Author: Mohamed Naahee

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf recommends beheading, firing squad over lethal injection

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf has called on Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor to amend the government’s draft bill on the implementation of death penalty, urging that convicts be beheaded or shot instead of given lethal injection.

In letter to the AG proposing its recommendations for the bill, Salaf explained that by beheading the convicted murderer, the pain he endured would be reduced while the heirs of the victim would still receive satisfaction.

Salaf argued that Islamic history had precedents for this form of execution, while the purpose of Qisas – an Islamic legal term for equal retaliation which follows the principle of Lex talionis (‘an eye for an eye’) – would be achieved if it acted as a deterrent to others from committing such crimes.

Salaf also expressed support for the execution of convicts through firing squad, noting that scholars of Islamic jurisprudence had spoken in favour of the method.

The Attorney General in 2012 announced that the government had drafted a bill on implementing the death penalty through lethal injection, and presented it to the public for comment.

Salaf disputed the reliability of this method, contending that such injections have been proved ineffective in executing a convict within a single needle.

The NGO argued that due to the West’s opposing stance towards death penalty, the Maldives could face difficulties and restrictions in receiving stocks of lethal injections, which would be a “perfect excuse for any president who does not wish to enforce the death penalty”.

“If that is the case, it is a huge injustice to society. It is very dangerous that the current draft paves way for one government to execute it while another can make excuses to not execute it. It is unacceptable. Even today, convicts in several countries are still un-executed because of the non-availability of such injections,” Salaf said.

Salaf also proposed several other recommendations including barring intoxication as a legal defence for the crime of murder, meaning that even involuntary intoxication would not commute a convict from facing the death penalty. Salaf argued that if intoxication could be considered a defense, the purpose of implementing death penalty would be undermined as an accused could always misuse the defense of intoxication to avoid execution.

The current draft bill stipulates that the death penalty should be given to a convict who has murdered someone while in possession of his senses and conscience. In theory, a murder committed while under the influence of a substance will therefore not attract the death penalty.

Salaf also recommended that the current position of the bill on minors should be abolished and that even minors should face execution as soon as the final verdict is made.

Currently the bill stipulates that should a convict who is a minor, pregnant or in a critical medical condition be found guilty of murder, the execution shall be delayed.

Among other recommendations, Salaf proposed amendments to the number of judges that should hear a case concerning death penalty.

Salaf proposed that at a lower court level, the case should be heard by a panel of three judges, while a four member panel should hear such a case at the High Court and a five member panel at Supreme Court level.

Salaf also urged that such cases concerning the death penalty must be heard by male judges only. The NGO also recommended that a clause be included in which before the execution the convict should be given the opportunity to repent and carry out a short prayer.

According to current stipulations in the bill, a suspect found guilty of murder should also be provided with the opportunity to meet his family on the day of execution and say their last farewell.

Salaf in its recommendations called upon the attorney general to remove the clause in the draft bill giving the President the power to commute any death penalty sentence to a life imprisonment sentence, claiming that such a clause defeated the overall purpose of the bill.

Meanwhile, the attorney general’s office has said that it has looked to procedures followed by Egypt, Malaysia and the US in carrying out the death sentence, while also obtaining the opinions of religious scholars and lawyers.

Push for the death penalty

In October last year, the government announced its intention to introduce a bill in the People’s Majlis to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country.

“It is currently a punishment passed by the judiciary and a form of punishment available within the penal system of the Maldives,” said Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel at the time.

“But for full guidance and matters governing the matter, legislation is required,” he added.

The last person to be judicially executed in the Maldives was Hakim Didi, who was executed by firing squad in 1953 after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder using black magic.

Statistics show that from January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by Maldivian courts.

However, in all cases, the president at the time has commuted these verdicts to life sentences.

Speaking to Minivan News, President of Jamiyyathul Salaf Abdulla Mohamed stated that the current bill by the attorney general was “incomplete” as it had only focused on death penalty, and said that the principle of Qiasas was much broader.

“For instance, the bill does not give a remedy to the victims who are subjected to assault and other bodily harm. They should also get a legal remedy. However the bill is more focused on death penalty,” he said.

Asked if the NGO was of the view that victims could get a fair trial, given the present concerns raised over the impartiality and competency of the Maldivian judiciary, Abdulla Mohamed said the NGO had proposed recommendations to the judiciary on the issue.

“We have previously sent recommendations to the authorities concerning the state of judiciary. We have clearly highlighted the necessary qualifications and standards that a judge should have,” he said.

