Author: Mohamed Naahee

President Waheed rejects JP’s proposition to reinstate sacked Transport Minister

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has refused to reinstate the sacked Minister of Transport Dr Ahmed Shamheed and has requested the Jumhoree Party (JP) to propose a candidate for the job.

President of the JP Dr Ibrahim Didi confirmed the decision to local media, stating that the party had received an official letter from the President’s Office informing of the decision to not to accept Shamheed for the post.

Didi added that it was now up to party leader MP Gasim Ibrahim to decide whether to propose a new name, since it was he who had proposed Shamheed to the position in the first place.

The sacked minister, who on local media claimed he had “several differences” with the President, was removed from cabinet last week following the announcement of the extension of his party leader’s Maamigili Airport lease for 99 years.

Maamigili Airport is the country’s first private airport, opened on October last year, and owned by the Villa Group whose chairman is also the leader of government-aligned JP, MP Gasim Ibrahim. The airport had initially been leased to the business tycoon for a period of 30 years.

The re-extension of the lease period of the private airport was met with severe criticism from both the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and some government-aligned political figures.

However, Shamheed – whose decision to extend the lease period cost him his cabinet position – maintained that the decision on the extension of the lease was approved by the government’s Economic Committee a week before.

“Documents to extend the lease of Maamigili Airport for 99 years were sent to the transport ministry by [former President Mohamed] Nasheed’s government. But the current government delayed the matter. The present government only endorsed the decision. It was decided by the NPC (National Planning Council) during the former government,” he said at the time.

The concerned Economic Committee included Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad and Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu, Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muizzu, Environment Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb. However surprisingly, the committee did not include the Minister for Economic Development Ahmed Mohamed from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Spokesperson for the Presidents Office, Abbas Adil Riza, confirmed the dismissal of Minister Shamheed on social media, where he tweeted: “Transport Minster Dr Shamheed has been relieved from his duties today. Defense Minister Nazim will be the care taker until replaced by JP.”

Riza who is also a member of JP, confirmed that the cabinet seat would be reserved for the JP, currently the third largest party in terms of membership in the ruling coalition. As per the coalition agreement, the party is allotted with two cabinet slots including that of the Ministry of Transport and also the Ministry of Gender and Human Rights.

The dismissal of ex-minister Shamheed was met by criticism from the JP, which described it as a “cowardly act”.

In a statement released following the dismissal, the JP said it would take “necessary action” following an inquiry, and expressed “serious concern” with statements in the media by officials from the President’s Office regarding the reasons for Shamheed’s dismissal.

Some local media outlets quoted Presidents Office Media Secretary, Masood Imad, as stating that Shamheed was dismissed following several inconsistencies, which included the extension of lease of the private airport.

However, the Presidents Office Spokesperson Riza at the time declined to reveal the reason behind the dismissal of the minister.

An unnamed JP official alleged to Villa TV (VTV) – a media station owned by the Villa Group  – that Dr Shamheed was sacked because of his opposition to the recently concluded sale of a 30 percent stake in the Addu International Airport Company Ltd (AIA) to another tourism tycoon, ‘Champa’ Hussain Afeef.

The JP leader had alleged corruption in the deal and claimed the valuation of the 30 percent stake was too low.

The JP senior official meanwhile told VTV that Shamheed was removed to allow Champa Afeef to control the airport project, claiming that the “cowardly” act of sacking the minister was intended to divert media and public attention from the Addu airport controversy.

JP’s future in the coalition in question

The recent dismissal of the JP endorsed minister has sparked speculation as to the future of the JP in the current government coalition. JP MP Alhan Fahmy told Minivan News on Wednesday that he believed Shamheed should be reinstated if “Dr Waheed wants to sustain the national unity government.”

“I don’t believe [Waheed] was unaware of the decision [to dismiss Dr Shamheed], and it is of his own irresponsibility if he says so,” Fahmy said “A minister shall not be dismissed under the existing political situation unless it is associated with proper reasoning.”

Speaking at the press conference on Tuesday, Fahmy said Waheed met Gasim on Monday night and what he had to say implied that the President was “not fully aware of how [the dismissal] happened.”

After looking into the dismissal, Fahmy said the JP believed it was done “without a legal basis” as the JP Minister had not breached any laws or official procedures but was sacked “as a result of what the minister did to implement a decision made by the government.”

“Therefore, as we believe that this happened because the President was somewhat confused or misinformed, and after making certain of all the processes that were followed with regard to [the dismissal], the Jumhoree Party has asked the President to reinstate Dr Shamheed to the cabinet before next Sunday,” Fahmy said.

The government’s actions in sacking the minister provided opportunity to level corruption allegations against the JP’s leader who has also been announced to be the party’s presidential candidate, and were “highly damaging” to the party, the MP for Feydhoo added.

“Trust and confidence affected” – JP MP Alhan Fahmy

Speaking to Minivan News following the dismissal, Fahmy said that the letter sent by the Presidents Office did not mention “any reasonable grounds” for the dismissal of the minister.

“The party has yet not decided on how it will proceed following the response given by the President’s Office. The party council will meet very soon to decide on the matter,” he said.

Asked if the President’s decision could mean the party leaving the government coalition, Fahmy stated that the dismissal was “unacceptable” and it had affected the “trust and confidence” between the government and the party.

