Author: Mohamed Naahee

“Yameen and myself are the two likely candidates in PPM primary”: Umar Naseer

Interim Deputy Leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has said that he and Parliamentary Group Leader MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom are the most likely candidates to contest the party’s primary elections scheduled for February 2013.

The presidential Primary of the PPM is scheduled to take place after its congress.  Since its formation in October 2011, the government-aligned PPM has postponed its national congress on three occasions, despite having a charter of regulations stipulating that a congress must be held within six months of registration.

In October this year, local daily Haveeru reported that that the party cited “political turmoil” as the reason for the delays.

Naseer’s remarks about standing in the upcoming party primaries comes at a time when current interim leader of PPM, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, has also highlighted the possibility of his running for re-election.

Both Naseer and Yameen Abdul Gayoom was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom told Indian newspaper The Hindu yesterday (December 11) that he may consider contesting in a presidential election presently expected to be held in August or September next year.

“Things change very frequently. So I am keeping my options open,” Gayoom was quoted as saying. “[If I run] it won’t be out of my choice, if ever, it will be out of compulsion. Because I feel I have served the country for 30 years and I feel it is up to other people [now].” Gayoom reiterated that he preferred not to run.

Speaking to local Newspaper Haveeru about the comments, Umar Naseer said that Gayoom had the right to contest for re-election in the next presidential elections – a decision he believed would make the country’s former autocratic ruler the “obvious top candidate” to finish the race.

“I would definitely back Gayoom if he is to contest the elections. He is our ‘ace of spades’. You cannot say that the ace of spades is not the ace of spades,” he said.

Naseer suggested that if Gayoom ruled out his intention to “come back to power”, it would undermine potential public excitement ahead of the primary vote.

“If he says he won’t contest the elections that would mean the ace of spades becoming two of diamonds, doesn’t it?” he added.

Umar Naseer previously contested the 2008 presidential election under the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) and was defeated after winning just 1.39 percent of the vote in the first round – a total of 2,472 votes. Following the defeat, Naseer at the time refused to support another candidate.

President Waheed

Local media and senior politicians have previously speculated that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan could also be a potential PPM candidate to stand in next year’s general elections.

However, Gayoom, in his most recent interview with the Hindu newspaper, suggested that such a development could only happen if the president joined his party.

Gayoom has previously welcomed the prospect of President Waheed competing in a primary for the party’s ticket.

“The president, or anyone else, can join PPM if they want, and if they win the [party’s] primary, they will become our presidential candidate,” he said at the time.

PPM Deputy Naseer has himself echoed similar sentiments about the possibility of the president standing for the PPM whilst speaking at a rally in May.  The comments were made despite previous statements that President Waheed would not stand for re-election.

“Second term”

President Waheed himself, in an interview given to the Hindu, said that he was “contemplating” running for a “second term” in office, but said that a final decision on the matter would be taken at a later date.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed – who defeated Gayoom in the 2008 presidential election with 54 percent of the vote to Gayoom’s 45 percent – said at a rally last month that he believed President Waheed will become PPM’s presidential candidate with Gayoom’s backing.

Nasheed alleged that his former vice president held secret consultations with the PPM figurehead before the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7.

“Dr Waheed has been scheming with President Maumoon for about two years, that I know of,” he said. “Sometimes in an uninhabited island in Baa Atoll, other times in Alivaage [Gayoom’s former residence]. They have been discussing and talking in different places. Anyone who thinks of carrying out a coup d’etat will know that one thing you need for it is a disloyal vice president.”

Uncertainty remains over what potential plans President Waheed may have for the elections presently scheduled for next year.

President of the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) Sheikh Imran Abdulla has previously called on all government-aligned political parties to unite and back a single candidate, preferably President Waheed as an ‘umbrella-candidate’.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court issues injunction to withhold no confidence vote on president

The Supreme Court has issued an injunction ordering parliament to withhold the impending no-confidence motions against both Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim and President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

The ruling was made after a case concerning the legality of the no confidence motions had been filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer Mohamed ‘Wadde’ Waheed Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court in its injunction today ordered parliament to withhold the no-confidence motion until it could decide on the legality of the matter after looking into the “necessary constitutional principles that had to be followed”.

Earlier this month, Ibrahim filed the case in the Supreme Court contending that the parliament’s decision to make impeachment votes a secret ballot was unlawful.

Speaking to local media after filling the case, Ibrahim said that Article 85 of the constitution clearly articulates that a session of parliament can only be held in ‘closed doors’ only if the issue debated in parliament concerns the national security of the state and if not the sessions should be held open to public.

He said therefore parliament does not have the authority to come to a decision outside its jurisdiction laid down in the constitution and sought the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision.

No-confidence motion

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had proposed a no-confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in October 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 impacting 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 this 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).