However, he rejected claims made by critics of judiciary that the judiciary was unprepared to implement death penalty, stating that it was just a “mere excuse” to avoid the laws of Allah prescribed in Sharia’ law.

“There are other laws passed such as the law against the abuse of women and several other laws where the authorities make efforts to ensure they are enforced and that justice is delivered. Why can’t it be the same in a law that lays down the principles of Islamic Sharia’?” he questioned.

He further said that Islamic Criminal Law was very broad and very detailed, such that there are several conditions and requirements that have to be fulfilled before giving a punishment.

“The purpose of death penalty in Islam is to ensure that the orders of Allah are followed. It is an obligation to all of us as Muslims. Secondly, Islam greatly values a human being’s right to life. No one has the right to take the other person’s life. If he does so, he has to be punished,” he stated.

However the death penalty does not always mean one has to be executed, he explained. There are alternatives, as if even one heir decides to forgive the convict, he cannot be executed. Similarly, it is up to the heirs to demand blood money instead of the death penalty, and that even blood money can be forgiven if the heirs wish to do so.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed has identified the “pathetic state of the [Maldives] judiciary” as one of the key human rights concerns he believed needed to be addressed in the country.

“[The judiciary] is not only corrupt, but also coming under the influence of radical Islam, even to the extent of violating codified laws of the Maldives and clear international obligations,” Dr Shaheed claimed.

“Disregard for rule of law has also meant that a culture of impunity is deeply entrenched, rendering many of the human rights of the people meaningless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former MNDF Male’ Area Commander Brigadier General Didi contests charges of illegally arresting judge

Former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Male’ Area Commander, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi, has denied the charge of arresting Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, levied against him by the state.

Ibrahim Didi is charged for the controversial military detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. Along with Didi, former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are all facing the same charges.

During the hearing held at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Sunday (February 24), Didi told the judge that he had not arrested the judge, and contended that he should not be facing charges as an individual for an act that was carried out by the then Defence Ministry.

He further claimed that the arrest was made by the Defence Minister under the direct orders of the president, and that he had no role to play in it.

The former Brigadier General claimed that the charges levied against him by the state were unfair and raised question over the credibility of the witnesses presented by the state against him.

He also stated that he was protecting the legitimate government in power up until February 7, and that the state presenting those officers who did not like him as witnesses could jeopardise the fairness of the trial.

Presenting her case in the court, State Attorney Aishath Fazna argued that following orders at the time from the Commander in Chief, President Mohamed Nasheed, the operation carried out by the MNDF in which Didi had been the commander, “arbitrarily arrested and detained an innocent man”.

As such, retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi was charged for the offence of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code, Fazna argued.

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

Following the reading of the charges, Didi’s lawyer Ismail Wisham – who had in previous case contended the legitimacy of the magistrate court – raised two procedural points.

In the first point, Wisham questioned whether article 81 of the penal code could be used to press the charges citing that it had not been put to use.

In the second point, he raised question as to whether the state had proven to the court the innocence of Judge Abdulla Mohamed, to which article 81 of the penal code referred to.

In response, the state attorney contended that a similar charge was pressed by the state against a person and that the state had successfully prosecuted the accused at the time. She further said that the details of this case would be presented during the next hearing.

The state attorney in response to the second procedural point argued that the constitution clearly denotes that every person is innocent until proven guilty; therefore it should be no different for Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The sitting judges dismissed the procedural points taken by the defendants stating that the points did not object to the continuance of the trial, but said the court would consider it while issuing the verdict.

The state attorney also presented a list of witnesses and evidences to support its case. The witnesses included current Chief of Defense Force Major General Ibrahim Shiyam and several other senior members of the military.

Evidence presented includes video footage of the arrest and several other documents.

Concluding, the judge stated that the next hearing would be held on March 20 in which the courts would be hearing the witnesses presented to the court.

Didi’s trial was also heard by all three judges of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court appointed to look into the case. The panel consists of Judge Shujaau Usmaan, Judge Hussain Mazeed and Judge Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem.

Earlier, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu also denied the charge of arbitrary detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed, during the first hearing of his criminal trial held in the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Detention of the judge

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.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef alleged, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers. He also accused the judge of “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct, after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

JSC whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has also contended that the JSC’s blanket reappointment of all interim judges and magistrates in 2010 violated article 285 of the constitution guaranteeing an ethical and qualified judiciary, and that as such, the case “is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this.”

