In a sermon given on Friday evening at the Furugaan Mosque, under the title “Purpose of Islamic Sharia”, Sheikh Ilyas declared that the new penal code does not recognise fornication with mutual consent as an offence, said committee’s member MP Nazim Rashaad.

During the parliamentary committee’s meeting held on Tuesday, Thulhaadhoo Constituency MP rejected the claim stating that no such stipulation was included in the draft penal code.

Rashaad said that section 130 of the draft bill states that sexual intercourse with another person without consent is categorised as “rape” under the new bill.

The existing penal code does not explicitly recognise “rape” as a crime, and cases are handled under provisions for sexual offences.

Rashaad contended that whether sheikh or not, nobody could misinterpret the clause and claim that the bill did not recognise “mutually consented sexual intercourse” as an offence, and accused the Sheikh of lying to discredit the bill and parliament.

Briefing committee members on the sections concerning sexual offenses, Rashaad stated that under the draft penal code, both fornication and rape are offences under section 411 of the draft bill.

“These people are deliberately making misleading comments regarding the draft bill without doing proper research.  They are attempting to discredit the bill and incite hatred among people towards the parliament and the members of this committee,” the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP alleged.

Following Rashaad’s comments, Chair of the Committee MP Ahmed Hamza stated that the committee will look into the case.

The committee also decided to send a written request to local radio station Atoll Radio seeking recordings of the sermon which was broadcast.

Amendments to bill

The parliamentary committee’s decision follows its rejection of all but one amendment to the bill suggested by the Fiqh Academy of the Maldives.

Speaking to local media on Monday, Hamza said  the committee had decided to accept only a suggestion concerning the offence of theft.  Other amendments, he said, were merely changes to the wordings of the bill and carried little legal weight.

“They have submitted amendments to abolish certain sections. These include certain legal defences. When we looked into removing those defences, we found this impacted fundamental principles embedded to the draft penal code. So we decided to reject their suggestions,” he said.

Following the decision, Vice President of the Fiqh Academy Sheikh Iyas Abdul Latheef told local newspaper Haveeru that the academy had informed parliament that current draft penal code should not be enforced in the country.

Speaking of amendments proposed by the Fiqh Academy, Latheef claimed that the defence of intoxication included in the bill, if proven in court, could lead to the acquittal of a convict, but said the academy’s proposal to remove the defence had been rejected by the parliament.

“The current draft does not include the Hadds established under Islamic Sharia. There is no mention of the death penalty for murder, the punishment of stoning for fornication, the punishment of amputation for theft and the punishment for apostasy. We proposed amendments to include these punishments,” he said.

Iyas also echoed the remarks made by Sheikh Ilyas Hussain in which he too claimed that the current draft implied that fornication with mutual consent was not an offence.

He also added that the bill stating that a convict should be able to use voluntary intoxication as a defense conflicted with the rules and principles of Islamic Sharia.

Furthermore the vice president of the Fiqh Academy said the draft penal code bill was drafted in such a fashion that it would encourage criminals to commit crimes and disregard the principles behind punishments prescribed under Islamic Sharia.

Along with the Fiqh Academy, the religiously conservative Adhaalath Party has also sent a letter claiming that the bill as a whole contrasts with Article 10(b) of the Constitution which states: “No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

Responding to the criticism, Chair of the Committee Ahmed Hamza claimed that even though the committee had decided to reject the suggestions, amendments could be brought to the bill when the committee sends the bill to parliamentary floor.

US assistance with draft

The initial draft of the penal code was prepared by legal expert Professor Paul H Robinson and the University of Pennsylvania Law School of the United States, upon the request of the Attorney General in January, 2006. The project was supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Professor Robinson’s team have published two volumes (Volume 1 and Volume 2) consisting of commentaries on sections of the draft bill.

In an interview given to Times Higher Education UK, Professor Robinson was quoted as stating that the draft bill strictly adhered to the principles of Islamic Sharia and Islamic law as the “law in the Maldives is based on Sharia”.

“The cultural norms are quite different,” He said. “What the Maldives will want to criminalise and the ranking of the seriousness of offences will be different in many ways (from the US system). They criminalise adultery, for example, whereas most American jurisdictions have dropped it.”