Legality of two DRP seats

Meanwhile, Ibrahim has also raised doubts over the legality of the secret ballot decision, claiming it was passed by the votes cast by two DRP MPs Ahmed Nashiz and Ali Azim, whose seats he claimed were in question.

JP’s Policy and Legal Committee member Mohamed Haleem Ali had previously filed a case in the Supreme Court asking it to rule the concerned parliamentarians “unfit to stay in their elected seats” over the Bank of Maldives (BML)’s foreclosure on their loans.

“The Civil Court’s ruling number 935 of 2009 asks them to pay back the debts to BML. They didn’t. So I have submitted this case in accordance with subclause one of Article 73(c) and 74 of the constitution,” Haleem said at the time.

Subclause 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution of the Maldives states that a candidate for membership or a sitting member of the parliament would be disqualified if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as per court rulings.

Article 74 states that any question concerning the qualifications or removal of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.

Both MPs Nashiz and Azim were elected to parliament in 2009 general elections, the same year in which the civil court ordered them to pay the BML debts. The case was accepted by Supreme Court on December 10.

Supreme Court decision ‘void ab initio’: Ibra

Following the decision, former MP and Chair of Drafting Committee of Constitutional Assembly (Special Majlis) Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail stated that the decision was “void ab initio” (void from the beginning).

“They cannot suspend the decisions of the parliament. Parliament should not adhere to the decisions of Supreme Court,” he said.

“Parliament is free to conduct its business anyway they want to. Only the public can reprimand the parliament,” he added.

Counsel General of Parliament Fathimath Filza and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at time of press.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In a previous bid, the Supreme Court issued an order quashing the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognize the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Supreme Court in the order stated that while the Maldivian constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“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,” it added.

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

“[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 yesterday.

“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)

Male’ City Council clashes with STELCO over permit issue

The State Electric Company (STELCO) has claimed it is facing difficulties in providing its services to certain parts of Male’ following the city council’s decision not to issue it with permits to carry out work, according to local media.

In a press conference held yesterday, STELCO Deputy Managing Director Mohamed Latheef said it had been informed by Male’ City Council (MCC) that the company was to temporarily cease providing services such as digging up roads in the capital as of December 5, Haveeru reported (Dhivehi).

Latheef said the company had since been facing difficulties in providing electricity services to parts of Male’ as a result of the MCC’s stance.

Disputes between STELCO and the MCC started after the state electricity provider began providing electricity to several locations in Male’ without the permission of the city council.

According to Latheef, the properties affected had been previously taken from the city council by the Housing Ministry.

“As the nature of the services provided by this company are such that we require the assistance and cooperation of the municipal service provider of the state, and because Male’ City Council has currently ceased providing its services, the subsequent result is that the company is now unable to provide certain public services,” he said.  “Some of the services that require the permission of the city council include digging street sides, laying cables and certain tasks that require the roads to be closed off.”

STELCO Engineer Ibrahim Naashid said during the same press conference said that the state-owned company was receiving about 15 requests per day to connect electricity, but was unable to do so as a result of the city council’s decision earlier this month.

“On an average, we were unable to provide electricity service to 15 parties in the last three to four days. However, not all premises require the digging of roads to provide electricity cables, so we have provided electricity to some premises through our distribution box that have been previously installed. But if digging the road is required to provide the service, it is impossible to give the service now,” Naashid said.

Nashid explained that the company was required to obtain a permit from the city council to lay cable even in an emergency power outage, resulting in huge difficulties for the company in the present situation.

“Earlier, it is possible for us not to immediately get a permit from the city council in an odd time like midnight hours, but we do inform their supervisors and those responsible in maintaining the roads. If it’s a difficult time like midnight hours, we carry out the work and inform them the next day,” he explained.

However, Naashid affirmed that the company would still carry out its work in providing their service to the people in case of emergencies regardless of the views that the city council may hold.

Latheef claimed the company had held several discussions with the MCC, the most recent of which took place Sunday (December 9).  However, the MCC was said to have remained unwilling to reverse their decision.

Latheef added that the company was in discussion with relevant government authorities and would be considering legal action against the MCC if deemed necessary.

Male’ City Council responds

In a response to STELCO’s claims, the MCC in a letter seen by local media, warned the state-owned electricity provider that it would take “harsh” action if any service was provided to the “people” without its permission.

The city council said STELCO was failing to abide by laws and regulations, as well ignoring two different letters sent to the company advising it to comply with such requests.  The MCC stated that it had not received any response to its letters.

The letter signed by Deputy Mayor Shamah Rasheed and addressed to Managing Director of STELCO Dr Mohamed Zaid stated that it was the responsibility of the MCC to enter into agreements with parties and carry out business transactions.  The MCC said such transactions were to be carried out in accordance with policies set by government authorities that outline the provision of basic services such as water, electricity and sewerage services to the people as stipulated under the Decentralization Act.

