Author: Mohamed Naahee

Jumhoree Party MP Abdulla Jabir jumps back to MDP, pledges to oust President Waheed

Ousted Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy leader and MP Abdulla Jabir has rejoined the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), pledging to oust President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

The MP for Kaashidhoo signed with MDP last night during the party’s ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (Journey of pledges) campaign tour near the island of Hulhudhufaaru in Raa Atoll.

After joining the MDP, Jabir told the local press that he had joined the party because he believed it was with MDP that he saw progress in politics. He also said that he would spend all his time committed to MDP and its success.

Jabir added that despite the MDP candidate losing the weekend’s by-election to a Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate, his joining the party meant an addition of one more parliamentary seat to MDP.

Meanwhile, MDP Parliamentary Group Leader MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih said the party was working to remove President Waheed and hold early elections, adding that the addition of MP Jabir to the parliamentary group would further this goal.

Jabir’s signing to MDP comes shortly after he was removed from the position of Deputy Leader of the JP in what he described as “a coup” within JP. All members aside from two voted in favor of Jabir’s removal from his position following the vote taken by the JP council.

Previously speaking during an MDP rally held on Ungoofaaru during by-election campaigning, Jabir announced his support for MDP’s campaign to oust President Waheed, and promised to contribute in his personal and financial capacity.

Speaking to Minivan News, Jabir said that he joined the MDP to support its fight against torture and police brutality and to support its democracy movement. He alleged that current government was indulging in acts of corruption and nepotism.

“What we see today is that Waheed’s government is resorting to brutality and torture is run like a corrupt and nepotistic regime that dishonors business agreements,” he said.

Asked why he had left MDP previously, Jabir stated that there was “no need to talk about the past”.

“What happened in the past should stay in the past. This is a new chapter. I look forward to work with the MDP parliamentary group to liberate this country from Waheed’s brutality and his corrupt government,” he said.

Antagonism towards Waheed’s government

Jabir became an outspoken critic of President Waheed after he was arrested from the inhabited island Hodaidhoo and alleged police brutality.

Those arrested included MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – along with former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant. The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said.

Recently, resorts owned by Jabir were issued with final warning notices for non-payment of rent. The move came days after he turned against the government, and was described by Jabir as the government’s effort to destroy a political opponent.

“I know following the recent political developments and due to my new opposition to the current government, [President] Waheed has now ordered the tourism minister to issue the repayment notice so as to threaten his political opponents,” declared Jabir.

“This is highly politically motivated. He knew I was the one behind submitting the amendment to parliamentary regulations to make the impeachment vote a secret ballot. It was I who in the first place drafted that amendment and gave it to MP Ahmed Amir. They know this but I will still continue to work for that,” he explained.

Since then, Jabir openly declared his support to MDP’s efforts to make parliamentary impeachment votes a secret ballot.

The first amendment proposed to the parliamentary regulations to bring the change by MDP was defeated on the parliament floor. However, a second amendment has been proposed and the parliament is to take a vote on the amendment on Monday.

Defection history

Jabir is well known for his frequent defections from party to party. His first political party was Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) during the presidency of Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom. He then joined former party of PPM Parliamentary Group leader MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom, the People’s Alliance (PA).

Jabir defected to the JP ahead of the 2008 presidential elections and backed JP leader and business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim.  Jabir was appointed as the party’s deputy leader.

He then went on to join the MDP and hold senior positions within the party. He also announced his intention to contest for the MDP chairmanship.

However, during the protests following the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed, Jabir once again declared that he had defected from MDP back to the JP.

In the meantime Jabir’s wife, former SAARC Secretary General Dhiyana Saeed, also resigned from her position in SAARC and joined the opposition movement against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Jabir became an MP after winning the by-election held to elect an MP to the vacant seat of Kaashidhoo constituency on a JP ticket. He was backed by President Waheed and a coalition of parties supporting his government.

THe PPM who initially had its own candidate for the election also backed Jabir.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: India’s inconsistent commitment to Maldivian democracy cost the GMR deal

The Maldives and India have always shared strong bilateral relations in terms of strategic, economical and military cooperation. The diplomatic bond has remained firm despite the vast difference between the two states in size, population and economy. India remains a major destination for many Maldivians who travel abroad for education, medical and business purposes.

A significant number of Maldivians reside in Indian cities such as Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Mysore and several others. Similarly, a large portion of the Maldives’ expatriate workforce including teachers, doctors, engineers and other technical expertise are Indians, who have contributed to the country’s economy.

If not for the timely decision by the Indian government to intervene, the 1988 terrorist attack on the Maldives’ national defense force base by the mercenaries of the Sri Lanka-based terrorist organisation People’s Liberation of Tamil Elam (PLOTE), would have cost the Maldivian people their civilian government.