“I would not definitely say that the party will leave the coalition and join the opposition. But there is a possibility as you would know that political affiliations between parties do not always remain permanent,” Fahmy said.

“The party has not officially penned a coalition agreement. However, after what happened on February 7, the incoming president announced that the new government would be a national unity government. So the coalition was formed on certain moral values and grounds, which this party would never allow to be compromised,” he added.

He also raised doubts over President Waheed’s commitment towards the “moral value and grounds” of a national unity government and instead alleged that the President had now begun working in the interests of “his own party and political future”.

“He won’t acknowledge his own mistakes” – GIP Deputy Leader Zaki hits back at Fahmy’s remarks

Speaking to Minivan News, Deputy Leader of President Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP), Ahmed ‘Nazaki’ Zaki, brushed off Fahmy’s comments describing him as being involved in “party-factionalism”.

“I refuse to believe Fahmy’s remarks that there is a loss of trust and confidence. The JP is a valuable partner in our coalition. I just don’t get it when Fahmy speaks about loss of confidence because JP leader Gasim Ibrahim has explicitly told us that he wants to remain in the government coalition,” he said.

Zaki went onto describe Gasim as “one of the most prominent figures” in bringing democracy to Maldives, and said the government always considered him a “valuable asset” in the national unity government.

However, Zaki admitted that he did not understand why Gasim was trying so hard to reinstate Shamheed when there were “many other capable people” in his party.

Asked for the reason behind Shamheed’s dismissal, Zaki said there were “many reasons” but declined to go into details. He also responded to Fahmy’s claims that the dismissal was not based on “reasonable grounds” by saying it was human nature that “he would not acknowledge his own faults”.

The former High Commissioner to Malaysia went onto state that unlike former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government, President Waheed would not sack a person unless there were severe discrepancies, and Shamheed’s sacking was no different.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DQP, PPM MPs defend government spokesperson in debate over Friday’s diplomatic incident

Members of parliament have expressed concern over recent remarks against Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives, D M Mulay, by President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza.

MPs debated the matter on Tuesday after a motion submitted by MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed, condemning government’s failure to take action against the spokesperson’s remarks.

Following criticism from the High Commission and the Indian government, the President’s Office published a statement distancing the government from Riza’s remarks.

During a rally organised by parties of the ruling coalition calling for the seizure and nationalisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from Indian infrastructure giant GMR, Riza described Mulay as a “traitor and enemy of the Maldives and the Maldivian people”, accusing him of taking bribes and threatening the government.

During the debate, MPs of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) condemned the remarks claiming they were made against diplomatic protocol and could affect bilateral relations with India.

Presenting the motion, MP Rasheed highlighted that GMR operates airports in New Delhi, Hyderabad and in Turkey.  He added that Turkey also has a strong Muslim majority but the people there do not go out on to the streets calling to take back the airport in the name of protecting Islam.

Rasheed added that tourists would obviously see protesters hollering around the airport on boats, and that this could potentially harm foreign investment in the country.

He also added that after talking “nonsense” in front of the general public, a president’s spokesperson cannot later claim that he was expressing his “personal opinions”, and that a repeat of such actions could inflict irreparable damage to the economy.

“Act of terrorism”

Speaking on the motion, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP MP Ali Waheed described the anti-GMR armada as an “act of terrorism”.

“What we saw yesterday was an act of terrorism. If the government wishes to terminate the contract with GMR that was entered into during the former government, then do it, instead of nonsense like this,” Waheed said.

He further added that Spokesperson Riza had made a huge blunder by speaking “so lowly” of the high commissioner, and the best thing for him to do was apologise or resign from his position as spokesperson.

Deputy leader of the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP)  MP Abdulla Jabir echoed similar sentiments during the debate.

“What I saw was a group of terrorists who went to stop the businesses of this country and to take over those businesses in the international airport illegitimately. I condemn these actions and this is not something that should be repeated in this country ever again,” said Jabir.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that during the MDP’s three year democratic government, the country saw a large number of foreign investors investing in the Maldives because of the trust those investors had in the government.

He added that India alone had contributed nearly a billion dollars to the Maldivian economy, and that GMR was one of the many that came through a transparent international bidding process with the technical assistance of International Finance Corporation (IFC), a group under the World Bank.

He expressed concern that if similar blunders were seen from the government, the Maldives risked losing the investor confidence gained over the last three years.

Meanwhile, MDP MP Eva Abdulla alleged that the remarks made by Riza were not those of his own but were rather under “direct orders” from President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

“Indian government is involved in this conspiracy”: DQP MP Riyaz Rasheed

During the debate, the majority of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MPs attempted to defend Riza, and tried to switch the focus on to High Commissioner Mulay.

In an apparent contradiction to its comments in parliament, the PPM on November 12 issued a statement dissociating the the party from the “slanderous” allegations made against Mulay.

Deputy leader and the only MP from the government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), MP Riyaz Rasheed made strong allegations against the Indian government, repeating Riza’s allegations against Mulay.

“[Mulay] is trying to declare the airport a property of the Indian government or the GMR group, and it is a fact that the Indian government working on the agenda as well,” he claimed.