Deputy Mayor Shamah, MCC councillor Mohamed Abdul Kareem and STELCO’s Managing Director Dr Zaid were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Fallout with Housing Ministry

The MCC is also involved in an ongoing dispute with the Housing Ministry over the ownership of several areas in Male’, which have now been taken over by Housing Ministry.

In an announcement, the Housing Ministry has said that the city council’s opening of bidding for development projects of several areas of Male was against state regulations. The announcement was made after the city council open requests for bids to develop Male’ southern harbour and a part at Alimas Ufaa Carnival.

The Housing Ministry has contended that the MCC did not have any legal authority to open bidding process of the areas and that it would not be responsible for pecuniary or any other damage suffered by groups who submit bids for the development of the regions.

Despite the remarks made by the Home Ministry, MCC member Ibrahim Shujau told local media outlet Sun Online that the council believed that the Alimas Ufaa area was legally under the council’s jurisdiction.  He contended that efforts to develop a park in the area would go ahead.

The MCC on Sunday (December 9) took the matter to the parliament, where it had requested for assistance in resolving the matter.

Speaking to local media, Shujau said that the council had filed the issue with parliament after seeing that it could not carry out its work with Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muizz in the position. He added that the case had been filed with Parliament’s Government Oversight Committee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Not afraid to die from the first bullet shot” – Nasheed calls to topple government from the streets

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has said his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was now preparing to topple the current government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in a street rebellion.

Nasheed made the remarks in a rally held Sunday (December 9) on Ihavandhoo in Haa Alif Atoll during the MDP’s campaign trip ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (Journey of pledges).

The government has meanwhile dismissed the former president’s comments, accusing him of trying to generate media attention for himself, rather than mounting a serious threat to President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s administration.

Speaking to his supporters yesterday, Nasheed declared that he was “not afraid to die from the first bullet shot” by forces defending President Waheed’s government in the event of any proposed rebellion.

The former president claimed he had attempted diplomacy, while also being very patient since February’s controversial transfer of power.

However, he contended that all efforts undertaken by the party to help the country in its commitments to becoming a democracy were going astray.

Nasheed claimed that the MDP had previously avoided raising the idea of toppling the government from the streets, not because it was impossible, but rather that the party was waiting to do so with the spirit of the people.

“We waited till today not because it is not possible [to topple the government from the street].  [The MDP] wanted this to be a people’s movement that is built upon the views of the people,” he said.

Nasheed also expressed scepticism towards the current government’s commitment to hold free and fair elections and added that his party is not in the mood to hold “discussions” or “please” anyone.

He alleged the current government was not willing to hold a free and fair presidential election next year, adding that the majority of the Maldivian people now believed that the government was desperate to find a way to bar him from contesting the elections.

“There are no courts we could go to seek free and fair elections and justice. There is nobody we could go to and hold discussions on the matter. What is left with us is the people who are determined to not to give up,” he said.

Nasheed repeated his claim that the current government was illegitimate and had taken power through a “coup d’eat”.  Such a government, he said, would not be very committed to serving justice to the people.

Nasheed also challenged the military to load their arms if they have the courage to do so when he and “the people” take the matter to the street.

“MDP have gone beyond fear and [President] Waheed and Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz would know how the MDP have evolved,” he said.

The MDP presidential candidate also claimed that he would bring the matter to the attention of the world and said that neighbouring Sri Lanka and India would also be observing the issue.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said “it is not surprising to see MDP taking such a stand”.

“You would know, on February 8 – just a day after the coup – the MDP National Council declared that what happened on February 7 was coup, and the current government took power illegitimately. We have never changed that stand,” he said.

Hamid said the MDP had tried very hard to find a solution from the negotiation table but all its attempts had so far ended fruitlessly. Therefore, Hamid claimed the party had decided it was high time that the people of this state resort to “direct action” to seek a solution.

Minivan News understands that an urgent National Council meeting was scheduled right after president Nasheed made the remarks during the rally.

Media attention

However, President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad has claimed that Nasheed’s speech was merely an attempt to garner media attention rather than credibly challenge the government.

“Seriously, I don’t think it’s a matter of concern, I would rather not comment on the matter,” he told Minivan News.  “This guy is going around saying these things trying to get media attention.”

When asked about Nasheed’s allegations that the government was also attempting to stymie his attempts to run for re-election in 2013 by making him face a criminal trial, Masood added that the government was “committed to working within the framework of the law.”

“We have never once stepped outside of the law in the last seven months,” he said. “The road was tiring and long, but we walked it anyway and this should be reason enough both nationally and internationally to make people believe that we will walk that extra mile.”

