Author: Mohamed Naahee

“No reason” to delay trial for just four weeks, says Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has requested state institutions consider the Prosecutor General’s statement to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court during the most recent hearing of his ongoing trial.

During the hearing on Wednesday (March 7), state prosecutors said they did not object to delaying the trial until presidential elections scheduled for later this year are over.

The prosecution told the three-member panel of judges that they “did not have any problem” withholding the trial for four weeks, and “did not object to delaying the election until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in September 2013.”

Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Speaking during a party rally held on Wednesday evening, President Nasheed stated that the four-week break granted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court until the next hearing was an opportunity for state institutions to decide on the matter.

“Delaying trial for just four weeks has no meaning. There is no reason for it nor does it help anyone. We want the trial to be delayed till the elections are over. [The prosecution] gave one month and said that they did not object to further delays,” Nasheed told his supporters.

Nasheed said that it was very clear that charge of arresting the judge was not a charge against him alone, but several others as well.

He also warned that if the magistrate court issued a verdict that would bar him from contesting the elections, a lot of people would rise up against the decision and trigger a “very dangerous political insurgency”.

“Can remain straitjacketed for another 40 days”: former president

“[The government] and the prosecutor general knows very well that Nasheed of Galolhu Keneryge can remain straitjacketed for anther 40 days. He can do that. The torture he receives from it will not change anything,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed also criticised the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) stating that the problem with Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was not just the panel of judges. He alleged that the JSC had formulated the bench and have now been forcing administrative staff of the court to do specific things to impact the trial.

Elaborating, Nasheed claimed that the current Cabinet Secretary of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, Abdulla Nazeer – who was a state minister of education – regularly paid visits to the judges and cabinet ministers and regularly contacted the judges to inquire about the progress of the trial.

“Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential hopeful Abdulla Yameen does not talk about the case. Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali does not speak about it. But it is always traitor Waheed who speaks of it,” Nasheed said.

“He will always say it is with the courts. We are seeing today and every other day how much he is trying to influence this trial. It is posing a huge challenge towards a fair and transparent hearing.”

Nasheed further claimed that the current judiciary of the Maldives was being operated for the benefit of a few politicians.

Despite the law stating otherwise, the judiciary was incompetent and inexperienced, and could not guarantee a court room that would deliver justice to the people of the country, Nasheed said.

“They will take us tomorrow. Even then, be courageous. They will take us the day after tomorrow. Even then, be courageous. Next time it would not be just a day, next time it would be 10 days, perhaps a month but still we shall not back down,” he said, as supporters roared in support.

No withdrawal, no objection

Despite Nasheed’s remarks, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz stated that he was not withdrawing the charges against Nasheed, and said that he was still sticking by his decision.

He told local newspaper Haveeru that the state prosecutors will be present any time the court wishes to schedule the trial.

“We told [Nasheed’s lawyers] that we have no problem requesting the court delay the hearing for four weeks. We even told the court that,” he said. “I don’t mind even if the court delays the case. But we don’t have an desire to delay the trial. The court can carry out the trial the way they wish. I have no objection to it; we would follow the schedule they give.”

During Wednesday’s hearings, Nasheed’s legal team requested the court delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013, and in a separate request, asked the court for a delay in proceedings by four weeks.

However, the judges dismissed the request to delay the trial until the end of the elections, but agreed to withhold it for four weeks, stating that the panel of judges by majority “have decided to proceed with the trial”.

Nasheed’s lawyers subsequently contested the decision, claiming that continuing the trial could compromise the rights of many people, arguing that Nasheed was the presidential candidate of the largest political party in the country, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

However, the court stated that Nasheed’s claim he was the presidential candidate of a political party lacked legal grounds to support it, as presidential candidates were announced by the Elections Commission after it opened the opportunity to file presidential candidates.

Politicised trial

Speaking to Minivan News, the former President’s Spokesperson MP Mariya Ahmed Didi claimed the court’s decision reflected “how politicised” the trial was.

“The prosecution did say that they had no objection to defer the trial after the election. However, the court opted for a four week [delay],” she said. “We do feel that the fact that the PG has said that he did not object but the court to give only four weeks deferment shows how politicised this trial is.”

Didi added that Nasheed’s legal team had not ruled out the option of appeal and said that President Nasheed and senior members of MDP are currently engaged in discussion with the legal team on whether to do so.

Speaking to Minivan News, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team, said that there remained a “strong argument” in the case that the prosecution of Nasheed was “not in the public interest”.

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

She also contended that the prosecution of Nasheed’s case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court refuses to delay Nasheed’s trial until elections, despite no objection from PG

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has decided to halt the ongoing trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed for four weeks.

