Author: Mohamed Naahee

MP Colonel Nasheed defects to DRP, claiming MDP “undisciplined”

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Nolhivarum constituency Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed has opted to join the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The DRP was founded by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and now led by his former vice presidential nominee, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, after a split in 2011 that saw Gayoom and his supporters leave the party to form the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

During a small ceremony held at the DRP head office, Nasheed signed to the party in front of party leader Thasmeen.

The defection comes the day following his defeat in the MDP’s parliamentary group elections, in which he contested for the position of one of the two deputy leaders.

MP Nasheed placed last after receiving five votes out of the 30 members. However, he said during the ceremony that the defeat in the party election had nothing to do with his defection to DRP.

Speaking during the ceremony after joining the party, the MP said that even though former President Mohamed Nasheed had a vision to reform the country, his aides never had the same thinking.

He also claimed that he joined DRP because he wholeheartedly believed the DRP was consistent in upholding its policies, and had“civilised” policies to offer for the nation.

“MDP is a party that I love. To sell MDP’s ideology, I took it on my own shoulders and carried it to the international stage. I spent days in imprisonment to uphold that ideology. But the truth is that our former presidents can do little to help this country. We cannot remain tied with the past,” he said.

Nasheed argued that whenever there was a conflict of opinion among a group of members the matter should not be settled “in the wrestling ring”.

He also said that both the parliament and the courts deserved privileges and respect.

“All boys who get ‘A reports’ are in DRP”

“In my view, we should never disrepute the state organs. At the same time I do admit to the fact that both the country’s legislature and judiciary have their problems. I believe the DRP is the only disciplined party that can solve the problems in a civilised manner,” he said.

Nasheed also criticised the recent anti government protests led by the MDP, contending that freedom of assembly should be exercised within the law.

“I do not believe that it is freedom of assembly when protesters overturn a passing van,” he said. “I believe in the right to freedom of assembly. But it is not freedom of assembly when you shatter the windows of a car and injure two school boys in it.”

Nasheed, who spoke highly in favor of his new party, said that DRP was a formidable vehicle that only needs to be activated by a few young people.

The MP claimed the party “has the most able and competent individuals in the country”, which is reflected from the performance of DRP cabinet ministers.

“All those boys who get ‘A reports’ are in DRP and all those who gets ‘B reports’ are with the MDP. What we are seeing today is that the country is being run by boys who end up with ‘C reports’ while those who get ‘A reports’ and ‘B reports’ are kept sidelined. This is something that public should clearly think about,” MP Nasheed said.

MP Eva Abdulla and Ilyas Labeeb calling the shots in deciding party whip line: Colonel Nasheed

Nasheed also alleged that MP Eva Abdulla and MP Ilyas Labeeb were calling the shots in deciding the party whip line in parliamentary votes, and claimed that there was no discussion between the remaining members of the parliamentary group.

“[MDP’s] whip line comes depending on what Eva Abdulla and Ilyas Labeeb feel about the matter. That is not how I want to follow the party whip line. When you vote in parliament, the first priority is the nation. The nation is bigger that any of our individual interests,” Nasheed said, expressing his frustration.

“The DRP is a party that upholds principles. Those principles are followed by the members of the DRP parliamentary group. When we don’t vote on a matter, we have reasons and justifications to our actions,” he said.

Following the addition of a member to his party’s parliamentary group, an ecstatic Ahmed Thasmeen Ali said that Nasheed and he had common views and principles.

The DRP leader described MP Nasheed as a person of both conviction and principle.

“The way he acts in parliament will prove whether he is a person who sticks to principle,” Thasmeen said.

Meanwhile DRP Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Mausoom tweeted welcoming Nasheed’s decision to join the party.

“Happy Day! Welcome [MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed] to DRP, the responsible political party of Maldives,” he tweeted.

MDP response

Speaking to Minivan News about the defection, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that MP Nasheed and the rest of the parliamentary group members did not share common thinking.