Nasheed is currently facing trial over his role in the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The government has previously distanced itself from any decision to arrest former President Nasheed, maintaining that any legal action taken against him would be done so by the country’s police and judicial authorities.

The Maldives judiciary is one of the areas highlighted as being in need of institutional reform, according to the the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI).  The CNI report, released earlier this year, concluded that the Waheed administration had come to power legitimately during February’s controversial transfer of power.

The MDP has previously said it holds severe structural concerns about the CNI’s conclusions, but accepted the report had provided a “way forward” to push for institutional reform in areas such as defence and the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP will not back “personal and emotional” no-confidence vote against defence chief: MP Mausoom

The Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom has stated that there is no ‘spirit’ within his party to support the no-confidence motion against Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim.

Mausoom said although the DRP would support no-confidence motions against cabinet ministers where it thought such actions were justified, he believed the party would not back the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in trying to remove Nazim as defence chief as part of a “personal vendetta”.

In opposing the motion filed by the MDP, the MP said that while not speaking officially on behalf of the DRP whip line, he was nonetheless expressing the views of party members and MPs.

MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor stated that the MDP did not wish to make a comment on Mausoom’s remarks but said that it was rather “surprising” for a person in such a high position to “speculate on a party’s whip line”.

“We would really like to see DRP follow a strict recipe rather than a random salad in their whip line. They ought to be clear of what their stand is,” Hamid added.

However, Mausoom dismissed Hamid’s statement, claiming that the MDP’s no -confidence motion against Defence Minister Nazim had been forwarded for “personal and emotional” reasons. The Kelaa constituency MP added that the DRP would not assist anyone in settling personal scores.

“The DRP believe that we have had enough of President Gayoom and President Nasheed. We are not in the mood to support anything that is not in the interest of this nation,” he told Minivan News.

Mausoom contended that MDP would not be able to pass such “personal-vendetta based motions” and repeated his claim that the motion lacked sufficient grounds to support its cause.

“DRP would not be reluctant to support a no-confidence motion of a cabinet minister if there are sufficient grounds to pass a no-confidence motion. We would vote anyone out if we had to, but not on personal grounds,” he said.

Asked if his comments were influenced by some DRP MPs and councillors quitting the party over its recent stand in supporting a decision to take an impeachment vote against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan via secret ballot, Mausoom denied the suggestion.

DRP MPs Mohamed Hussain and Ali Saleem announced in the media that they have quit DRP over the party’s stand on the vote to make impeachment vote a secret ballot. The parliament passed the motion by a 41 to 34 majority after several DRP MPs chose to vote with the opposition in favour of the motion.

“Recent events that took place did not affect DRP. We have not got any reports that DRP councillors are quitting the party. It is just PPM councillors who had been working in the name of DRP that are leaving the party following the recent Supreme Court ruling,” he explained.

The Supreme Court recently struck down a clause in Decentralisation Act that barred councillors who had been elected under a party ticket from defecting to another party while in office.

“We believe that the current constitutional system greatly distinguishes the threshold of power between the executive and the parliament. We will not support motions to remove cabinet ministers for personal vendettas, because we believe that it is a duty of all political parties to safeguard the democratic values in the constitution,” he added.

Speaking yesterday to local media, Mausoom stressed that his party would aim to leave behind the country’s political past.

“The parliament has done a lot of things with regard to the emotional sentiments of 30 years [of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom] and three years [of former President Mohamed Nasheed]. Several bills, resolutions and cases have been filed. Lots of time has been wasted. DRP will not support any such thing submitted to parliament, be it PPM or MDP,” he said

Mausoom also warned the MDP of an impending “humiliation” should the main opposition party continue its pursuit of the defence minister’s dismissal.

“If the MDP parliamentarians do not want be humiliated in the parliament floor, if they do not wish to upset their grass root members, I call upon the party to withdraw the no-confidence motion filed against Defence Minister Nazim,” he said.

Mausoom, who previously served in the position of Tourism Minister during the Gayoom era, added that the no-confidence motion lacked a rationale in proposing to impeach the cabinet minister, alleging that the MDP sought to intimidate the government.

“The real motive of the MDP in filing the no confidence motion is to intimidate the government and to waste the time of parliament,” he said.

Mausoom stated that despite his remarks, the party had not yet decided on the matter. However, he claimed that the “general conscience” of the members of his party was “not in favour of impeaching Nazim”.

“Desperate attempt to weaken the government” – Defence Minister Nazim

The opposition MDP filed a no-confidence motion against the Defence Minister last Thursday, alleging he had misused his authority as the Acting Transport Minister by using the military to influence termination of civil contracts involving the government outside of due legal procedure.