Riyaz alleged that GMR and the Indian government were “eyeing” the MPs who spoke against them and that if those MPs travelled to India, he had information that GMR was “intending to plant drugs in their baggage.”

He also said it was saddening to see that a High Commissioner from the world’s largest democracy could not digest remarks made by the spokesperson, and added that there was a great difference between speaking in an official capacity and in an individual capacity.

Meanwhile, PPM MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal Aboobakr defended Riza, stating that a person’s freedom cannot be limited because of his employment, and that Riza too had his freedom of speech.

Aboobakr also highlighted that Riza had at the beginning of Friday’s speech said that he was going to make the remarks not in his official capacity as the spokesperson, but in an individual capacity.

Another PPM MP, Ahmed Mahloof, said the current government of President Waheed had all the needed powers to terminate the GMR agreement.

“This is something that could be done even sitting inside a luxurious air-conditioned room. All President Waheed has to do is decide on the matter,” Mahloof said.

He added that it was unnecessary to make a fuss out of the issue, referring to the anti-GMR boat armada, and that those who really wanted to terminate the GMR contract should have protested in front of the president’s office.

He also admitted that he could be subjected to allegations of taking bribes from his fellow MPs after making a remark in favour of GMR.

During the debate, MPs from the second largest political party Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) followed the opposition MDP in condemning the remarks made by Riza.

DRP MP Ahmed Mohamed during the debate stated that he condemned the remarks made by Riza and Deputy Home Minister Ahmed ‘Boafan’ Abdulla during Friday’s rally.

“I call upon the government to settle this issue as soon as possible. I urge the government to finish the this issue before the political figures of this country begin to take advantage and politicise it,” he warned.

DRP MP Hussain Mohamed stated that the local party to the agreement was a 100 percent government owned company and therefore it was up to the government to make a decision.

Hussain Mohamed added that it was “utter nonsense” for political parties in government to come out and protest against the government.

Indian High Commissioner “traitor and enemy of the Maldives and the Maldivian people”: Riza

The debate stirred up in parliament followed remarks made by Riza during an anti-GMR rally held on Friday, calling the government to terminate the agreement with GMR – a 25-year concession agreement to develop and manage the airport, and overhaul the existing terminal while a new one is constructed on the other side of the island. The agreement represents the largest case of foreign investment in the Maldives.

“Trade between the Maldives and India reaches billions. Indian tycoons have the biggest share in Maldives tourism.  Indian people are deepest in Maldivian business.  We have to protect the businesses of those who import and sell potatoes and onions from India. We also have to protect the businesses of those who import gravel and sand from India. It should not be GMR that [Mulay] should take into account,” Riza declared during the rally.

“Today, like someone who has chilli smoke on his eyes, like someone who has ants at his feet who is threatening us Maldivians, the Indian ambassador here has forgotten what his job here in Maldives is. We are not in the mood to allow him to commit the crimes he is committing in our country,” he told as the crowd roared in support.

“A diplomat’s job is to work for his country and people and not to protect the interests of one private company… He is a traitor and enemy of Maldives and Maldivian people. We don’t want these kind of diplomats on our soil,

“Today we are also calling on for something else. On the day when we get GMR out of the Maldives, Mulay must also get out of here!” Riza said.

Riza’s comments were widely reported in Indian media.

Television channel Times Now described the “vicious targeting of the Indian envoy as leaving “a bitter taste”, and sparking a “huge diplomatic row”. The story had also been picked up by the Hindu and the Indian Express.

The remarks were quickly met with concern and condemnation by the Indian High Commission, which issued a statement dismissing the Presidential spokesperson’s allegations as being “against the diplomatic protocol”.

“We have told the government of Maldives that settling issues of huge mutual interest cannot be done on public space or on stage. This has to be done through discussion,” the High Commission said in a statement.

The Indian High Commission also made it clear that India would safeguard its interests including the investments of Indian companies.

Anti-GMR armada

On Monday afternoon, three days following Riza’s remarks, the anti-GMR campaign took to the seas in an effort to increase pressure on the government to “reclaim” INIA from the Indian infrastructure giant.

A seaborne armada of about 15 dhonis carrying flags and banners circled the airport as part of an ongoing campaign to annul the contract signed between the former government and GMR to manage and develop a new terminal at INIA.

Deputy Home Minister Abdulla told Haveeru that 50,000 people have signed the petition put together by a group of NGOs seeking to annul the agreement and nationalise the airport.

In response to the large number of boats circling the airport, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) increased its seaborne presence to counter the rally, using coastguard vessels to block the entrance to the airport harbour.

MNDF Colonel Abdul Raheem told Minivan News: We had no major concern yesterday, we did not increase our military presence at the airport itself, instead we wanted to make sure that no one [from the protest] could enter the airport area from the sea.”

Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla told Haveeru the protesters had no intention of disembarking at the airport and that the purpose of the rally was to “observe airport operations in the area”.

Last week Sheikh Imran gave the government a six-day ultimatum to annul the GMR agreement (by November 15).

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, whose government approved the deal in 2010, this month slammed statements over the “reclaiming” of the airport from GMR. Nasheed claimed such comments were “highly irresponsible”, stating that such words from the government could cause irreparable damage to the country.