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.

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.

Contentious court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is also trying former President Nasheed for his detention of the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office, was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The JSC, which includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has previously declared that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court declared parliament overruled, issuing a statement that “no institution should meddle with the business of the courts”, and claiming that as it held authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” it would “not allow such interference to take place.”

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” the Supreme Court stated.

A subsequent request by the JSC that the Supreme Court bench rule on the court’s legitimacy resulted in a four to three vote in favour. The casting vote was made by Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, also president of the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Certain parliamentary committees trying to discredit police: Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has claimed “certain” parliamentary select committees are purposefully attempting to discredit the police institution and tarnish its public image.

Riyaz made the remarks during a ceremony today to open a police station on Fenfushi in Alifu Atoll.

The commissioner said that some parliament members were attempting to harass specific police officers of different ranks in the name of “holding the police accountable”. He further said that such practices are not accepted in modern democratic states.

“Some parliamentary committees are very clearly trying to discredit the [police] institution. That is not something I will accept,” he said.

Riyaz said it was the parliament’s ‘241 Committee’ to which the police should be accountable.

“The constitution clearly states that the police should be accountable to parliament’s ‘241 committee’.  I have discussed this with several legal practitioners. They also say that police should be accountable to the said committee. Last week, we have requested advice from the attorney general on this issue,” he said.

Riyaz’s comments come at a time where Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) – which has an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) majority – has again sent a notice requesting the commissioner appear before the committee.

Previously, he was summoned before the EOC over a leaked video showing the death of a bystander after police attempted to stop a speeding motorcycle suspected of being driven by thieves to flee a crime scene.

Commissioner Riyaz also contended that the police were working independently and “without any political influence” stating that he had never seen a police institution as independent as his in the last two governments.

“I have been in this field for almost 24 years. During my time, I have never seen a more independent police institution than the current one, where police are allowed to carry out their operations independently and free from political influence,” he said.

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,” Easa said.

According to the Kendhikulhudhoo MP, the police, especially Special Operations (SO) officers, had become a “mob gang” instead of a respectable police force.

“The SO police now come out on the streets with the sole intention to torture people. They possess dangerous objects which could seriously harm a civilian. We have got video footage to support this claim,” he said.

Easa suggested that parliament’s Privileges Committee look into Riyaz’s “defamatory” comments against parliament and take prompt action on the matter.

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 the commissioner of police. He should be listening to the attorney general, not just a bunch of lawyers who tells him things the way he wishes to hear,” Easa said.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, Parliament’s Counsel General Fathimath Filza and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

ACC investigating former Adhaalath Party head’s bribery allegations against two judges

The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) is examining photographs of all pilgrims who went on hajj last year, following allegations of bribery levied against two sitting judges.

The allegations were made by former President of the Adhaalath Party, Sheikh Hussain Rasheed.

Sheikh Rasheed said during a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally in January that he had met a Maldivian businessman while in Saudi Arabia, who told him he had paid two Maldivian judges a sum of MVR 12.3 million (US$ 797,148.41).

According to the report, the ACC began analysing the photographs to identity the businessman to which the former Adhaalath Party leader had referred.

Speaking to Minivan News, President of the ACC Hassan Luthfee confirmed the ACC was investigating the matter. He said Rasheed was summoned for questioning following the allegations.

“The investigations are currently going on. While investigating we will be looking into all the relevant documents and other details,” he said.

Luthfee declined to comment on whether the commission was analysing the photographs of the pilgrims, but said the commission would “utilise all the information it can get on the case.”

He declined to give any further details.

Rasheed alleged the businessman had paid one judge a sum of US$70,000 (MVR 1.079 million) while the other was paid US$50,000 (MVR 771,000) on two different occasions, a sum of US$170,000.

Speaking to Minivan News on Thursday, Rasheed confirmed that he was summoned to the commission and added that he had “given all the details and names of the people involved in the deal”.

“These are stories that are being constantly discussed in society. The businessman told me about the case, and it is a duty to let the public know of such critical matters, especially when it concerns people who we go to seek justice,” he said.

Rasheed further claimed that certain controversial decisions reached in the courts the acquittal of criminals suggested “something is really going wrong”.

“The courts have ruled that printing counterfeit dollars is not a crime. How is that not a crime? It is a crime even under international law,” he said.

