Author: Mohamed Naahee

Former military, police intelligence chiefs claim Nasheed had no choice but to resign

The former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) chiefs have claimed that former President Mohamed Nasheed had no choice but to resign on February 7, 2012, following a police and military mutiny.

The allegations were made public after meeting minutes of Parliament’s Executive Oversight committee were published in the parliament’s website.

The committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the controversial transfer of power that took place. It has so far interviewed senior military officers, police officers and senior officials of both the current and former government.

Among the interviewees were  former Chief of Defence Force (retired) Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, and former MNDF Male’ Area Commander (retired) Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi.

Others interviewed included former intelligence heads of the MNDF and police: Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam and Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed.

On February 7 2012, a continuous 22 day protest led by then opposition politicians, religious scholars and later joined by mutinying military and police officers, led to the sudden resignation of President Nasheed. The protests were fueled following Nasheed’s controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

The ousted President subsequently alleged he was forced out of office in a coup d’état.  However, this claim was challenged in report by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which found the transfer of power legitimate and constitutional.

“No other way for Nasheed” – former Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel

Chief of Defense Force Moosa Ali Jaleel told the committee that the circumstances leading up to the resignation of former President gave rise to the fact that resignation was obtained by “illegal coercion”.

“I fully believe that President [Nasheed] resigned under duress,” he said.

Jaleel refused to describe the transfer of power as coup, stating that this should be decided by the court. However, he claimed that the transfer of power only took place because it involved assistance from the military.

“What I am saying is that the military was there when about 15,000 protesters gathered during protests of August 12-13 2004, but the government did not topple. There was a armed attack by the Tamil Tigers on November 3, 1988, and the government did not topple. But on February 7, 2012, during a protest of 2500, the government was toppled. I am referring to the statistics,” he said.

He added that the circumstances and the violent environment around the MNDF headquarters meant that “there was no other way for President Nasheed [than to resign].”

“The control of the MNDF Headquarters was not with the president, but it was exactly the way the Defense Minister wanted,” he alleged.

Jaleel added that no president could be sure of his safety when those officers who were supposed to look after his security began to call for his resignation. He would know his power no longer exists and his command no longer followed, added Jaleel.

“It is a coup” – former military intelligence head Ahmed Nilam

Former MNDF intelligence chief Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam echoed Jaleel’s remarks. Asked whether the toppling of Nasheed was a coup or a revolution, he claimed it was a coup.

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

Nilam said he studied the events after the incident took place, which fitted an academic’s definition of a coup. However, Nilam also highlighted that it was up to a court to legally determine whether it had been a coup or not.

Asked if he had given the same details to the CNI, Nilam said he did given the same statement to the commission but it had not been reflected in its result.

He also reiterated that had not for the military assistance in the toppling of the government, there would have been no coup and Nasheed would not have been forced to resign.

“Police officers disobeyed their orders” – former Commissioner of Police

In his statement to the committee, Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh alleged that police officers who gathered in Republican Square on February 7 had disobeyed orders and their actions were grossly inconsistent with the Police Act, as well as professional standards established within the police.

Recalling the events, Faseeh said that he had done everything he could to control the situation but said there came a point where the officers had openly mutinied and disobeyed his orders.

“The actions of the police officers that night were unlawful. I am not a lawyer, so I can’t go into the details. But a lot of unlawful activities were carried out by the police,” he claimed.

However, Faseeh said that he did not know whether Nasheed had resigned under duress because he had not been present with him in  the MNDF headquarters.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee claims CNI report “flawed” based on the findings “so far”

The Chair of Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee, MP Ali Waheed, has claimed the August 2012 report produced by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee “so far”.

The Commonwealth-backed report investigated the circumstances surrounding the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

MP Waheed, of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), made the claim in a press conference held by the parliament select committee in the early hours of Saturday.

Waheed said many interviewed by the committee claimed the CNI report lacked “key information they had given [the CNI panel]”.

“Some have even claimed their information was wrongly presented,” he said, but declined to reveal the identity of those who made the claim.

The committee previously requested President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to hand over statements of key figures of the former government and military officials given to CNI. The request was rejected and a bid by the committee to issue a legal order demanding the information failed when a vote was put to the members.

MP Waheed on Saturday described the president’s refusal to share the information as a “blessing in disguise”.

“Some people who attended the committee [meeting] have told us that key information they gave was missing from the CNI report, and said they did not accept its findings,” he said.

The opposition-controlled committee is conducting a parliamentary inquiry on the controversial transfer of power, while also reviewing the CNI report.

A 22 day continuous anti-government protest led by then opposition figures, religious scholars and mutinying police and military officials, following the controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, led to the sudden resignation of then-President Mohamed Nasheed. Nasheed and his party later alleged he was forced out of office in a coup d’etat.

However in August 2012 the CNI formed by incoming President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and backed by the Commonwealth released a report declaring the transfer of power was legitimate.

As part of its present inquiry, the parliament’s committee has summoned former intelligence heads of the police and the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF), including Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed and Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam.

Last Friday the committee summoned former SAARC Secretary General and Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed, former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh and former Police Superintendent Mohamed Jinah. It has also announced that two international experts will take part in assisting the inquiry for a period of two weeks.

“Huge crime against the state”

According to Waheed the parliamentary inquiry was “revealing” information suggesting a “huge crime against the state” involving individuals, leaders of political parties and senior figures within the police and the military.