The present government has continued to press to “re-nationalise” the airport, with the country’s Deputy Tourism Minister confirming to Indian media in September that the administration would not “rule out the possibility of cancelling the award [to GMR]”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi calls for debate on sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses

Former Chairperson of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, has called for debate over the sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses, in a bid to promote mid-market travel to local islands.

Didi made the remarks during the debate in parliament over the proposed bill calling for the blanket prohibition of pork and alcohol imports to the country, sponsored by fellow MDP MP Nazim Rashad.

During the debate, Didi raised several questions on the issue including whether alcohol should only be sold by wealthy business tycoons, such as leader of Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim and Hussain ‘Champa’ Afeef.

“When we travel to several islands to prepare our election manifesto, and when we discuss about opening guest houses, the subject of allowing sale of alcohol in guest houses with provisions excluding sale to locals has to be discussed,” she said.

She further stated that before giving such a permit, views of the religious scholars in the country must also be sought. Didi added that it was important to know from religious perspective whether such sale could be carried out in the Maldives or whether the Maldives could consume the profits made by through sale of alcohol while remaining an Islamic country.

Didi called on parliament to accept the bill proposed by MP Nazim Rashad and have it sent to a parliamentary committee, to then seek the views of religious scholars.

Unlike many other Islamic nations such as Qatar, Dubai and Abu Dhabi where the sale of alcohol is licensed to hotels and foreign workers, the Maldives classifies alcohol as a restricted substance and bans its use and sale on ‘inhabited’ islands.

The resort islands are classified as ‘uninhabited’ under Maldivian law, although technically under the Constitution no law can be enacted against a tenet of Islam, which potentially affects those relevant to the import, sale and service of haram products such as pork and alcohol.

“Clarified and addressed”

Speaking to Minivan News, Didi said that the issue of alcohol needed to be “clarified” and “addressed”.

“If this is a religious issue, that is if Islam bans sale of alcohol, it should not be sold in the Maldives as we are a 100 percent Islamic nation. If the sale is allowed, then the question to ask is whether alcohol is needed for the tourist trade to flourish,” she said.

She added that if alcohol proved to be a vital element in the tourism sector, then the sale of alcohol should be allowed for “registered places” to which a permit is given to accommodate tourists including resorts, safari boats and guest houses.

“If the objection to the sale of alcohol is on [religious] grounds, it should not be sold in places where Maldivians reside. But Maldivians do reside on resorts as employees. If we deny Maldivians the employment opportunities in the resorts, then the income from resorts will be restricted to those who own resorts, that would give way to increase in expatriate workers and foreign currency drainage,” she explained.

Didi stressed that the bill must be admitted to a parliamentary committee and “clarify” from religious scholars the position of Islam that concerns the issue at hand.

“Every island I have travelled to, most locals who I come across want tourist guest houses on their islands and employment opportunities where they can work and still go back home to spend time with their families,” She added.

The bill calling to ban the sale of pork and alcohol was proposed in October.

Presenting the bill, Nazim argued that the import of these products violates article 10(b) of the constitution which states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“We often hear rumours that people have alcohol at home in their fridge, available any time. We’ve heard that kids take alcohol to school to drink during their break. The issue is more serious than we think, it should not be ignored,” Nazim told the house.

Consumption of intoxicants or pork products is prohibited under Islamic law.

Previous attempts

When in charge, the MDP government announced that it was considering banning pork and alcohol products in response to the December 23 coalition’s campaign to protect Islam.

Then Press Secretary for the President, Mohamed Zuhair at the time said that trade of alcohol was not a business conducted by the government. He added that the government receives a relatively large amount of money through this trade from Goods and Services Tax (GST).

“The businessman running the trade of alcohol receives a huge amount of profit through this business as well,’’ he said. ‘’The government is now considering banning trade of alcohol and pork throughout the Maldives.’’

The decision was followed after a mass protest against the government held by the December 23 coalition, consisting of several religious NGOs and opposition political parties, called on the government to ban the sale of pork and alcohol among other demands.

After being asked in January for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives could import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

The Court did note, however, that pork and alcohol have been imported under provisions of the Contraband Act and that there is a regulation in favor of the trade. As no law has declared the regulation unlawful, the import of pork and alcohol is indeed legal, the court claimed.

Meanwhile, Article 10 of the Constitution states that “No law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

The Constitution also states that any law not struck down by the courts is valid.

Since resorts first opened in the Maldives in the 1970s, tourism has been the core of the island nation’s economy. To accommodate the industry as well as the national Islamic faith, in 1975 the Ministry of Economic Development regulated the sale of pork and alcohol to tourist establishments (Act 4/75).

While there is no regulation or set of guidelines specific to spa operations in resorts, Article 15(a2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act stipulates that spas are legally accepted in the Maldives as tourism goods, and therefore may be operated in compliance with tourism regulations.

After its formation in 2009 the Parliament had nine months to reject any legislation which did not conform with the Constitution.

Parliament did not reject the regulation on the sale of pork and alcohol in 2009, thus allowing it to stand by default.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Challenges faced by judiciary would be resolved if JSC carried out its duties properly: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has accused the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of being inept, stating that challenges faced by the country’s judiciary would have been resolved had the judicial watchdog undertaken its duties “properly”.