The motion followed the government’s decision to void the agreement between itself and Indian infrastructure giant GMR over developing Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

Defence Minister Nazim, who temporarily took over the transport ministry following the sacking of former Transport Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed, played a pivotal role in the eviction of GMR agreement.

In a brief interview given to local media following the MDP’s decision to push a no-confidence motion against him, Nazim stated that move was a “desperate” attempt to weaken the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

“I believe such votes are taken to weaken this government. I do not believe such votes or motions could weaken this government. I believe the current government is very firm and united. There is a very strong between the partners of the government coalition; therefore I must say they won’t be able to succeed in such votes. This government is functioning far better than that,” he told local media outlet Sun Online.

Nazim also contended he had not done anything for which the opposition should impeach him, adding that his appointment to cabinet was unanimously decided by parties in the coalition government.

The defence minister also expressed confidence that the parliament members from government-aligned parties would defend him in a vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared that the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The decision has ramifications for the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who is facing charges of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office. Nasheed and his party disputed the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, which was formed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and which appointed the panel of judges hearing Nasheed’s case. The JSC includes two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents.

Out of the seven member Supreme Court bench, four judges ruled in favor of the court’s legitimacy while three judges including the Chief Justice had opposed it. The other two judges were Judge Abdulla Areef and Judge Mu’uthazim Adnan.

The four judges who ruled in favor of the court were Judge Abdulla Saeed, Judge Ali Hameed Abdulla, Judge, Judicial Service Commission (JSC) President Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Judge Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi.

The Supreme Court majority ruling stated that despite Hulhumale being mentioned as part of capital Male’ City in the Decentralisation Act, Hulhumale was an “island” with a large population and therefore, having no division of a superior court on that island and if not for the presence of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, its inhabitants would have to travel to another island in order to get justice. Therefore it declared Hulhumale Magistrate Court as legitimate.

Supreme Court also declared that Hulhumale’ is a separate island in Male’ division, even though the law recognises Hulhumale as a part of Male’ City.

The three dissenting judges, having taken different legal arguments, mutually agreed that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court could not be legally established.

All three judges had unanimously agreed that courts should be established through legislation and that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court was not established in accordance with the Judicature Act.

The case was filed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the respondent of the case was decided as lawyer Ismail Wisham.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team also sought to intervene in the court case. Nasheed’s lawyers stated that the case involved the interests of the former president as his case regarding the detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is being looked by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Disregard to principle of bias

During the first hearings, the former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, who was representing the respondent raised procedural points whereby he argued that Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla could not sit on the bench since he was also the President of the JSC, which therefore amounted to “presumption of bias”.

However, the Supreme Court rejected the procedural points.

Following today’s decision, Suood in a tweet described the decision as a “case of actual bias” with regard to his previous arguments in court.

“A case of actual bias because JSC would [have] lost the case without the vote of JSC president: 3 for 3 against, casting vote by JSC [president]” – Husnu Al Suood tweeted

Meanwhile, MDP MP and Lawyer Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy criticised the Supreme Court decision and echoed similar sentiments.

“The suspect sitting on [Supreme Court] bench today killed and buried in Maldives the very basis for the rule against bias! That’s solid murder!” he tweeted.

Arguments

During the hearing, the respondents argued that according to the existing law, there were no legal basis to support the legal existence of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had been formed in contradiction to the constitution and the Judicature Act article 53.

Judicature Act Article 53(e) states that if four divisions of the four superior courts are established in one island, then “the magistrate court of that island will be abolished. And if a division from among the four courts is established in an island, matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant court shall be carried out by the relevant division and not by the magistrate court.”

The respondent’s lawyer claimed that with reference to the constitution and the Decentralisation Act, it was clear that Hulhumale’ and Villimale are now considered as a part of Male’ even though they are geographically two islands, therefore a magistrate court cannot be set up in any of the islands which under the law are now considered wards.

The intervening Nasheed’s lawyers also echoed the remarks on the case. Nasheed’s lawyers requested a period of three days to research the documents – which they claimed to have only received just a few minutes before the hearing – but were denied the opportunity.

The JSC lawyers who filed the case argued that Hulhumale’ and Villimale were only considered as a part of Male’ for administrative purposes and that this argument did not have any legal basis. Therefore, they stated, Hulhumale’ should be “judicially” considered a separate island.

The lawyers also claimed that the court was set up with the intention of providing easy access to justice for the people of Hulhumale. They also claimed that according to the Judicature Act article 66, each island must have a magistrate court and that prior to the passing of the Act, the court had been functioning as an island court.

The artice 66 states – “A Magistrate Court shall be established in all inhabited islands with the exception of Male’ where there are the four superior courts created in accordance with Article 53(b) of this Act and in an island where four divisions of these four superior courts are established in accordance with Article 53 (c) of this Act.”