Although he said he did not know the exact reason for the defection, Ghafoor suggested that the move could be for the reason that Nasheed wanted to assure his re-election to parliament.

“Maybe it was an attempt to secure his re-election. But we see that re-election possibilities are high within our own party. We also noticed that he was working very hard to get a position in the parliamentary group which did not bear much fruit,” he said.

MP Colonel Nasheed began his parliamentary career in 2007 following a by-election victory for the Male’ seat of the constitutional assembly that drafted the current constitution. He won the seat on an MDP ticket with a support base of 7,000 votes, but left the MDP to join the Social Liberal Party (SLP) following disputes.

Nasheed again rejoined the MDP ahead of the 2009 parliamentary elections and won the seat of Nolhivaram constituency on an MDP ticket.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sacked Human Rights Minister files case in court to declare Waheed government illegitimate

A legal team led by sacked Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has filed a case at the High Court, requesting it rule that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was obtained under duress and the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.

Nasheed’s resignation followed 22 days of continuous protests backed by religious scholars, opposition leaders and mutinying police and military officers, in mid-January 2012, over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed. Nasheed’s Vice-President Mohamed Waheed Hassan subsequently ascended to power.

Following resignation, Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) claimed he was forced to resign under duress and that his government was toppled in a bloodless coup d’etat.

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

Speaking to Minivan News, Saeed confirmed that the High Court had accepted the initial paperwork. However, a final determination to formally accept the case will be made after review of the paperwork.

According to local media, lawyers joining Saeed in the petition include Ishraq Thaufeeg and Aiminath Nazlee, both whom currently represent Saeed’s newly founded law firm, Fanandheeb Chambers.

Speaking to local media outlet Channel News Maldives, Thaufeeg said following legal reviewing of the circumstances, the firm had noticed several legal inconsistencies and lapses that suggested the transfer of power took place illegally.

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

Saeed alleged in her memoir 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 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 infmrmation 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.

Former Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel was heard telling the committee that he “fully believed that President Nasheed resigned under duress”.

He added that the circumstances leading up to the resignation of former President gave rise to the fact that resignation was obtained by “illegal coercion”.

Meanwhile former Police Chief Ahmed Faseeh told the committee that police officers who gathered in Republican Square on February 7 had disobeyed orders and their actions were grossly inconsistent with the Police Act, as well as professional standards established within the police.

Former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Intelligence Head Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam also testified to the committee that Nasheed was ousted in a coup, claiming that events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup.

“Academically speaking, the events on February 7 fulfilled all the essentials of a coup. It involved all the features of a coup that are widely accepted around the world. Some of the elements take place before the toppling of a president. Others take place spontaneously,” he said.

Leaked statements given by key witnesses of the events to CNI, 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 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.”

The CNI report dismissed this theory.

“In summary, the commission concludes that there was no illegal coercion or intimidation nor any coup d’état. The commission has received no evidence supporting or to substantiate these allegations. This disposes the main mandate of the Commission,”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP demands Supreme Court bench be replaced, inclusion of educated foreign judges

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s National Council has 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 call was made following the Supreme Court’s controversial rulings on Thursday overturning decisions made by parliament.

The Supreme Court had overturned 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.

During an emergency national council meeting held on Sunday evening, the proposal by MDP national council member Mohamed ‘Sanco’ Shareef 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).

During the debate on the motion, MDP’s Parliamentary Group and Parliament’s Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih described the day of the verdicts as the darkest day of Maldives’ 80 year long parliamentary history.

Solih said the Supreme Court had significantly undermined the legislative power of the state by openly challenging parliament’s power to decide on its own affairs and the bills passed by the parliament.

The Hinnavaru Constituency MP 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.

“Shocking verdicts”

Speaking during the debate, former President Mohamed Nasheed expressed his support for the motion claiming that it was time to change the Supreme Court bench, as it was delivering “shocking” verdicts.

Nasheed recalled several controversial decisions made by the Supreme Court, such as its decision that eight of former President Gayoom’s political appointees be paid MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) each in compensation after Nasheed replaced them.