“From what we have found out, the committee has come to the conclusion that the events very much involved the stakes of two pivotal figures. They are President Nasheed and President Waheed. This I say because the events involved people who were loyal to both Nasheed and Waheed,” he said.

He also admitted the names of several people have been floated within the committee who needed to be questioned in the course of the inquiry, including the former president and his successor. Others included former Home Minister Hassan Afeef, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and key senior officials of Nasheed’s administration.

MP Waheed also reiterated that a lot of people had been hesitant to speak to the CNI as it was formed by President Waheed’s government and included senior figures of the events of February 7. Some of those people cabinet positions, Waheed said.

“In light of what we have come to know, a lot of people were eager to raise their concern and share information regarding the [controversial transfer of power], but they were not sure of the right person to should share their concerns with,” he said.

A similar notion was put forward by Dhiyana Saeed in her personal memoir, in which she wrote of a plot by Nasheed’s political opponents to assassinate him.

“I desperately needed to consult someone but who? … I couldn’t go to my associates on this side because now I didn’t know whose hands were tainted and whose hands weren’t. The politics was so bitter, so deeply divided and so polarized that if I happened to confide in the wrong person I thought what I had to say would be reported to the wrong people and covered-up,” she wrote, in her memoir.

Meanwhile, Waheed noted security concerns raised by those who appeared before the committee, claiming they were “at risk” for sharing such confidential information.

“Some individuals who have given witness to the committee have raised concerns over their security and requested security. The committee has debated the matter and already informed the speaker [of its views],” he said.

“I don’t deny the fact that we may need to summon more people in the coming days. Some of the names of people we plan to summon may not be even mentioned in CNI report,” he said.

Asked of former SAARC Secretary General and Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed’s allegations of assassination attempts against Nasheed, Waheed said the committee would look into the allegations.

“The committee will very seriously look into the concerns raised by Dhiyana of a plotted assassination of former President Mohamed Nasheed,” he said.

“Inquiry is not politically motivated” – MP Ali Waheed

Challenged as to the credibility of the report, given that the committee had an opposition majority, Waheed said that they had decided to look into the matter not based on any “political motives”, and that the inquiry was solely based upon “national interest”.

“The committee’s findings will not produce politicised results. We are summoning key stakeholders including those in senior positions in the government.  The findings will not be based on the word of one just one person. We will not include any allegation against anyone without verifying it,” he said.

He added that the inquiry was not about the two former presidents or about President Waheed.

“This is not about the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) or the MDP. This is not an inquiry carried out by putting key political actors in a single chart and drawing conclusions for political benefit.”

He also affirmed that no unverified claims would be included in the report.

“[The report] will be based on information given by key people in positions of the state, who by the constitution are obliged to give true information,” he said.

Waheed also expressed confidence the report will unveil the truth of what happened on February last year, and said the committee was even willing to go to a public debate with those who wished to challenge its findings.

Presidents Office Spokesperson Masood Imad was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament committee to seek international expertise for CNI report review

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee is seeking international experts to help oversee a review of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report.

Committee Chair Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed said during a press conference yesterday (January 9) that efforts were being made to bring international experts in the fields of law and public inquiries to the Maldives for a review of the CNI report. The process is expected to take a minimum of two weeks.

The CNI report, which was released back in August 2012, looked into the circumstances surrounding the controversial transfer of power in February the same year. The report concluded that the change of government had been constitutional.

The government today dismissed the review as being politically motivated, while also rubbishing allegations that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik had violated the constitution by not providing information from the CNI’s investigation to parliament.

Ali Waheed has claimed that the purpose of seeking international expertise was to ensure the autonomy and credibility of the parliamentary inquiry for both local and international actors. He added that parliament secretariat would make the announcement for applicants to fill the two positions at a later date.

The press conference was held right after the committee summoned the two former intelligence heads of both Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) and Maldives Police Services as part of the parliamentary inquiry.

Ali Waheed was not responding to calls at the time of press. However, he was reported in local media as describing yesterday’s meeting as one of the most “extraordinary, concerning and fearful” experience in his parliamentary career.

“The information the committee got from the [intelligence heads] surprised me. New questions have come up over what took place last year,” he said. “The former intelligence heads wept at today’s committee meeting.”

Impartiality

When questioned about the impartiality of the committee, which has a majority representation of MDP members, Waheed claimed that the committee has previously been mostly made up of former opposition parties under the former administration.

He added that the committee at the time, under an opposition majority, had taken major decisions against the former government such as endorsing the bench of the Supreme Court during former President Nasheed’s administration.

“If the Maldivian Supreme Court is deemed legitimate, than regardless of who controls the majority of the committee, its decisions would be binding as well. This committee will do everything it can to maintain its credibility and autonomy,” he told local media. “I hope that committee members and members who give evidence to the committee will also think about that. I want this inquiry to take place transparently.”

Constitutional claims

Five members of the Executive Oversight Committee today passed a motion stating that President Waheed had disregarded Article 99 of the Constitution.

Article 99 states that the [Parliament] or any of its committees has the power to – (a) summon any person to appear before it to give evidence under oath, or to produce documents. Any person who is questioned by the [Parliament] as provided for in this Article shall answer to the best of his knowledge and ability; (b) require any person or institution to report to it; (c) receive petitions, representations or submissions from interested persons or institutions.

When contacted today, Media Secretary of Presidents Office Masood Imad declined to comment, stating that he “was very busy”.

He requested Minivan News to ask the committee members as to what constitutional clause President Waheed was alleged to have violated by not providing the information to parliament.