19 Maldivians lost their lives, but if not for the successful ‘Operation Cactus’ led by the Indian armed forces, the death toll could have been more, and a possible military junta could have taken control over the affairs of the state. Neither the Maldives nor its history will forget this brotherly act by India that symbolised the strong bilateral bond between the two states.

However, India’s decision to recognise the regime that took charge of the country after it toppled the Maldives’ first democratically elected government on February 7 shocked many. Of course, it would have been completely irrational to expect another ‘Operation Cactus’, but on diplomatic grounds India could have done better.

Having had a diplomatic office established in the Maldives and the rebellion broadcast live on television, the decision showed India’s failure in grasping the local political environment of the country, despite it being a base to large Indian investments worth millions. This failure did not only bring dismay to the local populace, but to international spectators as well.

For instance, Indian journalist Sumon K Chakrabarti in his article in the South Asia Monitor described the misstep as India losing “the mango as well as the sack”.

“With lost credibility and a history of dumping friends – from Burma to Bangladesh and now Maldives, the reality is stark – India has, as the saying goes, lost the mango as well as the sack in the Maldives,” he wrote.

Another journalist, B Raman for the Eurasia Review, put it as “badly damaging” to India’s “traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes”.

He writes – “the government of India’s traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes in the Maldives has been badly damaged and a number of international actors from the UK, the US, the European Union and the United Nations have rushed to the Maldives to try their hand in internal peace-making, thereby marginalising the traditional role of India. Only China and Pakistan have not yet entered the political fray in the Maldives. If they do, that will be ultimate humiliation for Indian diplomacy at its southern door-step.”

For a regime installed through illegitimate means, an assent from the region’s major player would obviously be the perfect gift. A gift that took the country back three years  in terms democratic progress it achieved following the transition from a remorseless dictatorship. A gift that brought back the culture of state-sponsored torture, intimidation and harassment.

The accession of Vice-president Waheed Hassan resulted in a rudderless, clueless and mandate-less regime which neither entertained the popular support of the people nor had a contemplated plan to run the affairs of the state.

The unprecedented alteration to the dynamics of local politics saw the return of elements of past dictatorship back to power, which had previously been voted out in the country’s first free and fair presidential election in 2008.

Cabinet portfolios were divided among political parties with diverse political thinking, each of which had its own ambitions to come to power. Most of them do not carry any political weight or have any representation in parliament, including those with an religious element such as the Adhaalath Party.

Similarly ex-president Gayoom had his daughter and son appointed as state-minister level positions in the regime, much to the disappointment of those who had voted him out in 2008. But in Waheed’s words this was a “national unity government”.

A national unity government, whose elements while in opposition had made their antagonism towards Indian investments public, especially against infrastructure giant GMR, which was awarded a concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) but was declared an economic enslaver.

India should have foreseen the consequences its investments would later face in endorsing a regime consisting of elements that had previously shown its disapproval towards major Indian investments. India should have taken its time to assess the political situation of the country and should have confirmed the legitimacy of the controversial regime before accepting it.

However, failure to do so resulted in the scrapping of its single largest investment by the very government it had recognised.

India’s concerns over the Maldives should have come earlier. Not when senior officials of the regime it give assent to nine months previously mocked, insulted and even accused its High Commissioner of indulging in bribery. Not when its largest investment in the country was evicted. None of which would have taken place had India taken a ‘prevention than cure’ approach towards the Maldives.

One must hesitantly agree to the point raised by the very ambitious Special Advisor to Waheed, Dr Hassan Saeed in his ‘candid’ letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

He observes: “The Indian Foreign Secretary’s visit to our country in February [2012] failed to resolve the political crisis largely because India is no longer seen as a friendly and fair neighbour who could broker an honest and fair deal.”

Hailed as the world’s largest democracy, India’s inconsistency in its commitment towards democracy in the Maldives not only cost the eviction of its single largest investment in the country, but also gave rise to noisy anti-India rhetoric led by religious fundamentalists and politicians sided with the current regime.

In nine months time, the Maldives will hold its second multi-party presidential elections. Perhaps it these will be the country’s last chance in the near future to overcome what it lost in terms of democracy. It might also be a golden opportunity for India to reassure its commitment towards the democratic process of the country, by pressuring Waheed’s regime towards a free and fair ballot.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court overrules Parliament’s decision to invalidate Hulhumale Magistrate Court

The Supreme Court has issued an order invalidating the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing charges in the Hulhumale Court for the detention of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed during the final days of his administration.

The oversight committee this week declared the court illegitimate, claiming it lacked “constitutional and legal grounds” to support its legitimacy.

In an order, (No. 2012/SC-SJ/05) issued on November 28, the Supreme Court declared that no institution should meddle with the business of the courts, claiming that it held parental authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” and would not allow such “interference” to take place.