The Supreme Court also ruled in favour of the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), after the JSC’s head – Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed – made the casting vote.

“It is more important that we have justice established in this country rather than myself being elected as the 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,” Nasheed vowed.

Nasheed claimed that Supreme Court had attempted to silence lawyers, by forcing them to sign a declaration which requires them to not to comment on court rulings if they want to keep their licenses to practice law.

The former President also alleged the Supreme Court was employing deceitful tactics by tempering its own verdicts before these were being made available to public.

“We know how they issue the verdict and we know how different it is on the paper to that which is made available to the public. The two versions of the verdict differ significantly. This is something I am very concerned about,” he said.

Nasheed – who has written books on the country’s history – said that Maldives had followed a “tradition” in which “the people come out to sort the problems within the court when judges go out of line in sentencing”.

Spokespersons for the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) were not responding to calls at time of press.

Controversial rulings

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy). Following the judgment, Fahmy would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages since December 2012.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

Fahmy was alleged to have to have said to a female CSC employee that “it is not appealing when unmarried girls like you get fat”, whilst touching her on the stomach.

In November last year, parliament voted 38 – 32 to remove the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female employee of the CSC.

On Thursday in its ruling on the secret ballot, the majority of the judges contended that the move contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

Article 85 stipulates that meetings of the Parliament and its committees must be open to the public.

Dissenting opinion

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court justice with a background in common law – issued dissenting opinions in both cases.

On the constitutionality of the secret ballot, Justice Adnan noted that article 101(f) of the constitution states that “the regulations governing the functioning of the People’s Majlis shall specify the principles and procedures concerning a resolution to remove the President or Vice President from office as provided in this Constitution.”

Unless a clause added to the regulation was explicitly in violation of the constitution, Justice Adnan said that he believed it “could not be challenged in any court in the Maldives.”

He further noted that while article 85 of the constitution requires parliamentary proceedings to be open to the public, 85(b) states that a majority of MPs present and voting could decide to exclude the public or press “if there is a compelling need to do so in the interest of public order or national security.”

Moreover, article 85(c) states, “Article (b) does not prevent the People’s Majlis from specifying additional reasons for excluding the public from all or any part of a committee meeting of the People’s Majlis.”

He added that the secret ballot would be taken at a sitting open to the public.

In the case submitted by Fahmy contesting his dismissal, Justice Adnan’s dissenting opinion noted that article 187(a) of the constitution authorised parliament to remove members of the CSC “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) meanwhile states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

Justice Adnan argued that an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into alleged misconduct would not be a criminal investigation. Therefore, he added, the oversight committee would not be required to prove guilt to the extent required at trial before making a decision.

He further noted that parliament’s dismissal under the authority of article 187 and a possible conviction at a late date could not be considered meting out two punishments for the same offence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Forgeries, fraud and dead people appearing on party membership forms: Elections Commission

The Elections Commissions (EC) has said it has noticed a surge of discrepancies on membership forms submitted by certain political parties including forged documents, forms with false information and even forms filed under the names of dead people.

During a press conference on Wednesday, Vice President of the Elections Commission Ahmed Fayaz said the commission noticed the discrepancies after it received a large number of membership forms ahead of parliament’s decision that parties with under 10,000 members would be dissolved.

According to Fayaz, within the last few weeks the EC noticed that a large number of membership forms had major forgeries including forged signatures and duplicated national identity card numbers.

He also said the commission had received forms submitted in the name of people who no longer were alive.

Fayaz said the commission had now forwarded the cases to relevant authorities, including police and the Department of National Registration (DNR) to investigate the matter.

Speaking to Minivan News, Secretary General of Elections Commission Asim Abdul Sattar said the commission was now working to verify and validate all the forms that it had received from the parties.

He added that the commission felt the forged membership forms began appearing after the parliament previously ordered the commission to stop using fingerprint verification on membership forms.

In April 2010, the Elections Commission introduced a new political party registration form to avoid the recurrent problem of people being registered to political parties without their knowledge.