“Some of these provisions have symbolic religious significance more than practical importance. I’ve never actually heard of anybody who has more than one wife, though it may well be that there are some somewhere,” he was quoted saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General files case requesting Supreme Court prevent dissolution of smaller political parties

The Attorney General has filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting it declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved following the ratification of the new Political Parties Act.

On March 2013, a similar case was filed by the attorney general requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of those political parties which failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

Following the case, Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction against the Elections Commission ordering it to withhold the dissolution of political parties that did not have the required membership.

During the hearing of the new case filed as an ex parte case on Wednesday, state attorney Ahmed Usham contended that there were legal issues with the Political Parties Act.

Usham argued that although the constitution states that a fundamental right could be limited only through legislation, the state was not of the view that the right to association and form political parties be limited as strictly as stipulated by the act.

He added that political parties were also separate legal entities under both the political parties’ regulation that was in place prior to the enactment of the new act, and therefore would have conducted commercial transactions and hired employees.

Therefore, dissolution of political parties Usham argued, would compromise the rights of several groups of people.

He also contended that requirement of specific number of members in a political party varied from country to country, but countries with larger populations than the Maldives had a lower minimum requirement for party membership.

Though the case is being heard as an ex parte case, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) also intervened in the case.

Speaking during the hearing, MDA’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed contended that following the enactment of the Political Parties Act, several rights of the political party had been compromised.

He also said that the requirement of 10,000 members was too large compared to the population of the country.

Hameed contended that the bill’s stipulation that newly formed political parties would have a three month period to gain membership, while existing parties did not have the same opportunity, was unfair.

The MDA also requested the Supreme Court declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved according to the law.

Today’s hearing was heard by the full seven member bench of the Supreme Court, and concluded without mention of a further hearing on the matter.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among those set to be dissolved – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

On March 5, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law, overruling the presidential veto. Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favour of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

Article 11 of the law states that at least 10,000 signatures are needed to register a party with the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to monitor that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

Following ratification, President of the Elections Commission (EC) Fuad Thaufeeq stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggested that political parties that did not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act was gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said the EC’s legal team was currently reviewing the act and would make a decision based on its report.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing the law before it actually is enacted. That the bill has passed with such a strong majority means that the commission will make all the necessary arrangements to begin enforcing the law,” he said.

He added that the law gives the Elections Commission additional powers to regulate and discipline political parties, and powers to take action against parties violating the law.

Despite several parties facing being dissolved, Thaufeeg said that he hoped to see several parties registered under the new law.

Following the enactment of the act, several smaller political parties including President Waheed’s GIP, his Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), MDA and religious conservative Adhaalath Party criticised the Act, stating that they would take the matter to the Supreme Court and seek invalidation of the bill.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court Judge asked me to file case against Nasheed, alleges sacked Human Rights Minister

Sacked Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has sent a letter to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain requesting that he investigate a Supreme Court judge, whom she alleged requested that she file a case against former President Mohamed Nasheed in a bid to prevent him from running for presidency in the 2013 presidential elections.

The former SAARC Secretary General’s claims follow the High Court’s rejection of a petition filed by her and a team of lawyers, requesting the court look into the legality behind the controversial transfer of power that took place in February 2012.

The High Court rejected the case on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter. Saeed was later quoted in the media saying that she would file the case at the Supreme Court.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru on Monday, Saeed said that although her intention was to file the case at the Supreme Court, it was highly unlikely that justice would be served at the court.

This, she claimed, was due to the fact that her case had a strong connection with former President Nasheed’s alleged illegally obtained resignation, and that a judge on the Supreme Court bench had expressed to her that he had personal scores to settle with Nasheed.

According to Saeed, the said judge had personally instructed her on what cases she should file against the former President. Saeed alleged the instructions were given at a meeting held in the judge’s house at his request following Nasheed’s resignation.

Supreme Court Judge issues instructions to file cases should be filed against Nasheed

Among the suggestions allegedly given by the judge included filing a case concerning Nasheed’s decision to remove eight members appointed to parliament by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, prior to the ratification of the constitution.

In March 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the removal of the eight presidential appointees in late 2008 by incoming President Mohamed Nasheed – who replaced the eight with his own appointees – was unconstitutional and ordered the state to compensate the MPs for salaries and allowances due for the remainder of the last parliamentary session.