Rasheed noted that the courts failed to find any wrongdoing on behalf of a man who put Japanese aid money in his personal bank account, referring to an embezzlement case involving former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s half brother, Abdulla Algeen Abdul Gayoom.

Algeen – also the younger brother MP Abdulla Yameen, ex-President Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential hopeful – was accused of embezzling US$177,460 of Japanese funding from the Department of Meteorology (DOM), when he was the director.

Algeen allegedly sent three separate invoices to the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) between May 2006 and April 2007 on behalf of DOM. All three invoices demanded payment to Algeen’s personal Bank of Maldives account.

However, in acquitting the case, Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi ruled that the state could not prove that the money in question was owed by JAMSTEC to the government.

Following the former Adhaalath Party leader’s allegations, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) also discussed probing into the allegations.

A JSC spokesperson told Minivan News at the time that after the allegations were made public, members of the commission had discussed an investigation.

“The matter was discussed during a JSC meeting,” the spokesperson said previously. Asked whether a decision was reached, he replied “there were many items on the agenda.”

Minivan News on Thursday confirmed that the JSC was not investigation any of the allegations.

Former JSC member and whistleblower, Aishath Velezinee, in her book The Failed Silent Coup: in Defeat They Reached for the Gun extensively highlighted the watchdog body’s undermining of judicial independence, and complicity in sabotaging the separation of powers.

In her book, she recounted her experience as she attempted to stop the commission from re-appointing unqualified and ethically-suspect judges loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, after it dismissed the professional and ethical standards demanded by Article 285 of the constitution as “symbolic”.

That moment at the conclusion of the constitutional interim period marked the collapse of the new constitution and resulted in the appointment of a illegitimate judiciary, Velezinee contended, and set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to President Mohamed Nasheed’s arrest of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed two years later.

In 2004, a report by judicial expert Professor Paul Robinson assessed the country’s criminal justice system, and found in his report that “serious efforts” were required to increase the quality of judges.

“Serious efforts must be made to provide substantial training to current judges in order to ensure that all have the background they need in both law and Shari’a. Perhaps more importantly, no judge should be hired who does not already have the needed training,” he wrote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Government will not evict MNU students by force”: Housing Minister Muiz

Housing Minister Mohamed Muiz has said the government does not wish to forcefully evict Maldives National University (MNU) students out of the old Jamaaluddeen building, which houses the university’s faculty of Sharia and Law (FSL), Faculty of Arts (FA) and Centre for Continuing Education (CCED).

The Housing Minister had earlier sent a notice to the university giving a seven day ultimatum for it to vacate the building, which it claimed was too old and no longer safe for use.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, the minister said that following the notice Chancellor of the Maldives National University Dr Zahir Hussain met with President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and raised his concern over the decision.

In response, the minister claimed the President had given his word to the chancellor that the government would not make a decision that would leave the students of MNU “homeless”.

Muiz however said that it was the mandate of his ministry to advise on the safety of government buildings and propose recommendations to the government.

He further said that the seven day notice was given in accordance with his responsibilities and repeated his claim that the building’s weakened structure posed a threat to those occupying it.

The minister claimed that technical experts had carried out analysis of the structure and recommended that it be vacated as soon as possible to avoid any unpleasant consequences.

“We will not forcefully drag the students or any staff out of the building. We will not go there with a court warrant and force the people out. It is not what we intend to do,” he said.

He further added that even the attorney general had advised not to take any legal action on the matter, but stressed that if something bad happened due to the condition of the building, he would be forced to take legal action against the university.

Housing Minister Muiz was not responding to calls at time of press.

The Maldives National University and the government have been at loggerheads over the ownership of the old Jamaaluddeen School building.

During a press conference, Muiz said the government “will not be responsible for any damages incurred by students, lecturers or anyone who uses the building”.

“We have told them to vacate the building and remove their property as well,” he said at the time.

Minister Muiz claimed that the government intended to demolish the building as soon as possible after the MNU vacated it.

However, Deputy Vice Chancellor of Maldives National University Dr Fayyaz Ali Manik told Minivan News that they could not vacate the building as government had not provided an alternate facility, despite repeated requests.

“We have not been given any other building. They never mentioned it,” he said at the time.

He further said that if the university was forced to move out, it would bring all the programs currently running to a standstill.

The Maldives National University was initially formed in 1998 as the Maldives College of Higher Education (MCHE). The institution was established to rationalise resources and assure the quality of all existing post-secondary government institutes.

In 2011 the MCHE went on to become the country’s first university, formed under the Maldives National University Act.