President of the Elections Commission Fuad Thaufeeq at the time said the commission had uncovered an estimated 900-1100 people registered to political parties without their knowledge, “from all political parties.”

The new form introduced required the person’s fingerprint, two witnesses and their signature. It came under heavy criticism from political parties alleging that the EC was biased in approving forms by certain political parties.

On November 2012, Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee requested the Elections Commission cease requiring fingerprints on applications for political party membership.

The committee members questioned the efficiency of fingerprinting technology, arguing that no mechanism or database presently existed in the Maldives that could store the required amount of information.

Explaining the decision to discontinue the EC’s request for fingerprints at the time, Deputy Chairman of the Independent Institutions Committee, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Sameer, said the Maldives did not presently have a mechanism or system to collect and store such information.

“In regards to issues with the fingerprinting system, the EC, Department of National Registration and the Maldives Police Service all agreed they do not have enough records or verification systems available,” he told Minivan News at the time.

The DNR was also reported to have confirmed that no fingerprint database presently existed in the Maldives.

The EC Secretary General added that another factor causing the sudden boost in forged forms may have been the passage of Political Parties Bill, which requires parties to achieve a prerequisite of 10,000 members before being recognised as a political party – and receiving state funding.

“Some political parties began campaigns to achieve 10,000 members and during the process we started noticing such [invalid] forms. They may have predicted that the Political Parties bill would be passed,” he said.

Sattar admitted the commission was facing “technical difficulties”, such as the technology required to verify fingerprints.

“Now we are working to formulate political parties regulation under the newly passed act, and we believe that when this regulation comes into force, it will significantly lower the problems the commission is currently facing,” he said.

However, Sattar declined to reveal the names of the parties that were involved in the scandal, stating only that “the commission will decide whether to reveal the details after investigations by relevant authorities conclude.”

Following the parliament’s decision to speed up the drafting of political parties bill, several smaller parties began membership sprees to reach the limit of 10,000 members, including President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP), business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP).

Waheed’s GIP was accused of trying to induce people to join through illegitimate means, in a bid to shore up the party’s membership base. The inducements included offering “music equipment and a place to play for free” as well as “hosting shows and parties” for young people.

Apart from luxurious parties and entertainment, GIP also allegedly promised highly paid government jobs and promotions in return for joining the party.

Meanwhile, contrary to GIP’s approach, the Adhaalath Party (AP) employed a more conservative approach running membership campaigns under slogans such as “Join Adhaalath to defend Islam” and “Adhaalath, the path to paradise”.

At the time of the ratification of Political Parties Act, the Adhaalath Party managed to attain 10,000 members along with the Jumhoree Party (JP), while GIP failed and was removed from the list of political parties.

The Elections Commission has called on the public to be wary of the situation and report to the commission as soon as anyone noticed they were registered to a political party without their knowledge.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC probing alleged ‘jewelry deal’ between Zakat fund donor and Islamic Minister’s wife

The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has said it has begun probing into an alleged business deal struck between Firoz Ghulam Khan – who promised to donate a sum of US$ 10,000 to the Zakat fund last year – and the wife of Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed, Fathimath Afiyaa.

In September 2012, during a press conference held at the ministry, Khan, a Dubai-based Indian Muslim businessman, announced that he would donate a sum of US$10,000 to the Zakat fund every month in a bid to support the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, headed by Sheikh Shaheem.

“Zakat (Alms) is not something given as charity. This is something I am obliged to do. Zakat money is something that should be given to the needy. I have told Minister Shaheem that I will deposit the money to the fund in the first week of every month,” he was quoted saying in the media.

Speaking to Minivan News on Wednesday (March 13), President of the Anti Corruption Commission Hassan Luthfee confirmed that the case was being probed.

“We first noticed it in the media and began our investigation, and later we also received a complaint from an individual. We are now investigating the matter,” he said.