Masood said yesterday that the statements given to CNI were not in public domain and therefore it would be President Waheed who would make a decision on the matter.

“That is a property of [CNI], but now that commission has been dissolved. So now whether to make the documents available in the public domain is solely up to President Waheed to decide,” he said at the time. “The commission was formed to release a report on the findings. The report is now available, that means it will have what is mentioned in the statements.”

President’s Office Spokesperson, Ahmed ‘Topy’ Thaufeeq also dismissed the committee’s motion claiming that it was a “political” decision.

In an interview given to Channel News Maldives today, Thaufeeq said that the new government has never tried to exert undue influence over the parliament.

“President Waheed has never even once violated the constitution. He is using the powers that have been vested to him by the constitution. He has never gone beyond his jurisdiction. Yesterday, the decision was made by a committee that had the majority of opposition MDP. That is a political decision,” he was quoted as saying.

Thaufeeq went on to accuse the People’s Majlis of trying to influence the day to day running of the government.

“Government reluctance”

Executive Oversight Committee member and MDP MP Ahmed Easa responded that any information from the executive power must be given to the parliament unless it concerns the national security of the state or involves critical confidential information.

“Any document the parliament requests must be given from the government unless its concerns the national security or critical confidential information,” he said. “Even if the information concerns national security interests, there are procedures in which it can be shared. So far government has not said that those documents fit into the said criterion.”

He also claimed that there were no legitimate grounds for President Waheed to ignore the request from parliament without giving proper reasoning. According to Easa, the action “clearly violated the constitution”.

The Kendhikulhudhoo constituency MP admitted that committee would face “huge challenges” in reviewing the findings of the CNI Report without obtaining the information of which the report was based on.

“For an example, CNI has clearly mentioned that there are issues within the country’s judiciary. However, it has not gone into details. So how can we find about the mentioned issues within the judiciary without obtaining the information on which such a conclusion was based upon. We need to find out based on what information had the CNI come to such a conclusion,” he explained.

“They are crying out loud saying that the findings in the CNI report was the truth. If so what we are saying is that the truth must have been obtained from credible true information. Why are they hesitating to share that information with us?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Executive Oversight Committee summons former intelligence heads

Parliament’s Executive Oversight Committee has summoned the former intelligence heads of both the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the Maldives Police Service (MPS) as part of an inquiry into the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam and former Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed were separately summoned today to attend the closed door meetings.

Nilam was summoned first at 12:00pm, with Hameed addressing the committee at 1:00pm.

According to local media, chair of the committee, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, said that the decision had been taken to hold the meeting behind closed doors to ensure any potentially sensitive intelligence information remained confidential.

The select committee last month agreed, with bipartisan support, to summon Nilam, Hameed and former SAARC Secretary General Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed.

The committee at the time decided that all three individuals would be summoned to parliament separately on January 9.  According to the local media, Saeed was to be summoned at 11:00am today, but requested that her hearing be postponed over personal issues.

Saeed is being summoned over a personal memoir released to the media last month.  The contents of the memoir included allegations that certain figures behind protests leading to the controversial transfer of power on February 7 had also planned to assassinate former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Failure to come to an understanding over issuance of a legal order

Meanwhile, the committee today failed to reach an agreement over issuing a legal order requiring President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik to provide evidence gathered by the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).

The CNI was charged to review the circumstances behind the change of government, concluding that the transfer of power took place constitutionally despite the MDP’s claims of a coup d’état.

The parliamentary committee had called for a vote amongst its members over whether to issue a legal order to obtain statements given to CNI by senior Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) figures and officials of the former government.  However, the vote failed to secure a required committee majority of 6 members to be passed.

Although backed by all five MDP members on the committee, the vote was short of a sixth and decisive supporter with government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan Hassan Manik voting against the motion. His fellow party member MP Ahmed Shareef abstained from the vote.

The statements that the committee had intended to obtain from the government included the accounts given to the CNI of former Defense Minister Tholthath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel.  The testimonies of former Male’ Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and former Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh would also have been requested among others.

The committee had previously sent a letter to President Waheed requesting for him to provide it members with the stated documents.  The request was denied.

Some sitting members of the committee at the time expressed their dismay with the president’s response, arguing that the only option left for the committee was to issue a legal order.

However, in order to issue a legal order, the matter should be approved by an absolute majority of at least six committee members.

Following the failure to obtain a legal order today, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor questioned the government’s decision not to supply the information.

“There is absolutely no way as per the constitution where the executive can hide its actions from the parliament. The constitution has given the parliament immense powers in terms of government accountability to the extent that the government cannot even take a loan without parliament’s consent,” he said.

Ghafoor added that while the MDP held a parliamentary majority, it was aiming to conduct the inquiry with bipartisan support.

“We don’t want to make this a political issue. This is a national issue. We are trying to confirm the legitimacy of an installed government. Party politics is not what we are interested in,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court schedules hearings against key parliamentary decisions for next week

The Supreme Court will hear two separate cases filed against decisions taken within parliament next week.

According to the Supreme Court’s official website, a case lodged by former Civil Services Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan against parliament’s decision to impeach him over allegations of sexual harassment is scheduled for January 14.

A separate case will then be held two days later on January 16 concerning the Majlis’ decision to hold no-confidence votes against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik and other senior government figures through a secret ballot.

The two cases have been criticised within the People’s Majlis, with some MPs claiming the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into matters approved by parliament.