Following the ruling, the state was ordered to pay approximately MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) for each of the eight Gayoom appointed MPs, totalling up to MVR 4 million (US$ 311,284.05).

Another suggestion included refiling a case filed by Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar in 2008 against Nasheed. This case claimed that Nasheed was convicted and sentenced for theft – a ‘Hadd’ offence under Sharia’ law – in similar bid to bar his candidacy in 2008 Presidential elections.

However, the Supreme Court on October 2008 declared that Nasheed was eligible to contest the election and that Nasheed was not sentenced on a Hadd offence.

Saeed declined to reveal the name of the judge but said he was “involved” in the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the legitimacy of the controversially-formed Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

In December 2012, the Supreme Court declared that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court – created by the Judicial Services Commission – was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The court’s legitimacy was declared by a majority of four out of the seven member Supreme Court bench.

Judges Abdulla Saeed, Ali Hameed Abdulla, Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi voted in favour of the court’s legitimacy, while Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Judge Abdulla Areef and Judge Mu’uthazim Adnan had dissenting views. Judge Adam Mohamed – also president of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), responsible for creating the court and appointing the judges in the Nasheed trial – cast the deciding vote.

Saeed on Monday claimed she was yet to receive response from the Chief Justice regarding the complaint.

“I have no knowledge as to whether that case is either considered or whether it is being looked into,” she said.

Saeed claimed that the specific judge must refrain from hearing any case linking with former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation and transfer of power in 2012, including the case she intends to file at the court.

“Judges should refrain from personal interests and bias; his rulings should be impartial. So, when a judge specifically speaks of preventing a specific person from getting elected to president, that means that he is biased,” Saeed said. “That is grossly inconsistent with the principles of justice.”

Speaking to local TV station Raajje TV on Monday evening, Saeed claimed that she only decided to talk about the matter after what happened with the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

“After realising how unfair it is for a judge like that to sit in the bench and decide the case regarding Hulhumale Magistrate Court, which is so closely related to Nasheed’s trial, I decided to speak out in public. Otherwise, I would have taken this to grave, and never mention it,” Saeed told the local TV station.

The judge who wanted to settle scores with me should be found and removed: President Nasheed

Following Saeed’s allegations, former President Mohamed Nasheed said that Judicial Service Commission (JSC) should find the judge which Saeed was speaking of, and remove him from the Supreme Court bench.

During a campaign rally held at Henveiru ward of Male City, Nasheed said that it was pointless for Chief Justice to talk of the judiciary while having knowledge of such discrepancies within the courts.

“The [Chief Justice] must look into this. A judge sitting in his court room is asking a lawyer to file a case against a President. When he is given a letter regarding such discrepancy, he should look into it. It is important that the JSC find who this judge is and dismiss him. He is not fit to be a judge,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed further said that Maldivian laws do not allow biased judges to sit in courts, and repeated his call for judicial reform.

“Neither the law nor the public wants a judge who often picks sides, distances himself and deliberately disregards the rules of justice in settling matters to remain as a judge in the court room,” he said.

The “noble Jihad”

However, on Sunday both Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and JSC President Adam Mohamed both claimed that “nobody can meddle with the Supreme Court”.

Both the Supreme Court judges contended that nobody could change the Supreme Court bench or remove a Supreme Court judge unless the position became vacant as per the law.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” Justice Faiz said at the time.

Meanwhile Adam Mohamed also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as Maldives remains a democracy”: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has said the current seven-member bench of the Supreme Court cannot be abolished and will continue to remain as the highest court of the country as long as the Maldives remains a democracy.

The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time where the Supreme Court has come under heavy criticism from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Last week following two controversial rulings issued by the court, the MDP’s National Council passed a motion calling on its parliamentary group to seek to abolish the existing Supreme Court bench and replace it with a new panel of judges, including foreign judges.

The party subsequently launched peaceful street protests last Friday against the court rulings. Protesters led by former President Mohamed Nasheed also called on the Supreme Court to refrain from undermining parliament and its decisions.

Speaking during a ceremony held at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Sunday to swear in five new Magistrate Court Judges, Justice Faiz Hussain contended that the only way a judge from the Supreme Court could be removed was if the judge’s position became vacant.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” he said.

The Chief Justice also called upon all the judges to not to fear what the “people from other institutions” say, and advised the judges to not let their emotional sentiments get in the way of fulfilling their legal duties.