The former President is charged with the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

During Wednesday’s hearings, Nasheed’s legal team requested the court delay the trial until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in 2013,  and in a separate request, asked the court for a delay in proceedings by four weeks.

The court stated that the request was made in a letter it had been sent by Nasheed’s legal team.

Following the request, the prosecution told the three-member panel of judges that they “did not have any problem” with withholding the trial for four weeks, and they “did not object to delaying the election until the end of the scheduled presidential elections in September 2013.”

Judges repeatedly questioned the prosecution on this statement.

In response, the prosecution repeated the statement, adding that the phrases “not objecting” and “not having a problem” had two different meanings, but did not explain further.

After a short break, the judges dismissed the request to delay the trial until the end of the elections, but agreed to withhold it for four weeks, stating that the panel of judges by majority “had decided to proceed with the trial”.

Nasheed’s lawyers subsequently contested the decision, claiming that continuing the trial could compromise the rights of many people, arguing that Nasheed was the presidential candidate of the largest political party in the country, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

The latest statistics from Elections Commission show the MDP currently holds a membership of more than 46,000 members, in a country with a population of 320,000.

However, the court stated that Nasheed’s claim he was the presidential candidate of a political party lacked legal grounds to support it, as presidential candidates were decided by the Elections Commission after it opened the opportunity to file presidential candidates.

The judges then repeatedly asked the prosecution to state whether they wanted to delay the trial or not. However, the prosecution maintained that it was not their request to delay the trial, but said they would not object to this.

The sitting judges concluded Wednesday’s hearing stating that another hearing would be scheduled after the four week break.

Nasheed’s lawyers after the hearings stated that they would appeal the decision made by the magistrate court in the High Court.

Member of Nasheed’s legal team Abdulla Shairu stated that he was surprised by the decision reached today by the court , as this was the first time it had decided to go on with a trial while both defendants and the prosecution had not objected to a delay.

The hearing was attended by senior members of the MDP, including its parliamentary group members.

Nasheed was also released from police custody as the court order to hold him expired.

Earlier, the former President’s legal team’s appeal to the Criminal Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus demanding his release from custody, however this was rejected by the court without a hearing.

The team made the appeal to the court on Tuesday evening. The Criminal Court subsequently requested police to provide the details of the detention.

In a notice sent to member of Nasheed’s legal team Hisaan Hussain, the Criminal Court stated that former President Nasheed had been arrested as per a court order, therefore could not be released.

Speaking to Minivan News, Kirsty Brimelow QC, one of three UK-based experts on former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team said that there remained a “strong argument” in the case that the prosecution of Nasheed was “not in the public interest”.

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

“There has been no review of the original decision to prosecute in the light of the Parliamentary Select Committee’s findings,” she said. “There has been no disclosure of documents which are essential to allow Mohamed Nasheed to properly defend himself,”

She contended that the prosecution of Nasheed’s case before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court fell “below international standards for fair trial procedure”.

“The arrest and remand in custody of Mohamed Nasheed was heavy handed and unnecessary. Arrangements could easily have been made, at any time, for him to surrender to the court,” Brimelow added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Eleven parties face dissolution after parliament overrules president on political parties bill

Parliament has overruled President Mohamed Waheed’s veto on the political parties bill by a majority of 60 votes.

The political parties’ bill – which requires political parties to have a minimum 10,000 members before they are recognised as such, was passed by the parliament on December 2012.

However, President Mohamed Waheed – whose party Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) has a membership of just over 3,000 members – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

During Tuesday’s session, both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader unanimously supported to pass the bill without any amendments, forcing it through.

Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favor of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

During the debate on the matter, the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs both alleged that President Waheed had rejected the bill because it involved his personal interests and that his party GIP would be one of the first few parties to be dissolved after soon the law came into force.

However, Deputy Leader of Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed spoke in favor of President Waheed’s decision to reject the bill, claiming that the top four parties are trying to destroy the remaining political parties operating in the country – including the DQP, of which Home Minister Mohamed Jameel and Waheed’s Special Advisor Hassan Saeed are members.

According to the constitution, if a bill sent back to parliament by the president is passed again without making any changes, the bill automatically becomes law without the need of a presidential ratification.

Upon ratification, the bill 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 bill 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.

The legislation passed today also stipulates that the Male’ City Council (MCC) must provide a 1,000 square feet plot in the capital for parties with membership exceeding 20,000.  The plot would be used as an administrative office or meeting hall, for which the party would be required to pay rent.

Earlier, an amendment proposed by MP Ibrahim Muttalib to lower the figure to 5,000 was defeated 59-6.