“Any action or a decision taken by an institution of the state that may impact the outcome of a matter that is being heard in a court of law, and prior to a decision by the courts on that matter, shall be deemed invalid, and [the Supreme Court] hereby orders that these acts must not be carried out,” the order read.

Though the order did not specifically mention the decision by the parliamentary oversight committee, it was issued shortly after the committee’s decision regarding the Hulhumale’ court.

Last Tuesday, the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee,following an issue presented by three sitting MPs, declared there were no “legal grounds” to accept the setting up and functioning of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court based on the powers vested to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) under article 159 of the constitution and article 21 of the Judicial Service Commission Act, and based on the articles 53 and 63 of Judicature Act.

The members of the committee claimed there was a lack of any legal reasoning to recommence the works of the concerned court after its work had been suspended for five months after the Judicature Act came to force.

Article 63 of the Judicature Act 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 4 divisions of these four superior courts are established in accordance with Article 53 (c) of this Act.”

However, the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee in its explanation of the decision stated that the exception of Male’ in the stated article included Hulhumale’, which for administrative purposes is considered a ward of the capital.  The committee argued Hulhumale’ could not be deemed as a separate island to establish a magistrate court.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In quashing the parliamentary committee’s decision, the Supreme Court 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.

Not meddling with business of courts – Deputy Chair of Independent Institutions Oversight Committee

Speaking to Minivan News, Deputy Chair of Independent Institutions Oversight Committee MP Ahmed Sameer said the committee was not meddling with the business of the courts, but addressing a constitutional violation carried out by the JSC in establishing an illegitimate court.

Sameer – who is also the deputy leader of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentary group – stated that it was a responsibility of the parliament to hold independent institutions and other bodies of the state accountable, and that his committee was mandated with the scrutiny of actions of independent institutions.

“Initially, when we summoned the JSC to the committee, they refused to talk to us or provide any information to the committee. However, from the documents that the committee received later, we found out that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed by the JSC which is a violation of the constitution and the laws,” he said.

Sameer argued that the constitution explicitly states that courts can only be formed by legislation and not “through a vote in the JSC”.

“The committee’s decision was made based on the findings of the inquiry. We have all the documents including the agendas of the meeting and the meeting minutes. It is clear that the JSC had formed and an act that is beyond the powers vested to the commission in the constitution and the JSC Act,” he added.

Sameer claimed that the decision by the committee was binding and no authority can overrule the decision.

“With the committee’s decision, we do not plan to give the budget to the court and works are underway to in drafting an amendment that would specifically state the courts that would be formed under the law,” he said.

Sameer added that the parliament will not tolerate any decision that undermines its constitutional powers and responsibilities.

Arrest of Judge Abdulla

The issue concerning Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s legitimacy came to limelight following the Prosecutor General (PG) filing criminal charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed for the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January  2012.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18, and the MNDF acknowledged receipt but did not reply to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Then Home Minister Hassan Afeef subsequently accused the judge of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Nasheed’s government subsequently requested assistance from the international community to reform the judiciary. Observing that judicial reform “really should come from the JSC”, Foreign Minister at the time, Ahmed Naseemm said that the JSC’s shortcomings “are now an issue of national security.”

The judicial crisis triggered 22 days of continuous protests led by senior opposition figures and those loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom, which eventually led to the controversial toppling of Nasheed’s administration on February 7.

The PG’s Office filed charges based on the investigations by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) on the arrest, which concluded that Nasheed was the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Along with Nasheed, the report concluded that the former president’s Defence Minister, Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, was a second key figure responsible with others including Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

Charges were also filed against all of those which the HRCM investigation report identified as responsible for the arrest in Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Hulhumale Magistrate Court and legitimacy

During the first hearing of the trial, ex-president Nasheed’s lawyers took procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the court, but were rejected without justification. Nasheed’s legal team’s appeal challenging the legitimacy was initially rejected by the High Court claiming that it cannot look into a matter that was already being heard in Supreme Court.

However, the High Court later granted Nasheed an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of the former president at the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.  The injunction is pending a ruling on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

Following the injunction, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases.

In its announcement, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Following the High Court’s injunction granted to Nasheed, the JSC filed a case in Supreme Court asking it to look into the legitimacy of the court. The Supreme Court then instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on the appeal.

Supreme Court had previously ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court on November 19, held the first hearing of the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and Ismail Visham was decided as the respondent of the case.

Nasheed’s legal team also intervened 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 heard by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, several prominent figures have raised doubts over the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, in an article in his personal blog stated – “The [Hulhumale’ court] was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any order or judgement issued by this court is questionable, and the constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.”

Ismail further writes that no court has the power, under any law, to issue a travel ban on a person without ever summoning them to court.