According to local newspaper Haveeru, the business deal was struck on December 25, just three months after announcement of Zakat fund donation, and involved the formation a company under the name ‘Pure Gold Jewelry Maldives Private Limited’, which intended to sell jewelry to resorts.

Citing a paper it claims to have received from the Ministry of Economic Development, Haveeru claimed that the company had 1500 shares in the name of Shaheem’s wife, while Firoz Ghulam Khan’s net share was 103,500. Kareem Firoz had shares totaling up to 45,000.

Speaking to Minivan News, an official from Company Registration Department of Ministry of Economic Development confirmed that a company under the name Pure Gold Jewelry Maldives Private Limited was set up involving foreign parties. However, he did not reveal any details of the parties.

According to article 15(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act passed in 2000, it is an offence for a Minister or his/her spouse to indulge in business with foreign parties.

Article 15(a) of the act states – “The Chief Justice, or the Speaker of Parliament, or a member of cabinet, or a cabinet minister, or anyone having a position equivalent to that, or the Auditor General, or the Commissioner of Elections, or a Judge of High Court, or an Atoll Chief, or the wife or the husband of any such person, or any state employee which the President decides so and their spouses having private business relations is an offence.”

According to the Article 15(c) of the act, punishment for such an offence includes imprisonment, house arrest or banishment for a period not more than 3 years.

Minister Shaheem – who was placed among the top 500 most influential Muslims in 2010 by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre (RISC) Jordan – was earlier also accused of sexual misconduct in a video broadcast by local media Raajje TV, in which he was seen speaking with a figure in a hijab before leading her through a doorway.

However the Minister denied the allegations claiming that the video was fabricated.

Minister Shaheem’s phone was switched off at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political Parties Act was fabricated to destroy GIP: GIP

Minister of State for Finance and Spokesperson for President Mohamed Waheed’s abolished Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP), Abbas Adil Riza, has said that he does not accept that the party has been dissolved despite the Elections Commission saying otherwise.

During a press conference held at Nalahiyaa Hotel on Wednesday, Riza said the elections commission had not informed them of the party’s dissolution.

Following the ratification of Political Parties Act, only five political parties remain registered in the Maldives. Remaining parties include: opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and government-aligned parties Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Jumhoree Party (JP) and Adhaalath Party (AP).

Vice President of Elections Commission (EC) Ahmed Fayaz told Minivan News on Tuesday that a total of 11 political parties had now been removed from its political party registry in accordance to the new Act.

President Waheed’s own party, GIP was among the 11 parties dissolved following the bill’s ratification, despite the president’s claims that it had reached 10,000 members.

EC Vice President Fayaz said that whilst GIP and the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) had both submitted enough forms to meet the 10,000 minimum, many of those forms were still pending and so could not be counted.

“There are two parties who have submitted close to, or over the 10,000 membership minimum, but just because the parties have 10,000 membership forms submitted, it does not mean they have 10,000 party members,” he said at the time.

It had been previously reported that upon ratification of the bill, political parties with fewer than 10,000 members would have three months to reach the required amount or face dissolution.

When asked about the clause, Fayaz stated it only applied to registered parties in accordance to the bill, and that therefore if a party does not meet the 10,000 limit it cannot be classed as such and is therefore exempt from the three-month clause.

Meanwhile Abbas Adil Riza contended that a high priority was given by parliament members in drafting the Political Parties Bill which became law on Tuesday, claiming that the bill was fabricated to destroy the party.  Riza also accused Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid of playing a pivotal role in making sure the bill got passed into law.

Last week, both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader unanimously supported to overrule the vetoed Political Parties bill without any amendments, forcing it through. 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.

During the press conference, Riza also contended that Maldives’ political party system was “significantly in need of smaller political parties” and that all major political parties had “betrayed the nation” because it had the support base needed to do so.

He also contended that the party would file a petition in Supreme Court challenging the Political Parties Act and the Elections Commission in its decision to abolish the party.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad – who is also a member of GIP – echoed similar remarks earlier, claiming the government had decided to take measures to “rectify” the decision to dissolve all but five of the country’s political parties.