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 parties DRP, PPM, Business tycoon MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) and most recently, the religious conservative party Adhaalath Party (AP).

Following the passage of the bill, 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.

However, on Monday, the Elections Commission informed the party that it had attained the needed 10,000 members. The party had carried out a vigorous membership campaign during which slogans such as “sign for Adhaalath party for Islam” and “defend Islam” were used.

DQP Leader Hassan Saeed followed 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.

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)

Police decision to reveal Ali Waheed corruption probe “concerning”: ACC

The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has alleged that a decision by police to reveal the corruption probe of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed was an attempt to politically intimidate the parliamentarian.

Last month, the Maldives Police Service claimed that it was probing into a corruption case involving Ali Waheed – who is also the deputy parliamentary group leader of MDP – in collaboration with the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC).

In a press conference held on Sunday, President of the ACC Hassan Luthfee stated that the commission sought assistance from police in gathering forensic evidences while investigating several cases, but raised questions as to why the police had found the interest to speak about the case involving Ali Waheed in the media.

Luthfee added that the commission intends to look into the matter claiming that it had sought police assistance, but not specifically for Waheed’s case.

The president of ACC said that he believed that revealing of details of the case by police now posed difficulties for the investigation process.

Speaking to Minivan News, Luthfee said that a lot of people believed that the case had a political motive, and to prevent loss of public confidence in its investigation the ACC had agreed that neither police nor themselves would reveal details to media unless through a joint statement.

“Perhaps revealing the details to media could be a way [police] carries out certain investigations. Maybe that is an investigation technique, but if it is carried out with such a [political] motive, then it is very concerning,” he said.

Luthfee added that he was “shocked” to see police revealing the details in the media when the commission had only requested technical assistance from the police.

“The commission do not have the resources needed to carry out certain types of corruption investigations, including cases involving bribery. That is why we had requested assistance from the police. But before providing any assistance, they revealed it to the media. I was shocked to hear about it from the media the next morning,” he said.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef was not responding to calls at time of press.

Luthfee earlier confirmed that the commission sought technical assistance from police in investigating the case concerning the Thoddoo MP.

“We have earlier received complaints regarding the MP taking bribes following his defection from Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to the MDP. There were also claims that he had utilised the money he received as bribes to buy a house. We are investigating the matter,” Luthfee said at the time.

He added that the ACC had occasionally requested technical assistance from police in investigating corruption cases and that this case was no different.

Meanwhile, Ali Waheed in a press statement released earlier alleged that the case was a politically motivated attempt to intimidate him after Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – on which Waheed sits as the chair – alleged flaws in the report by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concerning the February 2012 transfer of power.

“I have been receiving threats from the government who have said that I and my family will be arrested if I do not resign from the MDP and as the chairman of the EOC. The threats were repeated after parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s brother was arrested,” he alleged at the time.

Waheed further claimed that he had nothing to hide from the authorities and added that neither the ACC nor the police had asked him to come in for questioning, which he claimed “proved that there were no discrepancies”.

However, ACC President Luthfee responded to Waheed’s claim that he would be called in for questioning when “the time comes”.

“The government cannot manipulate me. I have the remote that controls me, not them,” said Waheed, concluding his statement.

Following Waheed’s high profile defection from then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to then ruling MDP in May 2011, several opposition MPs alleged that Waheed had sold himself to the then ruling MDP and former President Nasheed, a claim dismissed by Waheed.

Following the coverage, Waheed alleged that local journalists had politicised a private real estate dealing, in which he had won a fair bid for a beach house in Hulhumale’ and paid an upfront sum of MVR 1 million.

Waheed won the beachfront house for Rf4.6 million (US$300,000), bidding MVR 3020 (US$195) per square foot. His wife also reportedly won a house.

“The house will become my property only after I finish the rest of the payment within five years,” Waheed said in a press statement released at the time. “However, the story of this business transaction was spun in the media, with [outlets] writing ‘Ali Waheed and his wife have bought two houses in Hulhumale’ for Rf 9.4 million’ (US$600,000)’ in their headlines.’’

Local newspaper Haveeru claimed that the case involved Ali Waheed’s mother purchasing land in Male’ during October 2011. Haveeru alleged the net total of the sale stood at MVR 7.938 million (US$514,000), and suggested Waheed’s involvement in the transaction. However, it reported that the extent of Waheed’s involvement remained “unclear”.

Ali Waheed’s mother Zuhuraa had at the time claimed the money for the sale came from her husband’s savings, but some local media outlets have reported that the sale was funded by the construction giant TEP Construction Private limited.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Additional 100 ballot boxes to be placed during 2013 Presidential Elections: Elections Commission

The Elections Commission has said it will place an additional 100 ballot boxes for the 2013 elections, compared to the number used during the 2008 presidential elections.