The Chief Justice made the remark speaking to media after concluding a ceremony held on Monday to open a new building for the Drug Court.

Hussain acknowledged that he could not say that every piece of work carried out by JSC was not done properly since he was not a member of the JSC himself.

“The JSC is an institution formed under the constitution to serve the judiciary. They have a huge responsibility to deal with issues surrounding the judges, so if the JSC carries out its responsibilities, I would say the challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved through that institution,” the Chief Justice said.

Hussain also said that he had on several forums highlighted that changes need to be brought to the current mechanism of JSC,noting that the local judicial watchdog had “differences” compared to similar institutions in other countries.

“But still, I believe even under the current mechanism of JSC, and without needing to bring modifications to it, some changes can still be brought to the works it carries out,” he added.

During the media briefing, the Chief justice also spoke about the ongoing case of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legitimacy of which is being contested in the courts by the former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team.

He said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court currently in Supreme Court had not been addressed, because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the  JSC sent a letter to [Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

Following the filing of the case, the Supreme Court took over the case from the Civil Court.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court will be considering the case as a “high priority” case.

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

Court saga

Earlier in October, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team’s challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and its summoning of Nasheed in connection to the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court.

The High Court at the time stated that the case had previously been looked at by the Supreme Court, there the court could not proceed with the case.

However earlier this month the High Court granted an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of former President after his legal team appealed a ruling on procedural points by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in the trial.

During the hearing, JSC lawyer Abdul Fahthah stated that the JSC had lodged a case at the Supreme Court the same morning, asking the court to look into the matter of the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Following the proceedings of the case, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday, including Nasheed’s trial.

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court said in its announcement that it had 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.

Two days later, the Supreme Court ordered High Court to halt its proceedings on the appeal by Nasheed’s legal team, and ordered the Hulhumale Magistrate Court to resume its proceedings.

Question of legitimacy

Writing in his personal blog on the issue, lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified, he argued.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, has also published an article on his personal blog stating the reasons why the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court cannot be considered a legal entity.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Cabinet advises formation of ‘National Institute of Education’

Cabinet ministers advised the President yesterday to create a ‘National Institute of Education’ following deliberations on a proposal by the Ministry of Education.

According to the President’s Office, during discussions on a paper submitted by the Education Ministry to the weekly cabinet meeting on Tuesday, ministers noted “the importance of shifting governmental focus to strengthening state efforts, provided the recent expansion of the education sector.”

Ministers also stressed the need for human resource development and providing more opportunities for higher education.

“Some members drew on the stark parallels between the chief functions of Educational Development Centre (EDC) and Centre for Continuing Education (CCE), being run under the supervision of Ministry of Education. Hence, it was strongly favored that the integration of these two separate institutions to form ‘National Institute for Education’, would ultimately lead to greater progress being achieved in the education sector,” reads a press briefing by the President’s Office.

According to the President’s office, the recommendation followed intense discussion over a paper submitted by the Education Minister.

Ministers in the cabinet meeting stated that it was important that more focus be drawn towards the education sector over its expansion over the last few years. Cabinet members also highlighted that more training and higher education was required for human resource development within the education sector.

The President’s Office claimed that the merging of two institutions would mean the facilities used by both institutions and be now utilised more effectively, and would enhance the quality of training offered to teachers and the national curriculum development process.

Commenting on  cabinet’s advice, former Education Minister Musthafa Luthfee raised doubts over cabinet minister’s statement that some of the works carried out by the EDC and CCED were similar.

“How can one say that it is doing similar work? One institution is responsible for development of the national curriculum, doing necessary research and providing resources for teachers, while the other is responsible for providing non-formal education and providing educational opportunities to those adults who have not had the opportunity to study. How can they be considered similar?” Luthfee questioned.

He further stated that forming a bigger institution was not a problem, but said that his fear was that the formation of a larger institute would disrupt the focus and attention needed for curriculum development.

“The biggest challenge to the Maldivian education system is that our curriculum is not as up to date as it should be. It has a lot of problems. A national curriculum is very important for the development of the country,” he said.

Luthfee stated that he was of the view that there should be a separate institution for curriculum development because it required a lot of attention and focus. He also raised doubts over whether the government had the capacity to run such an institution without losing focus on key areas.

“There may be the ease of resource sharing when the two institutions are merged, but if proper focus is not given to certain area, it could have a very negative impact on the country.”

CCED in its website describes itself as a pivotal professional institute under the Ministry of Education, which essentially carries the responsibility for improving the quality of teaching and learning in the Maldives. It promotes community education, enhances life-long learning and conducts adult literacy programs across the nation.

The role of CCED has expanded to include many professional development activities within the education sector.

Strategic changes were embraced within CCED due to the change in government educational policy in 2009. As a result, professional development programs were embedded in its mandate, which restructured the institution to facilitate the new demands of the education sector. The restructure of the centre led to the formation of units, sections and divisions with specific responsibilities for each.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We should all party sometime”: young people allege inducements offered to join President’s party

President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) has denied claims the party has been trying to induce people to join through illegitimate means, in a bid to shore up the party’s membership base ahead of a bill that could see smaller parties dissolved.