He argued that the dissolution of the parties is seen by the state as an infringement of people’s right to form political bodies which he maintained was a constitutional right.

Masood contended that Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor had on Tuesday afternoon sought to file motions with the country’s Supreme Court raising concerns with the decision to dissolve the parties following the ratification of the Act.

However, it remains unclear as to whether the Supreme Court has accepted the case or not.

Addressing the impact of President Waheed’s own party being dissolved, Masood said the decision would not be a problem for the functioning of the present government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed ratifies controversial bills as AG vows to challenge in court

President Mohamed Waheed has ratified the two controversial bills – the Parliament’s Privileges Bill and Political Parties Bill – despite previous claims that the two bills had several lapses and “unconstitutional” elements.

Following the President’s initial vetoing of the two bills, parliament last Tuesday by a house majority overruled the presidential veto and forced the bill into law, giving the president no option but to ratify the bills – one of which would see the dissolution of his own political party.

The bill took a week before it was ratified, with parliamentary group leaders of all major political parties condemning the government for “delaying the ratification of the bill”.

The leaders claimed that Waheed – whose party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among the first few parties that would be dissolved under the Political Parties Act if it became law – had a personal interest in delaying the bills.

During a ceremony held in President’s office, President Mohamed Waheed after ratifying the bill stated that he did not believe the bill was delayed in ratifying.

According to the President, the bill had been delayed due to certain punctuation errors that needed to be rectified by the parliament before it was ratified.

He stated that the government received the bill on last Thursday but had sent it back as it contained “major punctuation errors”. This, Waheed said, was the cause of delay as the government had only received a ‘punctuation-error free’ version of the bill on Monday.

“I got the corrected bill yesterday after I had sent it to the parliament on Monday. I have to go through the changes before I sign it. Therefore, I do not believe that [the bills] have been delayed to the extent where some parties should go on strike,” he said.

“It is not that we are facing a huge crisis or a world ending. Neither are we facing a medical pandemic here. So I don’t see a reason for me to rush things,” he added.

Waheed contended that the passage of the bill did not concern a financial crisis or the destruction of a person, and argued that he was not purposely delaying the passage of the bills.

Responding to the concerns raised by political party leaders regarding the bill, President Waheed said he respected the parliament, unlike other political leaders, and claimed that on March 4 (Parliament Opening Day) people would know “who did not respect who”.

“I have been working to uphold the law and the constitution from day one. To uphold the rule of law. So what PPM MP Abdulla Yameen said was said very irresponsible,” he said referring specifically to the PPM’s presidential hopeful and half brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Waheed added that he was advised by Attorney General Azima Shukoor to ratify the bills despite the legal and constitutional inconsistencies.

In the meantime, Shukoor said that the government had withdrawn its previous case challenging the political parties’ bill, but stated that she would file the case again as soon as the bills are signed into law.

“We will seek a temporary stay order against the Elections Commission to withhold the immediate dissolution of political parties that failed to attain the required numbers in terms of membership,” she said.

Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham earlier told local media that ratification of the Political Parties Bill meant political parties that do not have the required number of members would be dissolved without any transitional period.

According to Usham, the state has requested the Supreme Court issue a writ that would prevent dissolution of the parties prior to a court decision or until a transitional mechanism is set up.

“Referring to the legal principles employed in other democratic societies, dissolution of a political party that is formed in accordance with the law is only given on very exceptional occasions,” he said at time.

Shukoor was on Tuesday quoted in the local media saying that the government had withdrawn a case it had filed challenging the Parliament’s Privileges Bill as well.

However, she did not give any detail as to what clauses in the bill did the government intend to challenge.

The Attorney General said that she had received concerns from Maldives Police Service regarding the privileges bill and would once again challenge the bill as soon as it is signed into law, and this time “include the concerns raised by police”.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in an interview given to local media earlier expressed concern over the Parliament’s Privileges bill, claiming the MPs are now “technically immune from the law”

Commissioner Riyaz claimed that the act gives enormous privileges to parliamentarians – privileges that are not even given to former presidents, which he said was “very concerning” and meant there would be no equality before the law.