He added that every person is entitled with the right to file a case at the court if the person feels that his rights had been compromised, and when the highest court decides on a matter, that decision will be final and binding, and cannot be changed.

Faiz Hussain also said that the court will look into cases filed with them, and the court process would not stop.  He added that while there remained the option to settle matters out of court, if a matter came to the court, it would look into that matter.

“A very noble jihad”, says JSC President Adam Mohamed

Meanwhile President of JSC and member of the Supreme Court bench Adam Mohamed followed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain in condemning the efforts of some parliament members to dissolve the court bench.

Justice Adam Mohamed contended that article 54 of the Constitution clearly states as to how a Judge can be removed from a court. Therefore, Mohamed said the efforts led by MDP MPs to change the bench through legislation were unconstitutional.

“While the constitution very clearly mentioning as to how a judge can be removed, It remains very clear that efforts to remove a sitting judge in contrast with the principle laid down in Article 54 of the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional.

The JSC President also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Regarding the removal of judges, Adam Mohamed echoed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain’s remarks stating that claiming that a judge could only be removed by either retirement, resignation or if the parliament successfully removes the judge by a two thirds majority.

Every effort will be made to bring the necessary changes – MDP

During the MDP’s emergency national council meeting held last week, the motion proposed by MDP national council member Mohamed ‘Sanco’ Shareef – which concerned the removal of the existing Supreme Court bench – received unanimous support from all attending members, including former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“The Supreme Court is acting in such a fashion that it has now begun overtaking the powers of the parliament and in the process undermining the constitution of this country. [Therefore] this motion calls on MDP’s parliamentary group to make formal requests to parliament to immediately abolish the current bench of Supreme Court and establish a new bench that consists of honest judges.

“Also as the Maldives Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court having foreign judges, [this motion also calls] to seek qualified and educated judges from abroad,” read the motion (Dhivehi).

The meeting was called in following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn parliament’s removal of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, and a decision to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed during the meeting stated that it was more important that there be a proper justice established in the country rather than him being elected as President.

“To reform the judiciary and bring the justice system of this country into the right course is something I must do,” he said. “We will come out to the streets, we will protest. I will not take a single step back until the bench is replaced with better judges.”

Meanwhile, MDP’s Parliamentary Group and Parliament’s Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih assured the council that the party’s parliamentary group under his leadership would do everything at its hand to ensure the dissolution of the existing Supreme Court bench.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court rejects former Human Rights Minister’s case contesting legitimacy of Waheed’s government

The High Court has rejected the case filed by the former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, requesting the court to rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress and the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.

Rejecting the case, the court claimed it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, the former SAARC Secretary General said that she and her legal team had been informed by the High Court that the case could not be looked into as it was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

However, Saeed told Haveeru that she was of the view that High Court had the jurisdiction to look into the case.

She earlier stated that the constitution clearly mentions of the cases in which the Supreme Court can act as a first instance court but in other cases the High Court does have the jurisdiction to accept constitutional cases as a first instance court.

Speaking to media previously, member of Saeed’s legal team Ishraq Thaufeeg said that following legal review of the circumstances, the team had noticed several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

He also said the  public still questioned the legitimacy of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government, and that therefore it was important that a court of law decides on the matter.

Dhiyana Saeed, formerly a member of current President Mohamed Waheed’s cabinet and one of the earliest critics of Nasheed’s decision to detain Judge Abdulla, has also released a personal memoir explaining her interpretation of Waheed’s ascension to power. In the memoir, former SAARC Secretary General alleged that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.

Saeed alleged that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which had declared that there was no coup and Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee’s review of the report revealed several concerns including omission of key evidence and witness statements.

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, claimed the August 2012 report produced by the CNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.

He added that many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]” while “others claimed their information was wrongly presented”.

To support its claims, the parliamentary select committee released audio recordings of all the statements given by the witnesses. These included former police and military chiefs and officers, who claimed that Nasheed had no option but to resign.

Leaked statements to the CNI given by key witnesses of the events, including senior police and military officials, also suggested that the transfer of power took place illegitimately.

In the transcript of the statement given to CNI by MNDF Staff Sergeant Shafraz Naeem – the commander of the riot squad of the Bandara Koshi (BK) Battalion on the day – said that he also believed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup.