In November 2012, MNU announced that it would be launching the first PHD programs offered in country. The subjects offered include law and pedagogy. The university has also announced that it will also be launching programs on political science in 2013.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police and ACC probe MP Ali Waheed’s corruption case

The Maldives Police Service has said it is looking into a corruption case involving Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Ali Waheed, in collaboration with the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC).

Speaking to Minivan News, Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef confirmed that police had received the case. He declined to provide any details regarding the case.

Local newspaper Haveeru reported 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 TAP Construction Private limited.

Speaking to Minivan News, President of the ACC Hassan Luthfee also confirmed that the institution was investigating a 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.

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

In May 2011, Ali Waheed switched sides from DRP to MDP claiming a lack of internal democracy within his former party. Following the defection, several then opposition parliamentarians alleged that Waheed had sold himself to the then ruling MDP and former President Nasheed. Waheed dismissed the allegations.

A few days later, the media reported Waheed’s bid to purchase land in Hulhumale’.

Following the coverage, Waheed alleged that local journalists had politicised a private real estate dealing, in which he had won a 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.’’

In a press statement on Wednesday, Ali Waheed alleged 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 within the report by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concerning the February 2012 transfer of power.

The CNI report in August 2012 concluded that the transfer of power that took place was not a coup as alleged by the MDP, and insisted that the new government was legitimate. However, the parliamentary select committee has claimed the report was “flawed” and missed out key information.

“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,” read Waheed’s statement.

On February 7, the brother of Speaker Shahid, Mohamed Shahid, and former Controller of Immigration Abdulla Shahid and three others, were arrested in connection with an alleged fraud case concerning the Disaster Management Centre, worth MVR 24 million (US$1.57 million).

Following the arrest Speaker Shahid tweeted that the police officers who went to arrest his brother violated the sanctity of his house and entered his parent’s bedroom.

‘’I strongly condemn the violation of the sanctity of my residence and my parent’s bedroom by Maldives Police SO (Special Operations) today,’’ Shahid tweeted on Thursday.

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 said that Waheed 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.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former Defense Minister denies charges in Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu has denied the charge of arbitrary detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed, during the first hearing of his criminal trial held in the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Prosecutor General has charged Tholhath for arresting the judge in January 2012, during his tenure as the minister of defense under former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration.

Others facing the same charges include former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Mohamed Ibrahim Didi and Colonel Ziyad.

During the first hearing of the trial held on this Monday, State Prosecutor Abdulla Raabiu claimed that following orders from the Commander in Chief – President Mohamed Nasheed – Tholhath had orchestrated the plan to arrest the judge and had arbitrarily detained Judge Abdulla Mohamed from January 16, 2012 until February 7, 2012.

Tholhath should therefore be charged for the offense of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code, Raabiu added.

The article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code states: “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to Law innocent persons. Person 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”.

Denying the charge, the former defense minister claimed that charge pressed against him was “not legitimate”, but did not state his reasons for the claim.

Speaking on behalf of Tholhath Ibrahim, his defense lawyer Mohamed Ibrahim argued that the trial lacked the necessary impartiality, contending that same charges should be pressed against former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, as they were responsible for maintaining law and order within the state.

Detention of the judge

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.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef alleged, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers. He also accused the judge of “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct, after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

JSC whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has also contended that the JSC’s blanket reappointment of all interim judges and magistrates in 2010 violated article 285 of the constitution guaranteeing an ethical and qualified judiciary, and that as such, the case “is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this.”

The JSC itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Military assisted police

During Tholath’s trial, his lawyer argued that the military did not conduct intensive legal reviews of requests for assistance from the police, and said his client fully believed that the military should act as quickly as it could to assist the police when required.

When the judges sought to clarify as to what part of the charge Tholthath was denying, his lawyer stated that his client had not done anything against the law.

In response to Tholhath Ibrahim’s denial of the charges, the state produced witnesses in support of its claim.

This list of witnesses included current Chief of Defense Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam, former Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh, former Vice Chief of Defense Force Farhath Shaheer, former Military Intelligence Chief Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, former Deputy Commissioner of Police Ismail Atheef, Colonel Wise Waheed and Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Media Official Colonel Abdul Raheem.

Along with the witnesses, the state also produced as evidence a list of text messages sent from Tholhath Ibrahim’s mobile phone, video footage of the arrest of the judge and a transcript of a cabinet meeting in which the issue was debated.