President of the Elections Commission Fuwad Thaufeeq told local media outlet Sun Online that the commission expects a total of 556 ballot boxes to be placed throughout the country.

He said the reason for the increment on the number of ballot boxes was due to the fact that the numbers of resorts and other industrial islands had increased during the last five years.

According Thaufeeq, during the last elections the elections commission placed 60 ballot boxes in resorts but that the number was expected to rise. The commission’s current estimates suggest that it will require 100 ballot boxes in the next election.

“The number of resorts has increased. As far as I remember the number stood at 60. Our current estimates suggest we would need at least 100 ballot boxes for resorts this time. However, this may not even be the exact figure as it is unclear if there will be more resorts opened in the next seven months,” he said.

However, he said that the commission also intends to place ballot boxes in five countries in which large number of Maldivians reside. In the 2008 elections, the commission placed ballot boxes in five countries including India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore and the UK.

The Elections Commission previously revealed that approximately 31,000 new voters will be eligible to cast their vote in the upcoming presidential elections.

Vice President of Elections Commission Ahmed Fayaz told Minivan News earlier that the number of eligible voters currently stands at 240,302 – 31,008 more than the number of eligible voters in the 2008 presidential elections (209,294).

According to the Elections Commission eligible voters include 123,565 male voters and 116,737 female voters; however this was subject to change.

The commission is also set to open registration this March, for voters who are currently not residing on the island where they are initially registered to vote.

“This is a very large election. Usually, people are unable to register when the period given for registration is too short. That is why we decided to open registration in March,” Fayaz said at the time.

Funding concerns

The Elections Commission has previously expressed concern over the lack of sufficient funding given to the Elections Commission and warned that if additional funds are not made available, it will be unable to hold a presidential election this year.

Speaking to Minivan News at the time, Thaufeeq said holding the nationwide elections would cost between MVR 55-60 million (US$3.57-3.89 million). However, he expressed concern that the commission’s current budget would be insufficient.

“With the current budget given to the Elections Commission, I am afraid we may not be able to hold the elections. The commission has raised concerns with the Finance Minister, the President’s Office and Parliament’s Public Finance Committee,” he said.

Thaufeeq also said a budget shortfall may “slightly impact” the fairness of the elections, but said the commission would do everything it could to ensure the elections were free and fair.

However, Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad has stated that the government was committed to holding free and fair elections regardless of the budget constraints.

Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad also said that the government would provide financial assistance to the commission in facilitating the elections.

“We will provide sufficient funds to hold elections. There is no question about it,” he told Minivan News earlier.

Maldives presidential election is scheduled to take place on September7 and the Elections Commission is expected to formally declare the start of campaign season in July.

However, all major political parties including the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and government-aligned parties such as the Jumhoree Party (JP), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and current President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s Gaumee Ithiaad Party (GIP) have all begun their presidential campaign. The PPM is meanwhile scheduled to hold its primaries by the end of March.

President of Elections Commission Fuad Thaufeeq and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were not available for comment at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police Commissioner challenges Parliament Committee to Supreme Court battle

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has declared that police officers will appear before parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) only if the Supreme Court orders police to do so.

Riyaz made the remarks in an interview given to local newspaper Haveeru.

On Tuesday, ]Riyaz sent a letter to parliament stating that he will not appear before the EOC – which has an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) majority – claiming that he had received advice from Attorney General Azima Shukoor not to do so.

In the letter, the commissioner contended that it was not in the mandate of the committee to hold police accountable. Instead, this was the responsibility of parliament’s National Security Committee – known as the 241 Committee – established under article 241 of the constitution.

Riyaz repeated his claim that the parliamentary committee was attempting to discredit the police. He alleged that the committee members were employing ‘bully-boy’ tactics rather than holding the institution accountable.

He also expressed disappointment over the committee’s decision to summon the police officer who struck a fleeing suspect on a motorbike, that led to the death of bystander Abdulla Gasim, 43.

A leaked CCTV footage showed a police officer stepping in front of the speeding motorcycle and appearing to hit the rider on the head with a baton.

The driver loses control and collides with Gasim sitting on his motorcycle just in front of the Justice Building entry, causing both to fly off their vehicles. The police officer retrieves an object from the ground and wanders away, as other police and a military officer rush to the scene. Gasim died of his injuries.

The initial police statement made no mention of police involvement in the crash.

Speaking to Haveeru, Riyaz questioned as to why the negligent officer should be summoned when Riyaz had appeared before the committee on his behalf.