He also stated that there was ample to room to believe that the courts were acting with a bias against Nasheed, owing to a number of other politicians and business tycoons who were repeatedly defying court orders and summons.

Prominent lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – who is also the chair of Parliament’s Independent Oversight Committee – in his personal blog also echoed similar remarks explaining that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

However following the Supreme Court’s order, Nasheed told Minivan News said that he “wished to give a considered view soon” but refused to reveal a specific date by which he would respond.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Not the right time” to reveal the details of MP Afrasheem’s murder, says Police Commissioner

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz has stated that the Maldives Police Service (MPS) believes it is “not the right time” to reveal the details behind the brutal murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Afrasheem Ali.

In an interview given to local newspaper Haveeru this Sunday, the commissioner said that police would disclose the information only when it gained full “confidence” in the case and said investigations were still being carried out.

Riyaz claimed that the case was “high profile” and therefore a lot of things needed to be confirmed and validated before details were disclosed to the public.

“The investigation is going very well, and so far very successfully indeed. I will reveal the details of the case to the public. But I am not going to say it will happen on a specific date,” he said.

High profile murder

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

The MP who was a renowned religious scholar in the country, known for moderate views towards Islam – was found murdered after returning from an appearance on the “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Life) programme broadcast on state television. He had appeared on the show alongside Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Qubad Aboobakuru.

The 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 had also suffered stab wounds to the chest and neck. The MP was rushed to ADK hospital where he was pronounced dead.

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

Thousands gathered for the funeral prayers which took place at the Islamic Center. 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 for 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 colored shirt as someone caught on CCTV footage near the area where Afrasheem was murdered.

Police at the time stated that two US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials were providing “technical consultancy” in investigating the murder of the MP.

The MDP has since alleged that the arrests were politically motivated, expressing concerns that the “brutal murder of a respected and elected member of the Parliament” was potentially being used to frame political opponents.

In a press conference held on October 3, Assistant Commissioner of Police Hassan Habeeb dismissed the claims stating that they were “not arresting people based on their political affiliations.”

“Anybody who has compassion and magnanimity will not compete for Afrasheem’s seat” – Home Minister

Following the murder, Elections Commission (EC) announced that the by-election for MP Afrasheem’s seat would be held on December 1. Following the announcement, three candidates announced their candidacy to contest the elections.

The candidates included Afrasheem’s brother Ibrahim Ameem from PPM, Dr Ahmed Ashraf from the MDP, who lost to Dr Afrasheem in the previous parliamentary election in 2008, and an independent candidate.

Both the PPM and MDP have been vigorously campaigning for the seat while President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed were also seen frequently visiting the island and making speeches in favor of the government-aligned PPM candidate.

During an official visit to the island, President Waheed claimed that his administration had achieved a lot of development on the murder case of Afrasheem while in a more recent trip, Home Minister Jameel expressed concerns relating the death of the MP to MDP.

Speaking at a function held on Meedhoo in Raa Atoll island on Sunday, Jameel stated that he was “highly concerned” over the remarks made by the senior figures of MDP, including former President Mohamed Nasheed,which he claimed undermined the credibility of the forensic evidence that the police already had.

“I am deeply concerned over what we have found out from the investigation so far. [I believe] in this country, everybody should be responsible for their actions,” he said.

The minister further added that it was the MDP that criticised the statements made by the government-aligned parties in the defense of MP Afrasheem Ali while he was alive, and said it surprised him when the MDP all of a sudden became so concerned about the murder.

He called on the people of the Ungoofaaru Constituency that they should hand over the parliamentary seat of the constituency to the family of deceased MP Afrasheem Ali, as he was the PPM candidate for the seat.

“We’ve got to take back the seat where it was. There are a lot of reasons for us to act in that manner,” he said.

“Anybody who has compassion and magnanimity will not compete for that seat,” the Home Minister added.

“Politicising MP Afrasheem’s murder” – former President Mohamed Nasheed

The remarks made by President Waheed and Home Minister Jameel were met by severe criticism by the opposition MDP.

In a tweet, former President Mohamed Nasheed claimed that the senior officials of the current government including President Waheed were making political statements over the death and claiming that their remarks lack the backing of sufficient evidence.

Nasheed vowed that if elected, he would find the real murderers of MP Afrasheem Ali, and said he had repeatedly called on the police to reveal the truth about the case instead of utilising it for political gain.

In a statement released by his office, Nasheed expressed concern over the government’s actions to politicise the “tragic murder”. He claimed that politicisation of the case “may leave the real murderers free to re-commit such crimes”.

The statement also expressed concerns over the remarks made by the police commissioner over the case.

“The office is deeply concerned over the fact that just six days before the b-yelections are to take place for the seat vacated following Dr Afrasheems murder, the government and the Maldives Police Service claim they have found Dr Afrasheem’s murderer,” read the statement.