State prosecutor Raabiu said the state was willing to produce more witnesses and evidences to court if the need arises as the trial progressed.

When the evidence was produced in court, Tholhath lawyer requested the court give a period of one month to review the evidence put forth against his claim.

Dismissing the request, the sitting judges stated that the trial had been put on hold for a long time and that certain documents had already been shared with the defendants, therefore the next hearing would be scheduled for March 13, giving the defendant a period of 23 days.

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President Nasheed 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.

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.

The trial was heard by all three judges of Hulhumale Magistrate Court appointed to look into the case. The panel consists of Judge Shujaau Usmaan, Judge Hussain Mazeed and Judge Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem.

Contentious court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is also trying former President Nasheed for his detention of the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office, was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The JSC, which includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has previously declared that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court declared parliament overruled, issuing a statement that “no institution should meddle with the business of the courts”, and claiming that as it held authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” it would “not allow such interference to take place.”

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” the Supreme Court stated.

A subsequent request by the JSC that the Supreme Court bench rule on the court’s legitimacy resulted in a four to three vote in favour. The casting vote was made by Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, also President of the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government-aligned parties condemn India for hosting “cowardly” Nasheed

Political parties supporting the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan have criticised both former President Mohamed Nasheed and the Indian High Commission after Nasheed sought refuge inside.

Former President Nasheed entered the Indian High Commission on Wednesday ahead of a scheduled court hearing, to which he was to be produced under police detention.

Government aligned parties including the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) have all claimed accused Nasheed of being “cowardly”.

Leader of the DRP and presidential candidate Ahmed Thasmeen Ali told local newspaper Haveeru he was “disappointed” over former President Nasheed’s decision.

He claimed that the decision by the high commission to provide refuge for Nasheed meant the embassy was meddling in the domestic affairs of the country, and said the issue was too complex for India to resolve.

“When a former President shows up in an embassy and claims he was there for protection, it is not an easy matter to solve. A quick solution should be sought through dialogue,” he said.

Thasmeen claimed that there was no need for Nasheed to seek refuge from the Indian High Commission.

He also contended that no political figure could force the Prosecutor General (PG) to withdraw the charges levied against the former President, and that it was solely at the discretion of the PG to decide the matter.

Nasheed is being tried for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during his last days in office.

“Appoint a better high commissioner”, Adhaalath party tells India

In a statement released on Saturday, the Adhaalath Party accused Nasheed of using the Indian diplomatic office as a shield to protect himself from being summoned to court.

“The Adhaalath Party believes that this cowardly act by Nasheed is a huge crime and an attempt to destroy the country’s legal system. Instead of working on proving his innocence, Nasheed is continuously harassing the legal system, defaming security services, showing disobedience and attempting to create chaos,” read the statement.

The party also condemned the Indian High Commission and the Indian government “for assisting a criminal fleeing from trial”.

“Making the Indian High Commission a political camp of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and [letting Nasheed] hold discussions with MDP activists on the premises and encouraging them to create chaos and unrest among society lowers the respect of Maldivian people towards India,” read the statement.

The Adhaalath Party told the Indian government “to appoint a high commissioner who is professional and capable of mending the deteriorating bilateral relationship between the two countries”.

“The worsening of bilateral ties between the Maldives and India is not at all something which this party wants to happen,” it added.

The Adhaalath Party was a vocal opponent of India’s GMR Group, and its US$511 million concession agreement to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport. During on of the party’s rallies, several senior government figures mocked and insulted Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay calling him a “traitor to the Maldives”.

During a PPM press conference held on Thursday, party spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahloof claimed Nasheed was “coward” on the run knowing that his crime would invalidate his candidacy in the presidential election.

Mahloof said Nasheed did not have the patience to remain inside the high commission and that he would come out “very soon”.

“What is actually happening to Nasheed is that after resigning on February 7, 2012, he claims he will the MDP protests even if the police shoot him. But when the protests begin he is nowhere to be seen and is either at his home or on an island. Now we know Nasheed is a big coward,” he said.

He further said that Nasheed should be proving his innocence in court instead of hiding in the Indian High Commission.

Mahlouf said Nasheed’s decision to remain in the high commission until the elections would be costly to his party, as he would not have the opportunity to campaign as much as his rivals.

MDP response

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy dismissed the remarks made by the government-aligned parties, claiming that their respective leaders were desperate to eliminate Nasheed from the upcoming presidential election.