“I have already appeared before the committee and had answered all the questions on behalf of the police, and even the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released its report on the incident. What is the purpose of summoning the officer who used the baton?” he questioned. “The purpose is very clear. The purpose, I believe, is to discredit the police institution. They can’t do that under my watch. I am sorry,”

Riyaz claimed that the decision not to cooperate with the parliamentary select committee was made after he observed members of the committee using “foul language” towards police, calling them “unpleasant names” and asking them “unnecessary questions”.

He added that  advice from the attorney general was sought after the committee had turned itself into “a platform to harass the police”.

“After we got the advise from the attorney general, myself and other police officers have now decided not to appear before this committee. If [the committee members] want to change that, they would have to go to the Supreme Court,” he claimed.

Riyaz stated that if the Supreme Court ordered police to appear before the committee, they would adhere to the order.

“My responsibility is to assure the safety and protection to the people. That responsibility falls onto the shoulders of the police. I will not give the opportunity to anyone to harass and intimidate police officers of different ranks. That is why we sought a legal mandate to not appear before the committee,” he explained.

Meanwhile, chair of the EOC Ali Waheed said that even if the commissioner had decided to boycott the committee using the attorney general’s advice as an excuse, the committee did not feel obligated to seek counter-advice.

The Thoddoo MP noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that  parliament committees can summon anyone and that until now, Riyaz and other government officials had accepted this fact and attended parliament committees as requested.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court ruled both the Police and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) should be answerable to parliament and its National Security Committee whenever requested.

The Supreme Court in the ruling stated that, according to article 99 (a) and (b) of the constitution, it was clear that parliament was obliged to supervise every action of the security services and ensure their actions are within the constitution and law.

Article 99(a) of the constitution states – “[The People’s Majlis or any of its committees has the power to] summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath, or to produce documents. Any person who is questioned by the People’s Majlis as provided for in this Article shall answer to the best of his knowledge and ability”.

Article 99(b) states – “[The People’s Majlis or any of its committees has the power to] require any person or institution to report to it”.

However, the police commissioner contended that the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that the police should only appear before a “relevant committee” and he did not believe that police could be summoned by “just any committee”.

Speaking to Minivan News, EOC member MP Ahmed Easa dismissed Riyaz’s claims, stating that police had already lost the public’s respect and the confidence once held in the institution, and that there was “no point Riyaz talking about it now.”

“The police lost credibility among the public the day they came out on the streets, toppled an elected democratic government and brutalised the people they were supposed to defend and uphold,” he said at the time.

He also contended that the EOC had the mandate to summon any individual from the executive branch for questioning, and that this was very clearly mentioned in the parliament’s regulations and the constitution.

“If he does not believe what has been clearly set out in the laws of this country, that means he is no longer fit to be commissioner of police,” Easa said.

Abdulla Riyaz’s number was temporarily disconnected when Minivan News called for comment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment:Without justice, talk of democracy is meaningless

The ambitious journey towards a modern liberal democracy that we, the people of the Maldives, embarked upon has now come to a crossroads. With the ratification of a landmark constitution in August 2008, that enshrined broad civil and political rights to its people, hopes of moving on from decades of oppression towards a free and fair society remained on course.

However, the chronicles of Maldivian efforts to sustain democracy have yet again proven to the world that democracy does not happen overnight; exactly as former President Mohamed Nasheed said – that dictatorships don’t die with the routing of a dictator.

The first few steps we as a nation took towards democracy were led by Nasheed, a determined human rights and political activist, who had been repeatedly put behind bars for his dissent towards oppressors.

Nasheed backed by the country’s first established political party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), won the country’s first free and fair multiparty presidential elections in 2008, putting an end to the tyranny of a 30 year long autocracy.

Five years later, it is daunting to note that the nation’s first democratically elected president is being tried in a court with hand-picked judges by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – whose composition includes his key political rivals – for his desperate attempts to see through the much anticipated democratic transition.

What came forth after the usurpation of Nasheed’s democratically elected government was a practical narrative of what Gene Sharp had described in his book, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation.

“The collapse of an oppressive regime will be seen by some persons and groups as merely the opportunity for them to step in as the new masters,” he wrote. “Their motives may vary, but the results are often approximately the same. The new dictatorship may even be more cruel and total in its control than the old one,”

When Nasheed ascended to power, it became clear that the task of consolidating a democracy was more critical and difficult than toppling a dictator. President Gayoom was defeated in an election, but the roots of his dictatorship had taken hold within key state institutions, including the country’s judicial system.