According to the latest statistics from the Elections Commission (EC), GIP’s current membership base stands at 2,538 members. The draft bill on Political Parties currently in parliament stipulates that parties with membership less than 5000 members after six months of the bill’s passage shall be dissolved by the EC.

A number of young people have come forward and alleged to Minivan News that they were offered government positions, promotions, jobs with salaries of more than MVR 10,000 (US$650) a month, music equipment and even hosted parties to join GIP.

GIP Secretary General Ahmed Mushrif has dismissed the allegations as an “outright lie”, and said that the party from its formation had never attempted to add members illegally.

Allegations of offers

A young Maldivian working in the tourism sector told Minivan News on condition of anonymity that a parliament member and prominent figure in the industry had called him and asked him to sign with GIP “as a favor”.

“He told me that in return for me joining the party, I would be rewarded with a position in the current government that I could never have even imagined. He further tried to convince me that all I needed to do was join the party – I could vote for anybody I wanted,” he said.

Another person who has worked in the civil service for the last 15 years told Minivan News that he was contacted by GIP with a promise that he would “easily be promoted” to a supervisor level job if he joined the party.

“A GIP member called me and told me that I could easily get promoted to supervisor level if I left my current party and joined GIP. Even though I am not an active MDP member I said I would think about it, but later did not respond to his calls,” the civil servant said.

According to the law, it is unlawful for any authority to influence civil servants for political reasons by threatening or offering them employment opportunities.

“We should all party sometime” – Deputy President of GIP

A third person – aged 20 – claimed that he and his group of friends aged around 18 to 22 were approached by GIP through a friend and were invited to the party’s office where they were received by the party’s Deputy Leader  and the Maldives High Commissioner to Malaysia, Mohamed ‘Nazaki’ Zaki.

“When we arrived we were received by ‘Nazaki’ Zaki and treated with pizza. He said that in return for joining GIP, he would offer each of us a job with a salary not less than MVR 10,000, but asked us not to question where the jobs would be allocated from,” the youngster claimed.

Apart from the job, the source alleged that Zaki had offered him and his friends “music equipment and a place to play for free” to those among them who wished to play music. He added that the group were also promised various entertainment activities such as “hosting shows and parties”.

“They asked us to join the party and work in the party’s youth wing,” the source said.

When they asked what they were supposed to do as members of the party’s youth wing, the source said Zaki had told them that their main task  would be to increase the party’s membership as it was “currently very low”.

At the end of the meeting, the high commissioner reportedly suggested the holding of a party event that would be fully funded by GIP.

“They said we should all party sometime. Maybe they said that because we had long hair and looked stylish,” the source suggested.

Zaki was one of the founding members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). However he resigned from the party in April claiming that the MDP was now focused around former President Mohamed Nasheed and had become a personality-based party.

He later joined GIP and was appointed as its deputy leader.

The opposition MDP had accused Zaki of being involved in corruption in the controversial installation of border control system by Malaysian IT firm Nexbis.

However, Zaki denied the claims, stating that he had only helped facilitate the deal from taking place in his capacity as the High Commissioner to Malaysia.

Minivan News was unable to contact Zaki as he was out of the country at time of press, while President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad was not responding to calls.

GIP member Illyas Hussein Ibrahim, the former Immigration Controller and brother-in-law of President Waheed, referred Minivan News to Secretary General Ahmed Mushrif.

Similar remarks

In a leaked audio clip released in August, former CEO of Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) and senior member of GIP Ahmed Faiz was recorded discussing the hiring of individuals to loudly promote President Waheed in local cafes.

Faiz in the audio claimed that he was a “close confidante” of President Waheed, and that he had been given many assignments to help his presidency.

“Not necessarily going out into the streets with huge knives and attacking people, okay? What I want is, for example, when the key people who are involved in this are in a certain place… for example, four or five of these people might be in a coffee-shop.

“You go in there, do you understand? You go and barge in right into the middle, and say, no need to be discreet at all, just say it out loud openly, ‘Hey you (expletive) dogs, this country is being destroyed because of you (expletive). Don’t even think you can do what you please with this country,” he explained in the audio clip.

Similar to Zaki, Faiz also spoke about offering jobs and other benefits at the expense of the state to his audience.

“What I’m saying is, this government is now appointing people to different posts and it’s getting structured in the manner we want. Now there is a lot of things that I can do. Material benefits can be gained, and lots of other things. Credit from STO (State Trading Organisation) worth millions of rufiya, that’s absolutely welcome. Do you get it?

“Then maybe funds are needed for some activity, for example, ‘Please arrange this amount of cash needed for something’. I will get that done. Or perhaps, ‘From this project, give us this amount of money’. Now when it’s put like that, it seems somewhat twisted to me. I tend to see that like cutting a ‘deal’,” Faiz stated.

Following the release of the audio clip, Faiz was sacked from his position in MPL.

Destroying democracy

President of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Hassan Luthfee said he condemned the unlawful acts carried out by political parties to increase membership figures.

“This is a very serious issue. Actions like these will only destroy the democracy in this country. The purpose of democracy is to exercise the free will of the people in making their political decisions. It is not democracy when a party induces an individual to join a specific political party by unlawful means by offering jobs and money. That is not in within the spirit of democracy,” Luthfee told Minivan News.