“The [act] says that no person should indulge in an act that obstructs the work of the parliament. I really don’t comprehend what it is trying to say. I don’t think anybody would know beforehand what the parliament may decide to do. I don’t believe that is possible,” he said

Earlier a joint press statement issued by parliamentary group leaders of all major political parties called on the president to respect the constitution and ratify the two bills without any further delay.

Parliamentary group leaders including Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)’s MP Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali had all expressed concern over the delaying of the ratification of the bill.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament could force journalists to reveal sources under new Privileges Act, warn police, MJA

The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) and Maldives Police Service have both expressed concern over the recently passed Parliamentary Privileges Act.

The bill was forced into law last week after parliamentarians voted by a majority of 41 to overrule a previous presidential veto. The Majlis had originally approved the bill and sent it for ratification on December 27, 2012.

The bill was later returned by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

In a statement released on Sunday (March 10), the MJA claimed the legislation posed serious challenges for free and independent journalism.  The association therefore urged parliament to “immediately” change the extra-constitutional clauses that it said compromised the rights and freedom given to journalists by the constitution.

MJA contended that stipulations stated in Section 17(a) of the act – which concerns the summoning of parties to give witness to parliament or its committees – meant that journalists could be forced by the parliament to reveal their sources. The association contended that such a clause to provide sources would undermine Article 28 of the Maldives Constitution.

Section 17(a) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act states: “[Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee has the power to] summon anyone to parliament or one of its committees to give witness or to hand over any information which the parliament wish to seek.”

However, Article 28 of the constitution states – “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press, and other means of communication, including the right to espouse, disseminate and publish news, information, views and ideas. No person shall be compelled to disclose the source of any information that is espoused, disseminated or published by that person.”

The MJA, in its statement, claimed that such contradictions gave “reason for doubt” on the legality of the stated article of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

It also claimed that certain clauses of the act were too vague and ambiguous, and could leave questions as to how a person can violate the privilege of the parliament open to interpretation.

The association claimed former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration had previously tried to limit instances where journalists faced criminal prosecutions.

However, in its most recent statement, the MJA said it questioned whether Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had now changed its stand towards the issue.

The Parliamentary Privileges Act was passed with bipartisan support including that of the opposition MDP, which presently holds the largest number of elected officials in parliament.

Police concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in an interview given to local media also expressed concern over the act, claiming the MPs are now “technically immune from the law”.

The commissioner of police stated that the act meant police would not be allowed to arrest a parliamentarian even if he was involved in severe corruption and bribery.

Section 3(b) of the Privileges Act states: “A member of parliament should not be arrested while he is on his way to execute his parliamentary duties or while he is inside the premises of the parliament or while he is on his way from the parliament. However, the section does not obstruct arresting a member of parliament who is found committing a crime and the due legal process involving the arrest.”

In the event that an MP has to be arrested under different circumstances, police must provide a court order obtained through an application by the Prosecutor General, according to the act.

Commissioner Riyaz claimed that the act gives enormous privileges to parliamentarians – privileges that are not even given to former presidents, which he said was “very concerning” and meant there would be no equality before the law.

“The [act] says that no person should indulge in an act that obstructs the work of the parliament. I really don’t comprehend what it is trying to say. I don’t think anybody would know beforehand what the parliament may decide to do. I don’t believe that is possible,” he said.

Riyaz further stated that he had requested Attorney General Azima Shukoor find a solution through the Supreme Court concerning the sections which obstructed the execution of police duty.

“The law even does not bar judges from being taken in for questioning. But according to this act, it seems to claim that MPs cannot be arrested at all,” he said.

He further criticised the bill for including the punishment of imprisonment for the offence of violating parliamentary privilege, stating that such criminalisation did not fit with modern democratic practices and standards.