The sustenance of certain corrupt judges within the judiciary, in the end, paved the way for the perfect opportunity to successfully oust Nasheed through a ‘judicially-endorsed’ coup, and in the long run, could deliver a verdict that would bring an end to Nasheed’s political career.

The globally renowned ‘Island President’ is being tried for the military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

Judge Abdulla is well known within Maldivian society for his nefarious conduct within the court room, including ordering a victim of child abuse to reenact the perversions of her abuser in front of both the perpetrator and numerous onlookers in the court room.

In another instance, the judge released a criminal who went on to murder a witness to his alleged crimes, despite repeated pleading from the police to not do so. The judge declared it was way to hold Nasheed’s Health Minister accountable.

Other astounding decisions made by this judge during his career include acquittal of several drug lords, a ruling in which he made himself the sole authority in issuing arrest warrants, and numerous favors granted to political rivals of Nasheed’s administration.

Nasheed and his government were finally forced to do something about the judge, in a desperate extra-constitutional maneuver by a Head of State to retrieve his country’s failing criminal justice system from a position of limbo.

The arrest sparked much controversy, as Nasheed’s political opponents quickly declared that he had undermined the law. Interestingly, they never saw the need to raise concern over the rights of the abused 13 year old in the judge’s courtroom, or the murdered Afshan Basheer.

Having had lost the parliamentary elections in 2009 to sympathisers of the old dictatorship, who were willing to go to any length in order to defend the old guard, recourse through the country’s legislature proved fruitless.

Nasheed’s subsequent decision to take out the judge can be deemed as a practical application of the doctrine of necessity.

Such decisions, when extra-legal actions are invoked by state actors to restore order during a constitutional deadlock, have been found to be constitutional elsewhere – first adopted in the case of Federation of Pakistan and Others v Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan [1955] PLD FC 240, and later applied in the cases of Madzimbamuto v Lardner–Burke [1978] 3 WLR 1229 and Qarase v Bainimarama [2009] Fiji Court of Appeal.

However, Nasheed’s decision had dire repercussions, and he was ousted on February 7, 2012 by a mutinying police and military.

His Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – a perfect example of the tortoise who believed that he had won the marathon against the hare in a fair contest – took over power with Gayoom’s blessing.

Today, the former President is facing charges for taking on the notorious judge – charges which appear to have been fashioned to exclude him from contesting the scheduled presidential elections on September 7.

Nasheed recently sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in the Maldives to ensure his safety. During his time in India’s mission, there were rumours his trial was to proceed in absentia, grossly disregarding the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.

Meanwhile, Judge Abdulla continues to sit on the Criminal Court bench having his way with the country’s criminal justice system. The state’s judicial watchdog, the JSC – which is constitutionally mandated to hold the judiciary accountable – remains ignorant and grossly negligent in probing the contemptuous misconduct of this despicable judge.

The million dollar question was, and is – why has this judge not been held accountable for his misconduct? Perhaps the most obvious, and depressing, answer is that the delivery of justice in the Maldives is failing bitterly.

The so called independent judiciary has failed to maintain its impartiality and the confidence of the public. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the United Nations, the Commonwealth, several judicial experts – including Professor Paul H. Robinson – and now the UN Special Rapporteur on the judicial independence have attested to this fact. Yet, no efforts are being made to reform the judiciary.

Without justice, talk of democracy is meaningless.

As put by Lord Denning – “Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking that ‘the judge was biased’.”

In the Maldivian context, justice is rooted in one’s capacity to funnel ‘monetary-favors’ to the appropriate source, and to embrace Gayoom and his lingering culture of oppression.

Right-minded Maldivian people have lost all of their confidence towards the current judiciary. They have long since walked away from the courts, not only rendering moot their confidence (or lack thereof) in the judiciary, but also the confidence they had in the country’s entire justice system.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC member/presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim accuses UN Special Rapporteur of lying, joking

Leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP) and Parliament’s representative to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), MP Gasim Ibrahim, has accused UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul of lying and joking about the state of the Maldivian judiciary.

During her preliminary observations on the country’s judicial system, Gabriela Knaul expressed concern over the politicisation of JSC – the body constitutionally mandated to oversee the functioning of the judiciary.

Addressing a relatively small party gathering held in its headquarters in Male, Gasim – also the party’s presidential candidate – claimed that JSC had been acting within the boundaries of the law and that the process of the appointment of judges adhered to constitutional stipulations and the law.

“[Gabriela Knaul] claimed that the judges were not appointed transparently, I am sure that is an outright lie. She is lying, she did not even check any document at all nor did she listen to anybody. She is repeating something that was spoon-fed to her by someone else. I am someone who sits in JSC. She claimed there were no regulations or mechanism there. That is a big joke,” Gasim claimed.