Right to justice

Speaking to Minivan News today, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor accused the Supreme Court of being grossly negligent in carrying out its duties as the country has switched from an autocratic system of governance to a democratic one in 2008.

Ghafoor contended that the Supreme Court’s conduct had been contrary to keeping the powers of the state both independent and separate.

“Due to this negligence, it has allowed incompetent, insincere judges to take over all the ranks of the judiciary, disregarding the article 285 of the constitution. Now, the validity of both Supreme Court and High Court is limited and restricted due to its failure to establish a proper legitimate judiciary,” he said.

“We don’t see justice being served, to be honest, the people of this country have lost their right to justice. I don’t see true justice being established in the country, not as long as they are here.”

The Henveiru South constituency MP also accused the Supreme Court of failing to specify its reasons behind decisions taken on constitutional matters.

“They are failing to grasp the intentions of the constitutional assembly that drafted the constitution. Why are they failing to refer to the meeting minutes of the assembly to understand their intentions as a tool to interpret the constitution? This is what happens when you don’t have a competent judiciary, they fail to grasp the spirit of the constitution,” he claimed.

The Supreme Court last month issued two separate injunctions ordering parliament to  withhold selection of a CSC president to replace Fahmy and to halt scheduling impeachment votes against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik and Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The Supreme Court in both injunctions claimed that it needed to review the legality of the concerned issues in line with “necessary constitutional and legal principles” that had to be followed.

Exclusive cognizance

Responding to the injunctions issued by the Supreme Court, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed has said in a personal press video that the powers stated in article 88 of the constitution were given to parliament to execute its duties. Nasheed added that the powers outlined in the article should not be restricted by the country’s courts.

“The article 88 (b) of the constitution is a power given to the parliament to execute its duties. It should not be confused with the recently passed privileges bill. What article 88(b) states that no court of law can question the decisions reached by the parliament,” he said.

“The Article 88(b) of the constitution states – ‘Unless otherwise specified in this Constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the People’s Majlis (Parliament) shall not be questioned in any court of law.’  It is for a reason that this clause was included in the constitution. This is a principle adopted by parliaments across the world. I don’t know the Arabic word for that, but in English it is known as ‘Exclusive Cognizance,’” he explained.

Nasheed contended that article 88 (b) outlined powers that should be exclusive to parliament and all courts of law should respect the legislature.  He claimed that a failure to respect parliament could mean every decision reached in the Majlis would be challenged.

“For example, even in a football game, though a team may be very upset by a decision of the referee, the play continues. They don’t go to court and seek an injunction so that match would be halted until a court decides on the matter. Neither is the decision overruled. The game continues,” Nasheed argued.

“What is happening right now could mean that if a player is shown a red card or a yellow card, the team who is unhappy about the referee would stop playing and go to court and seek an injunction to hold the play until the court reaches a verdict. Imagine what will happen if such practice takes hold.”

Parliament decisions

Former CSC Chair Fahmy was impeached from parliament in June last year over allegations of sexual harassment against an employee. The decision was reached after a debate on the report, which was produced by Parliament’s Committee on Independent Institutions.

Following much debate in parliament, Nasheed stated that the Committee on Independent Institutions had mandate over the CSC and it did not need to conduct a criminal investigation to remove Fahmy from his post.

“What we applied are widely accepted civil standards. Based on our findings, 7 out of the 10 committee members decided that it was more likely that Fahmy had committed this act than that he did not. And that is enough to remove him from his post,” Nasheed said.

The subsequent no-confidence vote to remove Fahmy passed by a majority of 38 to 32 votes. However, Fahmy filed a case at Supreme Court contending that he was removed from his position unlawfully.

Back in October meanwhile, the MDP proposed a no-confidence motion against President Waheed claiming that the police and the military had “brutalised” its supporters on February 8 under direct orders from the president himself.

The MDP also alleged that President Waheed had destroyed the sensitive economy of the nation and adversely impacted investor confidence in the Maldives.

Other reasons, the MDP alleged, included the failure of President Waheed’s administration to curb gang violence in the country, as well as his government taking a loan worth MVR 300 million (US$19.5 million) from the Bank of Maldives (BML) without prior approval from parliament – a violation of Public Finance Act and Public Finance Regulation.

The MDP subsequently proposed the amendment to parliamentary regulation which would pave the way for a secret ballot in the vote to impeach President Waheed. However, the first attempt, despite approval from parliament’s General Affairs Committee was defeated in parliament by 39 to 34 votes.

Parliament last month passed the amendment when it was again re-submitted and approved with a 41 to 34 majority. The approval was backed by two government aligned parties, the Jumhoree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The amendment was also later challenged in the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Ali Waheed seeks temporary injunction after Criminal Court rejects appeal

Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed has today appealed a Criminal Court decision to reject procedural points raised during previous hearings of a case against him.

Lawyers representing the Thoddoo constituency MP argued during a High Court appeal hearing today that charges against him for obstructing police officers in their duty had previously been dismissed and, as a procedural point, could not therefore be legally resubmitted.

Ali Waheed is charged with obstruction of police duty during an anti-government protest he participated in while of member of the then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).  Waheed, who defected to then-ruling MDP in May 2011, was charged for breaching article 75 of Maldives Police Services Act.

Appeal

During today’s High Court appeal hearing, Waheed’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, repeated his argument that the state could not resubmit the same criminal charges for a second time without any changes.

He contended that the decision of the prosecutor general (PG) to pursue the case contradicted article 223 of the constitution, which prescribes the powers of his office.