Responding to the claims of the JSC, the respondents stated that based on the documents presented to the court, the Hulhumale court was formed to function as a section of Civil Court and Family Court prior to the passing of the Judicature Act.

The added that only island courts were to be declared as magistrate courts according to the judicature act and since Hulhumale Court was a section of the superior courts, it cannot be declared as a magistrate court according to the Judicature Act.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decision on the matter is followed by its previous order invalidating the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In the order, the Supreme Court ordered not to meddle with the business of the courts by other institutions of the state stating that the country’s constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“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,” it added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Afrasheem’s murder was well planned, worth MVR 4 million, claims Police Commissioner

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has claimed that the murder of MP for Ungoofaaru constituency Dr Afrasheem Ali was a well planned murder worth MVR 4 million (US$260,000).

In a press conference held on Tuesday to brief the media about the high profile murder case, Riyaz stated that the new revelations came made amidst several difficult challenges for police investigators.

The commissioner claimed that the investigation team included consultants from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and 80 police officers including forensic, multimedia and legal experts. He added that this was the first case that had been worked on by such a large criminal investigation team.

In a presentation shown during the press conference, Riyaz claimed that 11 suspects were initially arrested, however three had now been released. He added that about 200 items had been analysed as evidence, including forensic and digital evidence, which he claimed was enough to prosecute the prime suspects.

“Over 500 hours of CCTV footage have been analysed, more than a hundred people have been interviewed and about 13,000 phone call recordings have been analysed out of which 12,000 were from one single tower,” Riyaz said.

Afrasheem’s movements right before the murder

The commissioner claimed that Afrasheem was last seen alive inside the premises of the state broadcaster, Television Maldives (TVM). The presentation suggested that Afrasheem was seen leaving the premises in his car around 11:04pm, according to the nearby CCTV camera footage.

Afrasheem left the station after participating in a religious TV program called “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Life), with Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Qubad Aboobakuru.

In his last words, aired on the show, Afrasheem said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed was quoted in local media as saying that the Islamic Ministry had not forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything during his last television appearance and disputed that there was any religious motivation in the death of the moderate scholar.

Photo snaps taken from several CCTV cameras suggested that he had passed the Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) building, the Bank of Maldives (BML) building and Raalhugandu Area, all of which are located in the outermost road of Male, Boduthakurufaanu Magu, police claimed.

Afrasheem had parked his car just a few metres from his residence and had entered it at about approximately 12:04am, police said. The murder occurred just a few minutes later, police alleged.

Afrasheem’s body was discovered by his wife at the bottom of the stairs of their apartment building shortly after midnight.

According to the presentation, the first few police officers arrived at the scene at about 1:30am, exactly one and a half hour later. A second police jeep arrived soon afterwards.

Riyaz stated that following the report of the incident, all police officers patrolling in the capital were brought to alert and were ordered to focus on finding anyone that was acting suspiciously.

Minivan News journalists on the night of the incident observed that police officers in Specialist Operations (SO) uniform entering several coffee shops including Sea House Café’, however no one was seen being arrested.

The Police Commissioner claimed that the first suspect was arrested at 1:55am, just 20 minutes after the incident was reported.

Police also revealed the identities of two suspects arrested in connection with the murder case: Hussen Humaam Ahmed and Ali Shaan, while a 17 year-old minor was also arrested on suspicion of assisting the murder.

Commissioner Riyaz expressed confidence in prosecuting the suspects stating that the police had “enough evidence” to prove all of them guilty. He added that the cases of the suspects would be sent to the Prosecutor General (PG)’s office by the end of this week.

“Political motive behind the murder” – Commissioner of Police

Commissioner of Police alleged that sum of MVR 4 million (US$260,000) was to be paid for the murder of the MP, which he alleged involved a political motive.

“This is an act of terrorism and the people behind this are politicians,” Riyaz claimed.

He alleged that two suspects had been arrested for supposedly financing of the murder, but declined to reveal their identities claiming that the investigation was still ongoing.

He also said that  police had concluded the first part of the investigation which involved identifying who had been directly involved in murdering the MP, and how it was carried out.

“We have been able to establish who did this. We have been able to establish how this happened. The next thing is to find out who was behind this,” he said.

The commissioner also dismissed the rumours that the murder was linked to religious fundamentalists, stating “no evidence has been gathered suggesting that this murder was carried out for a religious motive.”

He further claimed that the findings of the investigation were based on fact and solid evidence and not were intended to create political leverage against the political rivals of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

Riyaz claimed that the prime suspects involved in the murder were from a local gang named ‘Kuda Henveiru’ (Little Henveiru-ward), whose members had previously been involved in several criminal activities.

“The findings reveal that a dangerous trend of ‘killing for money’ is growing within our society. I call upon businessmen and politicians to not to pay money to young people to conduct criminal activities for their benefit,” he said.