“She wouldn’t tell bigger lie”

“We had made all the announcements through the media and we even clearly stated necessary criterion required as well as how the interviews will be carried out. We were acting on what we had announced. She couldn’t tell a bigger lie than that,” Gasim said.

Gasim claimed that the composition of  theJSC was decided after a strong debate between members of the assembly, and contended that “nobody can criticise its decisions, not even under international law”.

“That is why I am telling you all this. We the people should not believe the reports compiled by people who come like this without verifying it. This is an influence that has a different motive,” Gasim accused.

Gasim – who is also the Chairman of the Villa Group of companies that owns several resorts in the country – said that a UN representative had once come to Maldives and claimed it could never build a tourism industry.

“A person came like that in 1972. After much surveying, he claimed that the Maldives cannot host a viable tourism industry. Is that true today? But that is what was in the UN report. That is what is on the report by the World Bank. Does the Maldives not have a tourism industry now? He said we cannot; according to him we did not have electricity, water or a transport system but just a bunch of small islands. What would he know?” Gasim said.

Gasim also referred to the presidential elections.

“Is the US judiciary very good? What happened when [George W] Bush sought re-election? You would all know how that election went. Florida High Court ordered for a recount of the vote. When the issue came, Al Gore began winning and winning. Then the Republican Party, who was very upset with that, filed a case at the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court ordered not to count the votes and that President is Bush. Following that order, Al Gore admitted defeat and congratulated Bush on his re-election. This is something the world witnessed,” he told his supporters.

The incident to which Gasim Ibrahim referred took place in the US Presidential Elections 2000, in which George W Bush was running for office for the first time against then Vice President Al Gore. The election was called a victory for Bush after the US Supreme Court declared the ruling made by Florida Supreme Court requiring a state wide recount of votes was unconstitutional. Bush later ran for re-election against then Senator John Kerry in which he won the race by 286 to 251 electoral votes.

Concerns

Knaul’s preliminary observations highlighted that the JSC – mandated with the appointment, transfer and removal of judges – was unable to perform its constitutional duty adequately in its current form.

Her comment was among a number of preliminary observations on the Maldives’ judiciary and wider legal ecosystem, following an eight day fact-finding mission.

As well as recommendations to address what she said were minimal levels of public “trust” in the nation’s judicial system, Knaul also addressed matters such as the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed – who is currently facing trial for his detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court last year, charges he claims are politically motivated to prevent him from contesting presidential elections later this year.

She also criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, alleging that the set up was made in an “arbitrary manner”.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said.

Her key concerns included the politicisation of the JSC, flaws and inconsistencies over the independence of the judiciary and lack of transparency and accountability.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised. Because of this politicisation, the Commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated.

Knaul said she believed it best for such a body to be composed of retired or sitting judges. She added that it may be advisable for some representation of the legal profession or academics to be included.

However, she maintained that no political representation at all should be allowed in a commission such as the JSC.

“I believe that an appointment body acting independently from both the executive and legislative branches of government should be established with the view to countering any politicization in the appointment of judges and their potential improper allegiance to interests other than those of fair and impartial justice,” Knaul added.

Judicial independence

Knaul stated that upon conclusion of her mission meetings, she had found that the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself, in the Maldives.

“The requirement of independence and impartiality does not aim at benefiting the judges themselves, but rather the court users, as part of their inalienable right to a fair trial,” Knaul stated, while emphasising the important role of integrity and accountability in judicial independence, and hence its role in the implementation of the rule of law.

Stating that it is vital to establish mechanisms of accountability for judges, prosecutors and court staff, Knaul said: “Such mechanisms must guarantee that the investigation of any actor in the judicial system safeguards the person’s right to a fair hearing. Investigations should be based on objective criteria, the process should respect the basic principles of a fair trial and an independent review of all decisions should be available.”

Transparency and accountability

“When selection criteria [of judges] used by such a body [as the JSC] are objective, clear, based on merit, transparent and well publicised, public understanding of the process and the basis for the appointment of judges increases, and the perception of unfair selection of appointments can be avoided,” Knaul said.

Knaul also spoke of the lack of transparency in the assignment of cases, the constitution of benches in all courts, including the Supreme Court.

“When cases are assigned in a subjective manner, the system becomes much more vulnerable to manipulation, corruption, and external pressure. Information on the assignment of cases should be clearly available to the public in order to counter suspicions of malpractice and corruption,” she observed.

Knaul stated that while transparency is public administration is an obligatory requirement in a democracy, transparency remains a challenge for the Maldivian judiciary.