Responding to the argument, Assistant Public Prosecutor Hussain Nashid claimed that the charges had only been dropped “temporarily” in a bid to respect the “fairness” of criminal trials.

Nashid also argued that the prosecutor general had the discretionary power to decide on the procedures as to how criminal charges can be filed.

Meanwhile, Ali Waheed’s lawyer requested the High Court bench issue a temporary injunction to withhold the ongoing case at Criminal Court until the High Court decides on the matter.

In response to the request, chair of the sitting judges bench Judge Yoosuf Hussain said that the court would decide on whether to issue the requested injunction by the end of the day.

Discretion

Speaking to Minivan News today, prominent criminal lawyer Abdulla Haseen said he believed that the prosecutor general legally had the power to resubmit criminal cases after withdrawing them.  However, Haseen contended that any such decision should be “fair and just, without any political influences”.

“I do not believe that the constitution limits the power of PG to resubmit criminal cases again. But it should be done in a fair and just way without any political influences,” he said

Even though Haseen declined to comment on the ongoing court case, he stressed that the PG should ensure cases being sent to trial were done so in a way that was fair and just, especially when focusing on political figures.  Haseen stressed such a decision was vital in order to maintain the credibility and impartiality of prosecutions.

“We don’t usually see the PG resubmitting cases like this but it does not mean he cannot. However exercise of his discretion should always be impartial. When Ali Waheed’s case was withdrawn, it reflected political motives as much as it did when he decided to resubmit the case. PG is an independent constitutional body and should not be subject to political influence,” he explained.

The Prosecutor General’s Office was not responding to calls at time of press.

Case history

The case was first sent to the PG’s Office after an investigation by the police in March 2010.

By November that year, state prosecutors had dropped the charges against Ali Waheed on the grounds of a “lack of fairness”, stating that police had failed to submit a case relating to MDP activists entering the Civil Services Commission (CSC) office and harassing its staff.

The case against Ali Waheed was once filed again by the PG last year following the controversial transfer of power that brought President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s government into office.

Following the decision, Ali Waheed’s defence lawyer Suood argued during a Criminal Court hearing that the state cannot file the same criminal charges once they had been dropped on an earlier occasion.

Ali Waheed’s procedural points were dismissed by the sitting criminal court judge Abdulla Didi, stating that the PG could re-file a case.

During previous Criminal Court hearings, Waheed stated that he was unclear about the charges pressed against him. He added that he was not someone who would ever confront police with arms and questioned whether it was only him and Mahloof that were there during the protests.

State prosecutors responded that they had decided to prosecute Ali Waheed and fellow MP Ahmed Mahloof because they had been able to obtain sufficient evidence to support charges against the two politicians.

Along with MP Ali Waheed, former DRP MP Ahmed Mahloof is also facing the same charges.

Both Waheed and Mahloof were elected to parliament under the ticket of DRP. However, following the split of the DRP into two factions, both Waheed and Mahloof chose to leave their former party and head in two different directions.

Mahloof joined the newly formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the party formed by the DRP members who supported former President Gayoom as opposed to the party’s current leader, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali. Ali Waheed meanwhile joined the MDP.

During the first hearing of the trail against him, Mahloof requested that the judge carry out the trial separately stating that although he and Waheed were once in the same party, times had changed and the pair now followed different political beliefs and parties.

The request was dismissed at the time by the presiding Judge Abdulla Didi, who stated that the state had levied one charge against both him and his parliamentary colleague. Judge Didi said differing political beliefs was immaterial to the case that was being heard.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case against Waheed for the second time, the MDP at the time raised concerns stating that the case had lost its meaning because of the delay in prosecution.

In a statement, the MDP claimed that “without considering the legal principle ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,  we would like to bring to notice that the state is prosecuting meaningless cases while more important cases remain unprosecuted, while others have already been dismissed,” read the statement.

It further described the prosecution of its members at the time as a “series of attempts to hurt” the party after the fall of the previous MDP-led government.  The MDP contends that former President Mohamed Nasheed was removed from office under “duress” following a mutiny by sections of the police and military on February 7, 2012.

Waheed, previously speaking to local media after the hearing, stated that he would not be threatened by such cases that the current government was pressing against him, and said he would “face the charges with courage”. He also asked the PG to prosecute him for even “slightest” wrong he had committed.

“This prosecution is not just a prosecution levied against me, this is a prosecution that is levied against the 50,000 members of MDP and the majority of the citizens of Thoddu constituency,” he said.

Ali Waheed told the press at the time that such unpleasant inducements by the government to pressure him to join them would not work and claimed that he would not leave the MDP to support an illegitimate government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDA interim leader promises pre-school construction during party membership drive

Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) interim Leader and tourism magnate MP Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam has pledged during a campaign to boost his party’s membership that he will build pre-schools on the islands of Landhoo and Fodhdhoo in Noonu Atoll.

Shiyam’s Sun Online news service reported today that he had promised that the foundations for at least one of the pre-school buildings was expected to be laid during the year.

Addressing the pledge today, a senior MDA member told Minivan News that all funding for the proposed school buildings would be provided by Shiyam himself in a “personal capacity”, adding that the decision was not politically motivated, but rather a service to the public.

Shiyam’s campaigning for the recently formed MDA follows the passing of a new bill in parliament requiring political parties in the country to have a minimum of 10,000 registered members.

Should the bill be signed into law, parties without the sufficient number of members would be given three months to meet the target or face being dissolved.