“In my view this was a coup. Why? I could see it from the way they handled everything, their attitude, how cool and calm all the officers were. I could tell from how cool General Shiyam was inside the MNDF. They did nothing. This is not how a uniformed officer should behave,” he told the CNI.

Meanwhile former President Nasheed told the CNI that he was forced to resign, as he believed his life was at stake on February 7 if he did not.

“In essence, my statement is very small. I was forced to resign. I resigned under duress. I was threatened. If I did not resign within a stipulated period it would endanger mine and my family’s life. I understood they were going to harm a number of other citizens, party members. They were going to literally sack the town. I felt that I had no other option, other than to resign,” he said.

On September 2012, following the release of the report, a legal analysis of the CNI’s report by a team of high-profile Sri Lankan legal professionals – including the country’s former Attorney General concluded that the report was “selective”, “flawed”, and “exceeded its mandate”.

“The report offends the fundamental tenets of natural justice, transparency and good governance, including the right to see adverse material, which undermines the salutary tenets of the Rule of Law,” observed the report.

The Sri Lankan legal team also contended that “there is evidence to demonstrate that there was in fact adequate evidence to suggest that duress (or even ‘coercion’ and/ or illegal coercion as used by CNI) is attributable to the resignation of President Nasheed.”

Saeed was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP ‘Colonel’ Nasheed blames Home Minister Jameel for evidence bill delay

Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed has claimed that Home Minister Mohamed Jameel’s failure to give a professional opinion on the pending Evidence Bill is the reason for the bill’s delay.

The remark by the Nolhivaram constituency MP comes at a time where both the Home Minister and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz have expressed concern over parliament’s delaying of the essential bill.

During a debate in parliament last Wednesday, MP Nasheed claimed that the committee currently reviewing the bill had on numerous occasions requested a professional opinion from the Home Minister.

“We were forced to park the bill because [Jameel] could not spare us time. We are waiting for an opinion from him. Therefore, before opening his mouth to condemn parliament, he must look back at his own actions,” said MP Nasheed.

He contended that along with the evidence bill, other pivotal bills such as the criminal procedure code require professional opinions from the attorney general, the Supreme Court and other members of the judiciary, as well as the police and Home Ministry.

“They are not able to give time for any of this. Kulhudhufushi-South Constituency MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed has neatly carried out parliament’s end of the bargain. He initiated the drafting and other relevant work required from parliament. But, we have to face the truth that [the delay] is due to the Home Minister’s failure to give us his time,” he said.

“We have given time for him on four different occasions, but every time for some reason he calls us and cancels the appointment in the nick of time. How can the evidence bill be passed?” Nasheed questioned.

He reiterated that even though the country was run under a presidential system with separated powers of state, it does not mean that two of those powers could not collaborate in running the affairs of the state.

Police Commissioner’s concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has said it was of utmost importance that a mechanism be set which would speed up the process of obtaining witness statements before the witness is “influenced”.

In a video released on the police website following the Criminal Court’s acquittal of six suspects arrested in connection with the stabbing murder of Ali Shifan, Commissioner Riyaz stated that many people are afraid to give witness to the courts because of threats they face afterwards.

“In several countries, there are mechanisms to protect witnesses. That can only be achieved through legislation. According to our information, a draft witness protection act is currently submitted to the parliament,” he said.

He said such key bills should become law as soon as possible in order for police to continue curbing criminal activities.

“Laws should be made in such a fashion that they guarantee the safety and protection of the people. Importance should be given to that. We hope that the necessary bills are passed as soon as possible which will remove a lot of barriers we are currently facing. It would be a huge assistance,” he said.

The commissioner of police added that it was important to know the extent to which the court would go to accept circumstantial evidences and forensic evidences such as DNA.

He stressed that the constitution clearly mentioned that investigations be carried on the basis of evidence collected, but said there was no evidence act currently in place.

“DNA is one of the most authentic forms of evidence. Another is the fingerprint. Similarly, video evidence id very authentic too. We are talking about the fact that there is no legislation that dictates as to how such evidences will be accepted by the court.”

Following claims that the initial evidence bill proposed in 2009 “made no sense at all”, a new draft of the bill was proposed to Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee on October 2012.

The bill was drafted by former Minister of Legal Reform during President Gayoom’s presidency, the current MP for Kulhudhuffushi- South, MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

Home Minister Jameel was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)