Furthermore, Knaul highlighted the absence of some fundamental legislation – including the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act – in the Maldives, adding that this posed huge challenges to upholding the rule of law.

Knaul was appointed to deliver recommendations on potential areas of reform to the Maldives’ legal system, at the 23rd session of the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2013.

Velezinee ruined the JSC: Gasim

Gasim meanwhile alleged that the JSC could not function properly due to then President Mohamed Nasheed’s appointee to the commission, Aishath Velezinee.

Velezinee was an outspoken critic and whistleblower on judicial inconsistencies and lapses. She has consistently maintained that the JSC is complicit in protecting judges appointed under the former 30 year autocracy, colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior supporters of the old regime. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

“At first, the JSC were not able to carry out its duties because of a person called Aishath Velezinee who was appointed to the commission by [President] Nasheed of Canaryge’. She destroyed the whole place. The damage she inflicted on the JSC was so severe that we had to do so much work to bring the place back to order,” he claimed.

Gasim said judiciaries in all countries had problems and that this was not a different case in the Maldives. He also contended in all the countries have to be reformed.

“A person called Gabriela came and met us. She told us there are lots of issues that need to be corrected within the judiciary. Judiciaries in all countries should be reformed. Which country has a judiciary that does not need to be reformed?” Gasim asked.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Colonel Mohamed Ziyad denies charge of illegally arresting judge

Former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Head of Operations Directorate Colonel Mohamed Ziyad has denied the charge levied against him by the state over the former government’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Colonel Mohamed Ziyad is charged for arresting the chief judge in January 2012, alongside former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and former MNDF Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi.

All are facing charges under Article 81 of the Penal Code, for the offence of “arbitrarily arresting and detaining an innocent person”.

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

During the hearing held at Hulhumale Magistrate Court on Monday, Colonel Ziyad denied the charges while his defence lawyer Mazlaan Rasheed raised two procedural points.

In the first procedural point, Ziyad’s lawyer informed the court that the Prosecutor General (PG)’s decision to press charges against his client while not pressing charges against the MNDF officers who actively took part in bringing the judge to custody violated the principle of fairness and equality.

In his second procedural point, Rasheed questioned the court as to how the state had decided on the innocence of Judge Abdulla.

State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna argued that following orders at the time from the Commander in Chief, President Mohamed Nasheed, Colonel Mohamed Ziyad as the Head of Directorate took part in the operation carried out by the MNDF in arresting the judge.

Responding to the charges, Ziyad’s lawyer contended that the charges lacked fairness and equality while Article 81 of the Penal Code – which the charges are based on – had “constitutional issues”.

He stated that the article conflicted with powers of the police to arrest a suspect of a crime. This, he explained would arise if a person is arrested and then later released by court, which would deem that his arrest was unlawful and all officers who took part in the arrest should be prosecuted.

The state in response argued that it was at the sole discretion of the Prosecutor General to decide on whether to press charges or not, and said that Ziyad had been charged over the extent of his involvement.

The prosecutor further claimed that it was Ziyad who had given the briefings to the officers before the arrest was made and had also requested two MNDF lawyers to see if the action could be legally defended.

The state attorney said that the reason for not pressing charges against officers who actively took part in the action was that those officials were obliged to follow orders and that the officers were not in a position to determine whether their orders were lawful or not.

She also posed several questions to the defendants, including on what charges the judge was arrested, why he was not brought before a court of law within 24 hours as stipulated in the constitution and why he was not released after the Supreme Court had ordered to do so.

In response, Colonel Ziyad’s lawyer argued that his client was not in a position to call for the release of judge and had several other higher-ranked officers.

Responding to the claim, State Attorney Abdulla Raabiu – who also was in the state prosecution team – said that Ziyad was being charged because he took part in discussing on how the judge should be arrested, days before the arrest was made.

“When speaking about fairness, where was Abdulla Mohamed’s right to life, when he was detained in Girifushi Island for 22 days? Where was his right to freedom?” Raabiu questioned.

In concluding today’s hearings, Chief Judge of the three-member panel of judges stated that it would later decide on the procedural points taken by the defendants, as the court required time to review the PG’s procedures.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi all denied the charge of arbitrarily detaining Chief Judge of Criminal Court AbdullaMohamed.

Prosecution

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President as the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of the Judge. The HRCM also identified Tholhath Ibrahim as a “second key figure” involved in the matter. Others included Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi and Chief of Defense Force Moosa Ali Jaleel.

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge as 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.

In July 2012, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz pressed charges against the parties who had been identified in the HRCM investigation as responsible for the arrest.

Following the charges, former President Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in High Court, but the Supreme Court intervened and dismissed the claims by declaring the magistrate court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)