However the Police Commissioner denied the claims stating that under his watch, he would make sure all the details presented to the courts as well as the public were free from political influence.

So far, police have yet to reveal any substantial details of the case. Police have previously arranged a press conference but canceled it at the last minute.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court concludes hearings of state’s appeal case over MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor’s arrest

High Court has concluded hearings of the appeal filed by the state following the release of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor by Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court.

MP Ghafoor was arrested along with Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and several senior opposition figures on the uninhabited island of Hodaidhoo on November 16, for alleged possession of drugs and alcohol. Police in a statement released following the arrests claimed that 10 people were arrested during a ‘special operation’ on the island.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol during the raid and stated that the arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence”. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef earlier told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

State requests order to re-arrest MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

During Sunday’s appeal, the state prosecutors requested an order to re-arrest the MDP MP and invalidate article 202(d) of the Parliament Regulation that bars the police from arresting an MP ahead of a no-confidence motion in parliament.

The state prosecutors argued that Ghafoor should be kept under police custody or else he may “influence” the witnesses that the state wished to present to the court. They also claimed that some of those 21 people arrested might also have evidence.

State prosecutors said that police had informed them that Ghafoor possessed an ‘intoxicant’ when he was arrested but had refused to provide urine to police to conform whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

However, Ghafoor’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain said her client denied the charges levied by the state.

She also contended that Ghafoor did not possess the capacity to influence the witnesses by the state arguing that the only witnesses the state had produced were the police officers who made the arrests.

She also claimed that according to an earlier rule established by the Supreme Court, an institution cannot in their own capacity decide to not to adhere to a section of a law or a regulation on the grounds that it contrasted with the constitution, unless a court of law ruled such a section invalid.

She therefore challenged that police could not decide for themselves that the article 202(d) of the Parliament Regulation was invalid, and that thereby the arrest of MP Ghafoor was unlawful.

During the hearing, the judges posed several questions to the state prosecutor, Aishath Hana.

In one such question, the panel of judges questioned whether the court could decide on the validity of the article 202(d) of the Parliamentary Regulation, in an appeal that concerned extension of a detention.

Responding to the question, the state prosecutor said that the request to invalidate the article of parliamentary regulations was made because Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court had also referred to the same article in releasing the detainees.

Chair of the judges panel, Judge Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, responded stating that the court will consider Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court’s decision to refer to the concerned article when issuing the verdict.

However the court rejected the state’s request to invalidate the concerned article stating that the request was filed in contrast to the established procedures of the court.

The panel of judges also inquired about the progress of the investigation of Ghafoor’s case, to which the police who had been present in the hearings said that statements from all the officers involved in the arrests had been taken.

Police during the hearing also stated that while Hodaidhoo was an uninhabited island, it was questionable as to whether alcohol had been found on the island.

The court concluded the hearings and stated that a date would be announced later on which it would decide on the case.

“Attempt to frame” – MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

Speaking to Minivan News, Ghafoor claimed the case was an attempt by the government to “frame” opposition politicians for attempting to impeach the President.

“I am a parliament member who is working to bring an end to this government through legitimate means. Now they want to frame me for possession of drugs and sentence me so that I would not be able to do that,” he said.

Ghafoor described the current developments as a “desperate” attempt by the government to unseat MPs opposed to the current government.

“After the coup, we have been working on ways to defeat this coup government through the parliament. Now we see even political parties that initially opposed us starting to support us. They  have started to work with us as well. This is what this government fears most,” he explained.

Ghafoor claimed that the government had been monitoring each and every move of their political opponents including himself, and alleged that their phone calls are “continuously recorded”. This, he added, was what led the police to arrest them on the island of Hodaidhoo, where they had gone to “discuss our concerns about the government”.

“I don’t see it any other way. This is clearly a politically motivated case,” he contended.

Meanwhile, the MDP also claimed the arrests wer politically-motivated and stated that it was an attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, and an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret.

Last week an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret initiated by the opposition MDP MP Ahmed Shifaz was defeated in the parliament floor by 34 to 39 votes. However, MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed has again re-submitted the amendment to Parliament’s Privileges Committee.

“It is such a coincidence that whenever the Waheed government wants to frame those critical of their government, they come up with trumped up charges and very often it is something to do with alcohol,” said former MDP Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi, in a statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government issues ‘last chance’ rent payment notices to resorts owned by political opponents

The Ministry of Tourism on has issued notices to five resorts warning that their lease agreements could potentially be terminated if the rent owed to the state is not paid.

Minister of Tourism Ahmed Adheeb told local newspaper Haveeru that rents paid by resorts constituted a large portion of national income, and said that only a few of the country’s 104 resorts were paying rent inconsistently.