During campaigning yesterday, Shiyam said that despite Fodhdhoo being small in terms of population, all islands – regardless of their size – were entitled to fundamental rights.

“You are like any other people. You as well deserve the fundamental rights that the rest of the people enjoy. I will do whatever I can to ensure that fact stays that way,” he was reported as saying.

During a rally held later the same day on Landhoo Island, Shiyam said that the development of the nation required educated young people to come forth, adding that the country had fallen into a grave state due to a lack of honest political leaders.

“Those who come to power need to have a very strong understanding of the public sentiments and should have the quality to respect the views of the people. Leaders who lie and deceive should never come in front of the people,” he claimed.

“Immense Support”

Speaking to Minivan News today, MDA Deputy Leader Ali Mauroof claimed that the party was “receiving immense support” from Noonu Atoll and expressed confidence in reaching the 10,000 member limit as stipulated in the newly passed political parties bill.

“Noonu Atoll is the native Atoll of both me and our leader [Shiyam], so we are receiving immense support from the islands. You would know about this support if you see our Sun Online [news service]. We believe we could get 90 percent of the entire population of the Atoll,” he said.

Asked about the immediate aims of the MDA, Mauroof said that the party’s first target was to attain 10,000 members.  He claimed the MDA’s longer-term strategy was to become the “largest political party” in the country.

Mauroof also criticised the recently passed political parties’ bill, dismissing it as an attempt to “destroy” smaller political parties.

“The reality is that in a democracy, you would not see bills made to destroy smaller political parties. There are democracies which allow hundreds of political parties. That is what democracy is,” he said.

Mauroof also claimed that Shiyam’s pledge to build two pre-schools in Noonu Atoll had been made in a “personal capacity” rather than directly through the MDA.

“Our leader was the one who advocated for providing pre-schooling facilities in the islands. It was his proposed bill on pre-schools that were passed into legislation by the parliament and currently being enforced. This is not something new too. Our leader has built pre-schools in Dhaalu Atoll as well,” he explained.

He added that Shiyam was building pre-schools not as a “political motive” but as a social responsibility to “contribute to society”.

“We did not condition anyone to join the party. We did not give any reward or pay anybody to join the party. People are joining us willingly and voluntarily. Even the pre-schools are not built under the name of MDA,” he added.

“Not a cult-party”: MDA

Deputy Leader Mauroof also claimed that the MDA would display the “best internal democracy within the party” by adhering to democratic and transparent principles and best practices, adding that there would be no grounds to call them a “cult party”.

“We have our own party charter. Everything will be done in accordance with the party charter. This party will host the best internal democracy within the party. We would not have spiritual leaders,” he said.

Mauroof added that all decisions by the MDA were expected to be made by the party’s council, which he claimed would ultimately decide on its future political alignment.

“We are not enemies of any political party. We can work with any party for interests of the country. However, the decision to field or support a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections and making coalitions would be decided by the party’s council at the most appropriate time,” he added.

Mauroof added that their policies would reflect the needs of the people and their betterment.

“We will be a party that will work on strengthening democracy, bringing development and prosperity to the country,” he added.

Formation

MDA was officially given the permission to establish itself as a political party on June last year by the elections commission. The party officially held its inaugural convention on December 10, 2012.  It was at this convention where the party elected Shiyam as its interim leader along with appointing other key leadership positions.

The tourism magnate was elected interim leader with 335 votes out of 362 ballots cast.

According to Shiyam’s Sun Online news website, 362 members attended the meeting at Traders Hotel, which was authorised to proceed by the Elections Commission after it had verified the attendance registry.

Under the regulations governing political parties’ which is still in force, at least 300 members are required to attend an inaugural convention of a newly-formed political party, while 3,000 signatures are needed to form the party.

The MDA becomes the 16th political party to be registered in the Maldives since 2005.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Auditor general alleges several inconsistencies in Ministry of Human Resources 2010 audit report

Auditor General (AG) Niyaz Ibrahim has alleged that several inconsistencies in spending have been identified in the Ministry of Human Resources, Youth and Sports’ 2010 audit report.

The discrepancies highlighted in the report (Dhivehi) include a failure to prepare the ministry’s financial statements in accordance to legal standards, as well as certain spending on a number of projects and events.

Speaking to Minivan News today, former Minister of Human Resources, Youth and Sports Hassan Latheef questioned how complete the AG’s research had been, adding that the documents identified as missing in the audit report would have been available.

Latheef who was in charge of the ministry until the controversial transfer of power in February last year, claimed that the AG’s report was misleading.  Although he did not dismiss the report’s conclusions outright, Latheef maintained that the AG’s findings were incomplete and would have been more accurate if it had consulted with staff working at the ministry during his tenure.

Copies of the AG’s report are to be sent to President Waheed and parliament, as well as other relevant authorities. The AG has also called on to the authorities to investigate the findings of the report and take action against those who are found responsible.

In the report, which was released on Thursday (January 3), the AG’s office stated that it did not believe the Human Resources Ministry had spent its budget in compliance with the Public Finance Act (Act No. 3/2006) and Public Finance Regulation.  The findings therefore included recommendations to reclaim the sum of money believed to have been spent outside of the regulations.

Inconsistencies

Amidst the AG’s findings, the report claimed that the Human Resources Ministry had failed to prepare its financial statement for 2010 as stipulated in the Public Finance Regulation.