Riyaz added that new cases of criminal activities were being revealed through the investigation and that such cases would be dealt with firmly.

Despite repeated questions from journalists as to what the “political motive” involved, Riyaz at first responded stating that he could not go into the details of the case, but later said that police were able comprehend a picture out of its findings but said this needed to be “verified”.

“Zero tolerance”

Riyaz called on parliament members to not to hesitate in giving more powers to the police and said that such vast powers were required to curb growing criminal activities within Maldivian society.

“I know that members of the parliament are hesitant to grant more powers to the police because of the political views they hold. But we need stricter laws to stop such acts from happening. Hesitance to grant more powers isn’t a solution for police discrepancies. Powers should be granted and at the same time they can establish a proper accountability mechanism,” he said.

The commissioner said that police would have “zero tolerance” towards criminals and would utilise all powers and resources at hand in preventing crimes.

“That means, we will not allow a drunkard to freely wander around the street. Police officers will question suspicious people on the road and they have been given the order to stop and search anyone who they feel is suspected of  being a criminal or carrying out a crime,” he said.

He added that special measures have been taken and orders have been given to SO officers to do “crime patrolling” throughout the capital city 24 hours a day.

Riyaz also expressed concern over former President Mohamed Nasheed’s latest remarks in which the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate suggested that Afrasheem’s were foreigners and had fled the country after committing the crime.

“We have no evidence that suggesting the murder was carried out by foreigners. It is really concerning when such remarks are made for political gain,” Riyaz said.

High profile murder

MP Afrasheem was brutally stabbed to death on the night of October 1, outside his home.

Local media reports suggested that the MP was stabbed four times in the back of the head and a chunk of his skull was missing, and that he also suffered stab wounds to the chest and neck. The MP was rushed to ADK hospital where he was pronounced dead.

He was buried shortly before 5:00pm the following day at the Asahara cemetery in Male’.

Thousands gathered for the funeral prayers which took place in the Islamic Centre. The prayers were led by former President and leader of Afrasheem’s party, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Initially, four suspects were arrested by police in connection to the murder and the Criminal Court extended the detention period of the arrestees by an additional 15 days.

However, a female suspect arrested – Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activist Mariyam Naifa – was given a conditional release on October 21 while the detention of the remaining two suspects were extended for another 15 days.

Another suspect was also arrested later in November, after police claimed he was wearing the same coloured shirt as someone caught on CCTV footage near the area where Afrasheem was murdered.

Dr Afrasheem was elected to parliament in 2009 as a member of the then-opposition Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP). Following the opposition’s split, Afrasheem sided with the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and faded into the political background.

Widely considered an Islamic moderate, Dr Afrasheem took outspoken and controversial positions on issues such as the permissibility of playing music, and praying next to the deceased.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court invalidates anti-defection clause in Decentralisation Act

The Supreme Court has on Tuesday invalidated clause 119(e) of the Decentralization Act, which had prevented a councilor from switching political parties after he was elected.

The clause was brought into force following an amendment proposed to the Act on January 2011.

The Supreme Court’s seven-member bench held that the concerned clause contradicted the articles 30(a) and 26(c) of the constitution.

The case was filed by Independent MP and lawyer Ibrahim Riza and Lawyer Ahmed Shaheem who argued that the clause was unconstitutional. Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar also intervened in the case.

The article 119(b) of the Decentralisation Act states: “Those elected under a ticket from a political party shall lose his seat if he leaves or he is removed from the party he was when elected.”

The new verdict by the Supreme Court will mean that councilors can now switch from party to party without losing their seat.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed ratified the act on May 2010 but rejected a complementary bill on local council elections.

Nasheed at the time said that his then Attorney General (AG) Husnu Suood advised the president’s office that although the decentralization bill would not hamper the implementation of government policies, some provisions were “legally questionable.”

“If the bill becomes law, both the attorney general and this office has noted that there could be legal problems in enforcing it without amendments,” he told the press.

He echoed similar sentiments on the bill in his weekly radio address at the time where he stated that he would sign the bill into law despite misgivings as any further delays would do “more harm than good”.

“I hope that after I ratify this bill, amendments will be made as soon as possible, within the present framework, to change the provisions where these conflicts could arise,” he said at the time.

Although then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) removed the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s concept of provinces from the government’s bill, Nasheed said the Act did not prohibit the creation of province as it stipulates that new legislation would be needed to form “province councils.”

Despite opposition from MPs in opposition claiming that grouping atolls into seven provinces was unconstitutional as 21 administrative areas or atolls were clearly specified in the constitution, Nasheed later established provinces in an administrative level.

The bill was subjected to several amendments and court cases.

Last August, the Supreme Court ruled that provisions of the Decentralisation Act were not in conflict with the constitution.