“Why are they condemning Indian High Commission’s hosting of Nasheed when there are graver issues to be concerned about? Our judiciary is failing. The Commonwealth, the European Union (EU), UN and even the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report highlights the flaws within Judiciary. Why are they silent on that?” Fahmy questioned.

He further reiterated that India was observing the situation in the Maldives and were wary of the situation with the judiciary.

Fahmy also condemned the Adhaalath Party’s derogatory remarks towards Indian High Commissioner D M Mulay.

In a statement, the MDP said the party’s comments were “unacceptable” and would “mindlessly”  impact the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

“President Nasheed has sought protection from the Indian High Commission after the Prosecutor General levied politically-motivated charges against him which lacked any legal grounds, and is concerned for his security,” the party said.

The party further contended that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which has been hearing the Nasheed trial – was illegitimate was therefore it unlikely that the former president would get a fair hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission Head warns a compromised Nasheed trial could create doubt over election integrity

President of the Elections Commission (EC) Fuad Thaufeeq has expressed concern over former President Mohamed Nasheed’s decision to take refuge in the Indian High Commission.

Former President Nasheed sought refuge last Wednesday claiming his security was compromised and that the government was intending to arrest and convict him to prevent him contesting the 2013 presidential elections.

Speaking to local media, the elections commission chief said it was deeply concerning to see the presidential candidate of the largest political party seeking refuge from a diplomatic office.

Thaufeeq said Nasheed was a former President and ought to receive the privileges entitled to a former president as stipulated in the law.

“Firstly, Nasheed is a former president, secondly he a presidential candidate of a political party. Thirdly, he represents the largest political party in the country. Each of these factors carries significant weight,” Thaufeeq said.

He said the Elections Commission would do everything it could to find a solution for all the parties involved, including the former president.

Thaufeeq said Nasheed should get a fair trial in accordance with the constitution and the law, and that such a trial should not be politically motivated.

The President of the Elections Commission warned that if Nasheed’s trial proved to be a tool to bar him from contesting the scheduled presidential elections, it would cast doubt over the integrity of the election.

“Even if it is Abdulla Yameen or Umar Naseer or Gasim Ibrahim or Mohamed Nasheed or even Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, these people have all announced they will contest the elections. If one of them happens to be on trial, that trial must be free and fair,” he told local newspaper Haveeru.

The Elections Commission has announced that the election will take place on September 7.

Nasheed is being tried for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, during his final days in office in January 2012.

Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission ahead of the second hearing of his ongoing criminal trial, after an order was issued by the magistrate court to place him under police custody.

After entering the High Commission, Nasheed tweeted: “Mindful of my own security and stability in the Indian Ocean, I have taken refuge at the Indian High Commission in Maldives.”

Rumours of Nasheed’s imminent arrest began to circulate on Tuesday (February 12) ahead of the scheduled hearing, prompting his supporters to camp in the narrow alley outside his family home in Male’.

Following the Indian High Commission’s decision to take Nasheed in, police failed to produce him stating they did not have the jurisdiction to enter the premises, citing the protections of the Vienna convention to which the Maldives is signatory.  The hearing was subsequently cancelled in his absence.

The government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik expressed concern over the move and accused India of meddling with its domestic affairs.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru on Thursday (February 14), Home Minister Mohamed Jameel said attempts by any country to prevent a person from facing charges pressed by an independent Prosecutor General (PG), could be described as interfering with domestic matters of a sovereign state.

In a tweet on Wednesday, Jameel implied that India was meddling in the Maldives’ internal affairs: “What’s happening now gives us an indication of the extent and level of interest some countries prepared to take in our internal matters,” he said.

“I would strongly urge everyone to let our institutions deal with the challenges, allow Maldives to uphold rule of law,” he tweeted.

A statement released by India’s Ministry of External Affairs following the development called on the government of Maldives to facilitate an inclusive election in which all political party leaders could take part.

“Now that the President of the Election Commission of Maldives has announced that Presidential elections would be held on 7 September 2013, it is necessary that the Presidential nominees of recognised political parties be free to participate in the elections without any hindrance. Prevention of participation by political leaders in the contest would call into question the integrity of the electoral process, thereby perpetuating the current political instability in Maldives,” read the statement.

The United States, United Kingdom, UN, EU and Commonwealth have all followed India‘s lead and stressed the need for the next presidential election to be an inclusive election.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has maintained that the charges are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him contesting the 2013 elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)