“The Ministry of Human Resources, Youth and Sports’ financial statements were not prepared in accordance with the standards set by the International Public Sector Standards (IPSAS) board,” the report stated.

AG Niyaz also alleged that the ministry had failed to recover funds owed to the state by different parties from several outsourced projects, including a project to set up and run a canteen at the Maafannu Cricket Stadium.

The AG claimed that a sum of MVR 487,875 (US$ 31,639.15) was owed to the state as a result of the project, which included rent and fines.  The report added that the Human Resources Ministry had failed to take adequate measures to recover the outstanding sum of money.

In an another claim, the AG alleged that the ministry had failed to recover a sum of MVR 237,000 (US$ 15,369.65) owed to the state as both rent and fines from “Ekuveni Canteen”.  The report recommended the ministry recover money from the parties, calling on authorities to take action against those found to have failed to comply with the laws and regulations.

Illegal transfer of funds

The report also highlighted several cases where funds were transferred by the Human Resources Ministry to projects that the AG claimed were carried out in contradiction to national laws. Included among the highlighted cases was a transfer of MVR 130,000 (US$ 8,430.60) to the Cricket Control Board as a payment for work carried and payment of MVR 14,500 (US$ 940.33) for another company.

The report also raised concerns over sums of MVR 75,000 (US$ 4,863.81) and MVR 50,000 (US$ 3,242.54) transferred to two NGO’s said to have close ties with an unidentified senior ministerial figure. Another issue was a sum of MVR 153,274.80 (US$ 9,940.00) that had been provided to a music band who had not even requested for the money “according to the documents”.

Spending on travel expenses of a parliament member

The AG’s report stated that the Human Resources Ministry budget had also been used to cover an MP’s travel expenses during a trip with then Minister Hassan Latheef to watch the finals of 2010 AFC Challenge Cup held in Sri Lanka.

According to the report, the Ministry spent a total of MVR 15,280.60 (US$ 990.96), which  included a sum of MVR 12,057.60 (US$ 781.95) for pocket money, incidental allowance, accommodation and meals.  The remaining MVR 3,223 (US$ 209.01) was used to cover the MP’s air ticket to watch the football match.

The AG’s office recommended that the ministry bring its budget spending in accordance with the Public Finance Regulations. The report also raised questions as to what capacity the MP had travelled with the minister, as well as the grounds for the government to cover the subsequent travelling expenses.

According to the report, the ministry was advised to retrieve all monies spent by the MP, referring again to measures within public finance laws and regulations.

Former Minister’s response

Responding to the AG’s Office report today, former Human Resources Minister Hassan Latheef said that the MP who travelled with him, as mentioned in the report, was Hamid Abdul Ghafoor of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).  According to Latheef,  Ghafoor – formerly a state minister in the ministry prior to his election to parliament – was accompanying him as a “technical consultant” on the trip.

“Actually it was not just simply a final match. I went there to meet the President of Asian Football Association (AFC) Mohammed bin Hammam. I had sent a letter to Hamid Abdul Ghafoor to accompany me as a technical consultant because I do not possess the technical knowledge of football. So I had requested Ghafoor in official capacity. I even can assure you that a copy of the letter would also be there,” he explained.

Latheef contended that after looking at the numbers, it would be clear that the ministry had spent the minimum required amount for travel expenses and had not intended to “award [MP Ghafoor] a stack of cash”.

“It was neither carried out in a politically motived way nor as a friend. He went as a technical consultant. Now people would ask why Ghafoor was selected. I believe the minister would have the discretion to decide who he would take,” he added.

“This is not something new. For instance, a person who is not even in the government or even in politics went as a chief guest to attend the SAARC Youth Camp held in Addu City in 2011. But it will be our ministry who would be giving his accommodation and travel expenses. How can that be called corruption or politically motivated?”

According to Latheef, the AG had been requested to audit the Human Resources Ministry’s operations back in 2008 shortly after he assumed his position under the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed. According to Latheef, the AG had at the time said that it had already audited the former Employment Ministry and could therefore only look at the youth and sports operations.

“When it was getting delayed, I even sent a letter in 2009 as well asking the AG to audit the ministry” he said.

“I know the AG would only base his report on documents, but if he had asked our collaboration, we would have helped. Things get confusing when you wake up the next morning to see a new government has taken over through a coup. Had we been there when the auditing took place, I am sure the documents which the AG had noted missing would have been found,” he explained.

Amidst other concerns identified in the report, Latheef dismissed claims he had failed to try and retrieve funds spent by the ministry. He added that the ministry, during his tenure, was working on retrieving funds from the said parties and some of the cases were being investigated by police in cases where the ministry had filed for non-payment of rent.

Responding additionally to concerns about providing payment to the band identified in the AG’s findings, Latheef claimed that the report had said it was the responsibility of the National Sports Council to set the procedures for which performers can be paid. Latheef however dismissed the claim, stating that it was the ministry’s responsibility.

“The sports council does not do that. It is the responsibility of the [Human Resources] Ministry.  The Sports Council can set the mechanism on how the sports associations are given money. They don’t have to do that for music bands,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Proposed anti-piracy bill outlines legal framework for punishing suspects

The Government has proposed an anti-Piracy bill in an effort to curb rising concerns over the issue of security within its territorial waters and the wider Indian Ocean.

The bill has been presented to parliament by government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader and business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim. The stated purpose of the bill is to establish a legal framework to deal with piracy within the territorial waters of the Maldives amidst concerns at the growing risk  of maritime crime in the Indian Ocean over the last few years.