He reiterated that politicians should realise that the success of a democracy depends on sincerity.  He also highlighted the challenges faced by the ACC in looking into such allegations.

“The biggest difficulty is that as per the laws of the country, finding substantial evidence is very difficult. Even when we summon a suspected person, would they be honest in giving evidence to the commission?” Luthfee asked.

He further stressed that it was important to have more efficient and stricter laws to address such issues, but said that the ACC is working with the Elections Commission to reduce fraudulent action being carried out by political parties in acquiring members.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Annulling GMR agreement “only option for reclaiming airport”: Dr Hassan Saeed

The only option for “reclaiming the airport from GMR” is to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement with the Indian infrastructure giant, argues Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Leader and Special Advisor to the President, Dr Hassan Saeed, in a new book (Dhivehi) released on Monday.

The book, titled: “Loss and challenges of the long-term leasing of Male’ international airport to GMR” was launched at a ceremony on Monday at the government-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV by Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the DQP.

The booklet covers various issues surrounding the concession agreement awarding management and development of the international airport to a consortium of GMR Infrastructure Limited and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB), alleged purported national security threats, economic and financial damages and undue advantages for the consortium.

Speaking at the book launching ceremony, Home Minister Jameel said it was the duty of the most capable people in the country to step forward and help “liberate” the nation from “grave problems” during the current “difficult times”.

Jameel claimed the former DQP presidential candidate’s book would reveal a number of facts that the Maldivian people were unaware of before the signing of the agreement.

The Home Minister added that he hoped ongoing efforts by the coalition of parties supporting the current government would yield results.

Dr Hassan Saeed was not responding to calls by Minivan News at time of press.

In his book, Saeed laid out three choices for the government: continuing the agreement in its current form, resolving disputes through dialogue or invalidating the agreement.

The DQP leader contended that cancelling the agreement and nationalising the airport would be the beneficial course of action for the nation.

“There is little hope that GMR would implement changes brought to the agreement through dialogue,” Saeed wrote. “GMR will change what is written in the agreement in black and white any time it pleases. For example, although the agreement states that 27 percent of from oil revenue must be paid to the state, it has been changed. GMR knows very well the skill to change the minds of the government of the day and its senior officials.”

Saeed further claimed that the concession agreement posed dangers to national security, in addition to being contrary to public interest and violating the constitution, the Public Finance Act and the Companies Act.

If the airport was not nationalised in the near future, since all parties in the ruling coalition opposed the deal, Saeed argued that the presidential election in 2013 would become “a referendum” on annulling the agreement.

Saeed claimed that GMR would donate large sums of money to parties in favour of keeping the agreement in place.

Conceding that cancelling the agreement would strain relations with India, Saeed contended that the move would be beneficial in the long-term to both countries.

Saeed compared cancelling the deal to “taking bitter medicine to cure a disease” or “amputating an organ to stop the spread of cancer.”

The book also likened GMR to the Indian Borah traders expelled from the Maldives by former President Ibrahim Nasir.

IFC role

Meanwhile, in June this year, a delegation from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on the private sector in developing countries – met with senior government officials to address concerns over the concession agreement.

On the bidding process, which was organised by the IFC and “evaluated based on the payment of an upfront fee as well as annual concession fees as a percentage of gross revenues to the government”, a document by the organisation explained that, “Each bidder was required to demonstrate that it had the requisite experience in developing, designing, constructing, operating, and financing airports of a similar size.

“The technical solutions proposed by the bidders were also expected to consider the specific conditions on Hulhulé Island,  including its physical and environmental constraints, and the coordination required between conventional aviation activities, seaplanes, and motor boats.

“The cornerstone of the project was the construction of a new passenger terminal expected to meet LEED silver criteria and to be carbonneutral—i.e., to minimize energy consumption and carbon emissions through the use of energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies, and minimize water consumption. The bidders were also asked to make specific, predefined improvements to the existing airport infrastructure, and to manage all core airport services, including the provision of fuel—a historically established role at Malé airport.”

However, in early September, the government accused the IFC of negligence during the bidding process for INIA – allegations there were rejected by the organisation amidst continued calls from government-aligned parties to renationalise the airport.

Both the government and GMR are presently involved in an arbitration case in Singapore over the airport development.

Previous publications

In August, Dr Hassan Saeed released a book in English entitled, “Democracy betrayed: behind the mask of the island President”.

Speaking to local media at the book’s launch at the studios of private broadcaster Villa Television (VTV), DQP Secretary General Abdullah Ameen said the book detailed reasons why former President Nasheed had to resign on February 7.

Ameen added that the reasons mentioned in the book included the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed and allegations that Nasheed wished to “destroy the values of Islam” in the country.

In the months leading up to the controversial transfer of power on February 7, the DQP published a pamphlet titled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’.

In an interview with UK’s the Guardian newspaper recently, Saeed said the charges were justified. “You look at his behaviour, his actions, you have to come to that conclusion,” Saeed said.

The Nasheed administration had slammed the publication at the time for containing “extremist, bigoted and hate-filled rhetoric”. The pamphlet and religious-based allegations also led to successive attempts by the Nasheed administration to arrest two senior members of the party and sparked a debate on freedom of expression and hate speech in the Maldives.