In March 2011, former State Minister for Home Affairs Mohamed ‘Monaza’ Naeem filed a case at the apex court arguing that some provisions of the Act contradicted the unitary nature of the Maldivian state as laid out in the constitution, and requested the conflicting articles be struck down.

Naeem had argued that the Local Government Authority (LGA) created by the Decentralisation Act was not answerable to any government minister while article 140 of the constitution states – “A member of the cabinet shall be given responsibility for each authority or institute established by the government or the People’s Majlis, except for independent institutions specified in this constitution or established pursuant law. Such member of the cabinet must take responsibility for the operation of such authority or institution and must be accountable for it.”

Previously, several councilors lost their seats following removal from their respective political parties.

In March this year, Noonu atoll Maafaru Island Councilor Anwar Abdul Ghanee lost his seat after he was removed from his party Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) but contested the by-elections with Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) ticket, winning the seat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police release two suspects in Afrasheem murder case

Police have released one man and a minor arrested in connection with the murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP and religious scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali.

Local newspapers have identified the man released as Ali Hashim ‘Smith’. Minivan News understands that a 17 year old boy was also  released last week, on condition that he not talk about the police investigation or face rearrest.

The Criminal Court extended the pretrial detention period of the suspects arrested in the Dr Afrasheem’s murder case.

Afrasheem was killed on October 1. His wife discovered the body lying on the staircase of their home.

Immediately prior to his murder Afrasheem had made his last public appearance on a live talkshow on TVM titled “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Living).

In his last words, Afrasheem said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed was quoted in local media as saying that the Islamic Ministry had not forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything during his last television appearance and disputed that there was any religious motivation in the death of the moderate scholar.

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) has sought assistance from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Singaporean police to analyse 200 items collected as evidence during the ongoing investigation.

Evidence gathered so far includes recordings of phone conversations, forensic samples and over 300 hours of CCTV footage, which were being analysed at the police forensic laboratory with the help of foreign experts.

Meanwhile, former President Mohamed Nasheed has publicly alleged that the people behind the MP’s murder have fled the country.

He made the remarks during a rally held in Haa Dhaal Atoll Vaikaradhoo Island in Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s ongoing campaign trip ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (Journey of Pledges).

Nasheed said that two foreign intelligence agencies had informed him that the murder of Afrasheem was related to an incident that took place in a neighboring country and that the culprits had fled to a Middle Eastern nation after murdering the Maldivian MP.

“According to information I received, the person who murdered Dr Afrasheem fled the country on the same night the murder took place. This murder is related to an incident that took place in a neighboring country. This is an international issue. I was informed of this by the intelligence agencies of two friendly states,” he said.

Nasheed expressed his disappointment over the senior officials of the current government, including cabinet ministers, who had politicised the case, accusing the MDP of murdering the MP for political gain.

Despite the allegations, Nasheed contended that his party would neither commit such a gruesome act nor use it for political gain. He also said that despite all the false allegations, the party had won twice the number of votes it did in 2009, during the recently held by-election to elect a parliamentarian to the vacant seat.

After rigorous campaigning, PPM candidate Ibrahim Ameen won the by-election 1159 votes in polling held on the islands of Ungoofaaru, Hulhuduffaaru, and Maakurathu, all in Raa Atoll, as well as a special polling station in Male’. He defeated MDP candidate Dr Ahmed Ashraf who had 1078 votes.

The former president meanwhile also alleged that the police were trying to force out a confession from those currently under arrested in connection with the murder. This confession, he said, would be used to hold trials against the suspects to cover up the real case. Nasheed said the suspects should not be tried on confessions extracted in such a manner.

“Trial should not be held based on confessions. I urge the police to properly investigate the case. But even as I say this, I know that [Commissioner of Police] Abdulla Riyaz does not have the capacity to do this. That is because he is busy defending this government that was brought in through a coup, instead of being concerned for the general well being of the public,” he said.

“Highly concerning” – Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed

Meanwhile, Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed expressed concern over Nasheed’s remarks and said his statements “needed to be included in the investigation”.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, Jameel claimed that Nasheed had been speaking about the murder differently in every island he had been visiting.  The Home Minister said that he felt that public remarks made on a case that is being investigated should be considered a criminal offence that needed to be addressed.

“From the day Afrasheem was murdered, the remarks made by Nasheed have been highly concerning. It is not a good thing for politicians to use the case for political influence. One should always consider the fact that it may involve a hidden motive,” he said.

“This not a practice that would be accepted anywhere in the world,” he added.

Jameel affirmed that Nasheed’s remarks which he claimed to have been following information from foreign intelligence agencies would be included in the murder investigations.  Jameel also called on him not to make  emarks that would hinder the ongoing murder investigations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)