This inconsistency, Adheeb said, was reflected in the national income and that therefore his ministry was giving these resorts one month to pay their dues or face being shut down by the government.

The resorts include Filitheyo Island Resort and Medhufushi Island Resort, both owned by AAA Hotels and Resorts, a family business owned by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MP Ahmed Hamza.

Zitahli Resorts and Spa Kuda-Funafaru, Kudarah Island resort and Alidhoo Island resort – owned by Yacht Tours Maldives and J Hotels and Resorts – both companies owned by government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir, were also issued notices.

Jabir – the deputy leader of the JP – this week turned on the government  following his arrest last week while on the inhabited island of Hodaidhoo, along with another fellow MP and senior opposition politicians.

The other arrestees were MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – along with former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant. The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said.

The Tourism Minister meanwhile told Haveeru that the government could “immediately terminate” the lease agreements and take back the resorts if rents and fines for non-payment of rent were not paid, but had instead chose to be lenient on the issue and give the resorts 30 days to pay up.

Adhee added that the government would terminate the lease agreements and reclaim the islands if the rent was not paid during the time period.

“This decision is to those resorts which are currently under operation. Not those that are already being developed. Now we have sent the final notice and the resort owners should decide on paying the rent,” he said.

The Minister claimed the government would terminate the contracts in such a way as to avoid affecting tourists currently staying in the resorts, or the employees working there.

“Politically motivated” – MP Abdulla Jabir

Speaking to Minivan News, Jabir blasted the government claiming the motive behind sudden issuance of the “warning notice” was “purely political” and intending to influence the re-submitted amendment to parliamentary regulations to conduct impeachment votes via secret ballot.

Three days ago a similar amendment initiated by the opposition MDP MP Ahmed Shifaz was defeated in the parliament floor by 34 to 39 votes. However, MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed has again re-submitted the amendment to Parliament’s Privileges Committee.

“I have only heard about this from the media. I have tried contacting the tourism minister since last night but he had been ignoring my calls. Because of the interview he gave to media, now tour operators are cancelling  bookings and the staff are not satisfied to continue working in the resorts,” Jabir said.

Jabir claimed that he had paid a settlement of US$2 million in rent during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, which was “agreed as a settlement” for the rent of two islands.

However, Jabir claimed that the current government had chosen not to honour the agreement which resulted in continued addition of fines for non-payment of rent, that now stood at about US$4 million.

“I know following the recent political developments and due to my new opposition to the current government, [President] Waheed has now ordered the tourism minister to issue the repayment notice so to threaten his political opponents,” declared Jabir.

“This is highly politically motivated. He knew I was the one behind the submitting of the amendment to parliamentary regulations to make the impeachment vote a secret ballot. It was I who in the first place drafted that amendment and gave it to MP Ahmed Amir. They know this but I will still continue to work for that,” he explained.

“Will do everything to inform international investors what the President is doing” : Jabir

Jabir said he had known for a long time that President Waheed had “the desire to operate a resort” and desperately wanted “to give a resort or two to one of his children”.

“Now I have decided to hand over the resorts, and I am trying to do the formalities in front of the media. But how can I even do that if tourism minister does not have the courage to answer his mobile phone?”

The JP MP questioned why it was that resorts belonging to opposition politicians were being “targeted” while there were many other resorts which had failed to pay rent.

“What I am saying is very clear. If you want to take the resorts, fine take them. But I promise that I will make sure that Waheed’s ‘scorched-earth politics’ and his failed economic policy is informed to all international investors. Who would really want to invest in a country ruled by such a government?” Jabir questioned.

“Even in the US where the economy is failing, the government takes steps to help  businesses. But here it is the other way around. Owners and young businessmen are being beaten and forced to eat sand,” he said, referring to his earlier allegations of torture during the arrest in Hodaidhoo island.

Jabir stated that he was planning to sue the government for the “damages” he incurred following the decision.

“This notice has already costed me in millions,” he claimed.

MDP MP Ahmed Hamza was not available for a comment at time of press.

Statistics from the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) suggest that more than eight resorts are failing to pay rent, and the government is owed US$25 million.

According to Haveeru, Alidhoo Island Resort – operated by Yacht Tours Maldives owes the government a sum of US$4.7 million while Medhufushi Island Resort operated by J Hotels and Resorts owes the government US$ 5.9 million.

Meanwhile Filitheyo Island Resort owes the government a sum of US$ 5.2 million as both land rent and lease while Zithali Resorts and Spa Kuda-Funafaru owes US$395,859.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG appeals Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court decision to release arrestees in Hodaidhoo raid

The Prosecutor General (PG) has appealed the decision made by the Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court to release those arrested during the raid of the uninhabited island of Hodaidhoo in Haa Dhaal Atoll .

According to local media reports, the PG filed the appeal with the High Court on Monday, but it remains unconfirmed as to whether the court has accepted the case.