According to the act, a person found guilty of committing offences deemed disrespectful towards parliament, or that interferes with the Majlis work, would face a fine or a jail sentence of between three to six months.

It further stipulates that members of the public found guilty of disruption while attending the People’s Majlis to view proceedings would either be fined between MVR 500 (US$32) or MVR 1000 (US$65) or sentenced to jail for three to six months.

Moreover, persons found guilty of providing false information to the parliament or any of its committees would be fined an amount between MVR 3,000 (US$195) and MVR 10,000 (US$650) or sentenced to three to six months in jail.

Parliament Counsel General Fathimath Filza was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney general challenges Political Parties Act in Supreme Court

The attorney general has filed a case in the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of political parties that has failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

The parliament’s overrule of presidential veto on the Political Parties Bill by a majority of 60 votes on Tuesday (March 5) means the bill will automatically came into force without needing ratification from the president.

Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham was reported in local media as stating that enactment of the Political Parties Act meant political parties that do not have the required number of members would be dissolved without any transitional period.

The attorney general, he said, was of the view that dissolution of smaller political parties without a transitional period would compromise the rights of several parties.

The case

According to Usham, the state has requested the Supreme Court issue a writ that would prevent dissolution of the parties prior to a court decision, or until a transitional mechanism is set up.

“Referring to the legal principles employed in other democratic societies, dissolution of a political party that is formed in accordance with the law is only given on very exceptional occasions,” he told local newspaper Haveeru.

He contended that the consequence of ratifying the bill was that smaller political parties would be dissolved in an irresponsible manner without being given the opportunity to attain the required membership.

The attorney general requested the Supreme Court declare who should be held responsible for the debts incurred by a political party dissolved as per the Political Parties Act.

“We have filed the case in two ways. The first asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ declaring that smaller political parties will not be dissolved and the second to invalidate the clause which dictates dissolution of political parties that do not have a membership of 10,000. The bill failed to highlight who should be responsible to the debts incurred by the party and its employees,” an official from the AG’s office stated.

According to the official, the same arguments were reflected in the letter giving reasons for vetoing the bill, which was sent to parliament by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik before it was forced into law.

“Our concern is that political parties are legal entities, they have made contracts with several parties. If they are dissolved without a transitional period this compromises a lot of rights,” he added.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Waheed – 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.

However, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law by overruling the presidential veto on Tuesday. 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.

The law will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

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

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

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

However following the ratification, President of Elections Commission Fuad Thaufeeg stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggests that political parties that do not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act is gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said that 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. The bill having passed by such a strong majority means that the commission would 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 that the law also gives powers to the commission to take action against parties that violate the law.

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

Condemnation

Several leaders of smaller political parties including President Waheed have criticised the Act.

During a party rally held in GIP headquarters, President Mohamed Waheed criticised parliament claiming that the legislature was very “stubborn” towards amending the bill.

Meanwhile, his party spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said on Thursday in a press conference that the political parties act directly violated the constitution and compromised several rights guaranteed by the constitution.

“Fundamental rights can only be abolished through a public referendum. We want parliament members to amend the act,” he said. “Our problem is not just 10,000. The Act is flawed and has several lapses.”

He added that GIP wish to intervene in the case filed in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Adhaalath Party leaders claimed the legislation was a direct attempt to dissolve the party and in the long run “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” said its leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla at the time.

DQP Leader Hassan Saeed echoed the Adhaalath Party in warning that he would seek to invalidate the bill through the Supreme Court if it was ratified. Latest statistics shows that the DQP’s membership currently stands less than 3,000 members.

“While it is a constitutional right for anybody to form political parties, I do also believe that a right could be limited through legislation. But such a limit should be placed in accordance to principles justified in other free and democratic societies. The current bill demanding a certain membership size in order for a political party to be registered is a big problem,” Saeed was quoted saying in local media.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only five parties now have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) and most recently, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP).

According to EC, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) have also attained the required number of members.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate whether parties with membership numbers falling below the figure would be dissolved.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)