With the Maldives located at a strategic intersection of sea trade routes, a significant amount of global maritime traffic passes through or near the country’s northern atolls.

The bill also seeks to outline legal procedures to deal with individuals suspected of committing acts of piracy within Maldivian territorial waters.  such procedures do not presently exist in the country’s legal system.  The acts outlined in the proposed bill would be considered as criminal offences.

According to the bill, a person who is found guilty of an act of piracy would face a 25 year jail sentence.   Meanwhile, if a suspect was found guilty of killing a person during a suspected pirate attack, they would be punished under Islamic Sharia to an additional 30 year custodial sentence.

For any damage to property incurred through piracy, a punishment of 15 year imprisonment is prescribed.

Those found guilty of conspiring to commit or assist in acts of piracy in the Maldives would face a punishment of 10 years imprisonment, according to the bill.

The bill specifically describes armed robbery as a separate offence, whereby if found guilty, a person would receive a 30-year prison sentence.  In a case where someone was killed during a suspected armed robbery, the suspect would face imprisonment along with additional punishment outlined in Islamic Sharia.

According to article 4 of the bill, the state authorities are vested with the power to apprehend offenders in its territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and International waters.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines a state’s territorial waters as extending up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline.  The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 kilometres) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control.

An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of a state extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 kilometres) from the territorial sea baseline including the contiguous zone, according to the same conventions.

Other offences noted in the bill includes the hijacking of vessels.  The punishment outlined for such a crime is 10 years imprisonment and a fine between MVR 100,000 to MVR 1 million.

Meanwhile, the punishment for obstruction of a safe passage is imprisonment for a period of no more than 15 years.

Courts in the country would also be allowed to extend the detention period of arrested individuals through means of audio and video phone in cases where it proved difficult to bring a suspect to a hearing, under provisions in the bill.

The power to arrest would also be vested to both the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the Maldives Police Services in the case of suspected acts of piracy. However, hearings of all offences committed under the bill would be tried at the Criminal Court in Male’.

Speaking to Minivan News, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ibrahm Muaz Ali said that the government had continued to raise concerns over security in the Indian Ocean for some times and had built strong relations with neighbouring countries like India to combat potential pirate attacks.

According to Muaz, the anti-piracy bill was perceived by the government as being a necessity in order to establish a framework capable of dealing with the issue. He added that the government was getting support from all regional countries on the matter.

Back in April last year in an interview given to the India-based Daily News and Analysis publication, Minister of Defence Mohamed Nazim highlighted the government’s concerns regarding the potential for pirate attacks.

Nazim at the time warned that “these threats have now come to our close proximity. We live by selling dreams of tranquillity and even a small incident in our territory could have devastating implications for the region.”

The comments were made at the same time that the first ever tri-lateral naval exercises between Sri Lanka, India, and the Maldives were held. Nazim told the paper that he believed a united approach was the best way to combat the problems of piracy in the Indian Ocean.

Nazim also praised the Indian Military for its assistance in equipping and training the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF).

First case of piracy within Maldivian waters

The Maldives experienced the first confirmed case of piracy within its waters back in March 2012, when a Bolivian-flagged vessel headed for Iran was hijacked by Somali pirates.  The vessel was released a few days later.

MNDF Spokesperson Colonel Abdul Raheem at the time confirmed that the vessel was hijacked about 190 nautical miles Northwest of Hoarafushi island in Haa Alif Atoll.

The vessel was identified on Somalia Report as the Iranian-owned MV EGLANTINE, with 23 crew members on board. The vessel, which has previously been named the Bluebell and the Iran Gilan, is owned by Darya Hafiz Shipping.

The Maldives’ government first expressed concern over the growing piracy threat in 2010 after small vessels containing Somali nationals began washing up on local islands. The castaways were given medical treatment and incarcerated while the government negotiated their repatriation.

Somali Pirates

In March 2012, 40 Somali castaways in the custody of Maldives authorities refused to return home despite arrangements that were made for their safe repatriation.

The government had at the time identified and obtained passports for the detainees and arranged a charter flight for their return to Somalia, confirmed a senior government official who worked on the case.  However, the source claimed that the government was unable to deport the foreign nationals against their will.

Refugees cannot be repatriated without consent under international conventions to which the Maldives is signatory, leaving the Maldives no legal recourse but to sign international conventions on the rights of refugees and migrant workers and their families and accept the Somali nationals as refugees.

In a special report on piracy in December 2010, Minivan News cited a European piracy expert who noted that increased policing of waters at a high risk of piracy was forcing pirates deeper and deeper into the Indian Ocean.

“We believe that this trend is due to the fact that the pirates are following the vessels – as merchant ships increase their distance from Somalia in order to feel ‘safer’, the pirates follow them resulting in attacks much farther east than ever before,” the expert said at the time.

An American luxury passenger line en route to the Seychelles in January was stranded in the Maldivian waters due to an alleged “piracy risk”, while the passengers departed to the Seychelles through airline flights.

Secretary General of Maldives Association of Yacht Agents (MAYA), Mohamed Ali, told Minivan News at the time that the passenger line had arrived on December 29 and was scheduled to leave the same day after a brief stop near Male’.

However, he said the cruise captain had decided not to leave with the passengers on board due to “security reasons”, as there have been several attacks by pirates near the Seychelles.

According to the government, the proposed bill if passed would pave way to deal with the matter easily and efficiently.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)