Speaking to Minivan News, an official from the PG confirmed the appeal was filed but declined to provide any details as the case was pending in court.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) Latheefa Gasim was not responding to calls at time of press.

The Maldives Police Services (MPS) on last Thursday night arrested two MPs and senior figures in the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), for the alleged possession of drugs and alcohol. Police in a statement released following the arrests claimed that 10 people were arrested during a ‘special operation’ on the island.

Among the arrestees wre ruling coalition Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – along with former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz.

The others arrested were Jadhulla Jaleel, Hamdan Zaki, two Sri Lankan nationals named Raj Mohan and Anoor Bandaranayk as well as a Bangladeshi named Suhail Rana.

The island of Hodaidhoo was leased to Yacht Tours for resort development in January 2003. According to Haveeru, it was previously inhabited but the population was relocated to Haa Dhaal Hanimadhoo in 1997. Kaashidhoo MP Jabir is Chairman of Yacht Tours.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant.

The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

Following the arrests around midnight, the suspects were taken to Kulhudhufushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll, and Zaki was hospitalised.

Despite a police attempt to extend the detention periods all suspects including the two MPs were released by the Kulhudhufushi Magistrate Court, with the exception of Hamdan Zaki.

The arrests were met with severe condemnation by the opposition MDP and the former Human Rights who both claimed that the arrests were politically motivated ahead of the parliamentary vote to make impeachment votes a secret ballot.

MDP claiming the arrests were a politically-motivated stated that it was an attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, and an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret. A second no-confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel was withdrawn this week pending the outcome of the secret vote amendment.

“It is such a coincidence that whenever the Waheed government wants to frame those critical of their government, they come up with trumped up charges and very often it is something to do with alcohol,” said former MDP Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi, in a statement.

Wife of Jabir and former Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed, who was sacked from her ministerial position following the outburst, claimed that the arrest was politically motivated to threaten MPs ahead of the parliamentary vote.

Saeed along with her husband gave a press conference following the release where she demonstrated through role play, the exact manner in which the police had brutalised her husband, acting out how and where the police had hit him.

“In my career, I have always had to take the side of the police and defend their actions, although I have never found it easy to accept their brutality towards citizens. But this time, I have seen too close the violence they dealt out. No one should be beaten up, regardless of what the charges for arrest are.” She said.

Meanwhile the Jabir claimed that the arrest seemed more like a “terrorist killing operation” that was intended to finish off the MPs who opposed the views of the government.

“We had gone there to have dinner and spend the night on the island, but at about 4:00am, when most of the group were asleep, we were confronted by hundreds of police. They said we were drinking alcohol, so I asked them to show a warrant and they didn’t have one. They then started hitting and beating us, they wanted to kill us,”

“This did not feel like a police operation, it felt like a terrorist killing operation and it should not be acceptable anywhere in the world,” Jabir told Minivan News at the time.

However, police maintained that they handled the operation very “professionally” and had not brutalised anyone while making the arrests. Police also released a video of the operation to the media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament votes against keeping impeachment votes a secret vote

Members of parliament have vote against the proposed amendment to parliamentary regulation that would have otherwise made impeachment votes secret.

The opposition-initiated proposition was defeated in Monday’s parliamentary vote with a narrow margin of 34 to 39 votes.

Members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) who earlier issued a three-line-whip, all voted in favour of the proposed amendment, while government aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) MPs also voted in favour of the proposition.

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Azim, whom the Civil Court had initially ordered police to produce in court, also voted with the opposition.

The amendment was proposed to the parliament by MDP MP Mohamed Shifaz and was approved by the parliament’s general affairs committee for the second time, after a previous decision by the committee was declared void by the Counsellor General Fathmath Filza on the grounds that the committee meeting on October 23 where it was voted through took place in violation of the rules.

The amendment was earlier proposed by Independent MP for Dhaalu Atoll Kudahuvadhoo, Ahmed Amir, who later withdrew the amendment claiming that his constituents did not “approve” of his decision.

During the parliamentary debate held prior to the vote, several MPs highlighted that it was important for such critical votes to be made a secret ballot since it directly related to the safety of the MPs themselves. Other MPs claimed that making such votes a secret ballot was “undemocratic” and conflicted with the constitution and its spirit.

Speaking in the debate, government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Shifaq Mufeed stated that there were “devious plans” behind making impeachment votes a secret and claimed that it was against the law.

“To establish a procedure to hide actions of the parliament is a clear violation of the constitution.  A parliamentary session can only be held in closed doors only on matters that concerns the national security and public order,” Mufeed argued.

He added that in the case where a parliamentary vote goes to a stalemate the speaker should cast his vote and therefore it would not be a secret vote anyway, so it was “meaningless” to make parliamentary votes a secret ballot.

PPM MP Ali Arif also echoed similar remarks claiming that the current amendment excludes the impeachment votes taken against parliament speaker and deputy speaker so therefore it was very unjust.

He also added that the purpose of the amendment was “very cowardly” and affected the reputation of parliamentarians, and questioned the integrity of those MPs who had proposed such an amendment.

Meanwhile JP MP Alhan Fahmy speaking in the debate, suggested that it was not a wise decision to keep the vote open especially at a time the country was going through severe political turbulence and where there remained doubt over the security of MPs.

All the MDP MPs who spoke during today’s session supported the proposition arguing that members could be subjected to personal vendettas and hatred based on the way he or she voted.

“Threatened”

Today’s parliamentary session had to be called off after the vote as the parliament order was lost. Several MDP MPs took point of orders claiming that the government had influenced the vote by threatening MPs.

Speaking to Minivan News, former MDP Chairperson and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi claimed that she believed today’s vote was influenced and that MPs were “being intimidated”.

“Many MPs who are afraid to say it openly claimed they had received all sorts of threats from the government,” she said.

She added that in the current political environment where the police and the military have “openly brutalised MPs” and no action been taken against them, MPs had hesitated in supporting the amendment.

This she said was particularly reflected in DRP’s stand towards the votes.

“After their MPs were served summons for arrest the DRP, whom many thought would collaborate with [MDP] on this, were scared and didn’t see these as idle threats,” she explained.

Didi added that she and her party would not give up despite their disappointment in parliament today.

Earlier, JP MP Abdulla Jabir and MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – were arrested along with several opposition figures including former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz, while in an uninhabited island.

Police claimed that they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant.

The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

Following the arrests around midnight, the suspects were taken to Kulhudhufushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll, and Zaki was hospitalised.

Despite a police attempt to extend the detention periods all suspects including the two MPs have now been released by the Kulhudhufushi Magistrate Court, with the exception of Hamdan Zaki.

The opposition MDP alleged that the arrests were a politically-motivated attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed, and the amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret. A second no-confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel was withdrawn this week pending the outcome of the secret vote amendment.

Ahead of the vote, Civil Court also issued an order on Sunday to take DRP MPs Mohamed Nashiz and Ali Azim into custody and present them in court.

The order was cancelled later the same day, on the grounds that the judge presiding over the case was out of the country.

Meanwhile, Presidents Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza has earlier said that it would use all threatened legal action “using all the powers of the government” against the People’s Majlis to “bring parliament back to the right path”. He made the remarkin an appearance on government-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV on October 25.

“The constitution and parliamentary rules of procedure clearly state which votes are to be conducted through secret ballot. The rest of the votes should be open,” he said.

Riza heavily criticised the committee decision to approve the amendment, insisting that it violated the parliamentary rules on conducting committees meetings and votes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court holds first hearing on legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

The Supreme Court on Sunday held the first hearing of the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The case was filed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and is being heard by the entire seven member bench of the Supreme Court. Respondent in the case was 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.

At the beginning of the trial, 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 in 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.

“We understand no reasons were given by the Supreme Court as to the why it decided to not hear the case submitted by the MDP,” the party said in a subsequent press statement. “We believe this goes against the principles of Natural Justice. As a party which will be affected by the decision of the Supreme Court, we believe the MDP has locus standi and as such has the right to be heard.”

Speaking on during case, 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 similar 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.

Supreme Court, adjourning today’s sessions did not mention of the next date the hearings would be scheduled.

The case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court was filed by the JSC in earlier this month, asking the Supreme Court to decide on the matter.

Meanwhile, Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Member of Nasheed’s legal team, lawyer Hisaan Hussain during a press conference held earlier this month, stated that they felt it would be unjust for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to be presiding over any case after Nasheed’s case was temporarily halted over allegations of the court being unlawfully established.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court held the first hearing of Nasheed’s case on October 9. The second hearing had been scheduled for November 4, which was cancelled following the injunction granted Sunday morning by the High Court.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the legality of the Hulhumale’ court, citing Article 141 (a) of the Constitution and Articles 53 (b) and 62 of the Maldives Judicature Act.

Following the hearing, the MDP in its statement argued that the head of the JSC sitting on the bench during a trial concerning the JSC was against natural justice, and grounds for taking the case to the International Court of Justice.

“That no man shall be his own judge and jury is a fundamental principle of Natural Justice. The Supreme Court decides cases on simple majority and the president of a body that is the appellant and as such a party to the litigation and in which one of the issues is the legality of its own acts, should be disqualified from sitting as a judge in this case,” the party said.

“We are thinking of instructing lawyers to take up this case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). After all once such basic principles of justice are ignored in our highest court of appeal, it paves the way for appeal to the ICJ.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)