Saeed was also a co-author of the book Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, which discussed the issue of apostasy in Islam and stirred controversy during the 2008 presidential election.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders man who swindled Swiss woman to pay back MVR 5.4 million

The High Court has dismissed an appeal and ordered a Maldivian national to pay back MVR 5.4 million (US$350,000) he took from a Swiss woman after promising to marry her.

In June, the Civil Court ordered a man identified by the court as Ibrahim Ali to pay the Swiss woman the money after he was found guilty of swindling it from her.

The Swiss woman alleged that Ibrahim had taken money from her on several occasions in large sums, and had promised that he would marry her.

She also told the court that Ibrahim had told her that he was single, but that she had later found out that he was married and had children.

The Civil Court ruling ordered Ibrahim to pay back US$58,800, 7,000 euros and 252,196.95 Swiss francs he had taken from The Swiss woman since 2007.

The court also ordered Ibrahim to pay back a sum of MVR 1,500 (US$ 97.27) in legal fees and 2,420 Swiss Francs in bank transfer charges.

Ibrahim however appealed the Civil Court’s verdict at the High Court.

In the appeal, Ibrahim argued that the Civil Court had failed to establish that the sum of money had to be paid back, or that the money he received was by his request.

He also contended that the Civil Court had failed to prove that the money was deposited in return for his agreement to marry the Swiss woman, and argued that there was no legal basis for the court to order him to reimburse the plaintiff.

However, the High Court in its ruling on Sunday upheld the Civil Court’s decision and stated that documents presented to the court clearly implied that there were money transfers taking place since 2007.

The ruling further stated that the Swiss woman had said in court that she had sent the money because Ibrahim had told her that he was unmarried.

In its ruling the High Court stated that Ibrahim had build a house from the money he had fraudulently collected, which was also built  on the understanding that he would marry the Swiss woman.

Ibrahim was not present at the hearings, and the three-judge panel issued the verdict in absentia.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court releases opposition MDP activist Naifa with conditions

The Criminal Court has released Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activist Mariyam Naifa, who was arrested in connection with the brutal murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

Naifa, who was presented to court along with two other suspects, was given a conditional release while the detention of the latter two was extended another 15 days.

Local media identified the pair as Ali ‘Smith’ Hashim and Hassan Humaam, however the authorities declined to officially confirm the identities.

Conditions imposed by the Criminal Court on Naifa’s release include a travel ban restricting her from leaving the capital Male’, an order not to talk about the questions posed to her during the police investigation, and a requirement that she cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.

All the detainees were brought to court with their faces covered to conceal their identity from the media.

When the detainees were brought to court, minor confrontations and verbal arguments took place between a group of MDP supporters gathered near the court building and the police cordoning the area, but the gathering was largely peaceful.

Speaking to Minivan News, a family member of Naifa, Aishath Jennifer, said that they were extremely surprised to hear about her arrest especially in relation with such a “heinous crime”.

“We did not at all know what was going on initially. A friend who was with her at the café where she was arrested called and told me that police had taken Naifa into custody. The whole family was very surprised to learn about the arrest, especially in connection with such a heinous crime,” Jennifer said.

Jennifer also claimed that she and Naifa had met the night she was arrested and said she did not have a clue about what happened with the murder, or why police had decided she was connected to it.

“We used to hang out together all the time. After the change of government on February 7, we regularly meet in Usfasgandu. Even the night she was taken into police custody, we met earlier. She did not even give a slight hint or impression about such a thing. Since we are so close, if she was up to something, we would have had at least had a clue or a hint. But we didn’t,” she said.

Speaking about the arrest, Jennifer claimed the police did not give Naifa the chance to read the court warrant before she was taken into the police jeep.

“She only got to know the reason for her arrest when they took her into the jeep,” she added.

Jennifer also said that Naifa was initially not allowed to contact her family and was barred from her right to an attorney.

She also said she doubted the grounds for her sister’s arrest and contended that police did not have any reason for taking her into custody, alleging her arrest was “politically motivated”.

“People know her because of her involvement in MDP rallies. Before that, she was not publicly as well known as she is today. During both court hearings she was presented, neither the police nor the judges were able to inform her of any evidence that police produced against her. They said that it was highly confidential,” Jennifer explained.

“How come they did not reveal the evidence or the details about the charges she was arrested? I think the court had to place conditions on her release because they did a really stupid thing – arrest her in the first place. She is now being barred from her right to freedom of expression because they know that without such a condition, she would definitely talk about it,” she continued.

“This arrest can’t have anything other than political motivation behind it. They know she is an MDP activist and vocal critic of the current government. They would not have noticed her if not for her political identity. This is definitely a politically-motivated arrest,” Jennifer concluded.

Naifa, who is an supporter of former President Mohamed Nasheed and a regular attendee at protests and rallies organised by the MDP, was arrested on October 2 while she was in a local café Dolphin Café’.

According to Naifa’s lawyers, the arrest was made following intelligence received by police in the murder case of MP Afrasheem.

She was later brought before court and her detention was extended to 15 days.

The MDP in a press statement condemned the arrest of Naifa claiming that the arrest was politically motivated and a deliberate attempt by the government of President Waheed Hassan to “instill fear among its supporters.”

Meanwhile, former President Mohamed Nasheed said the arrest gave the opportunity for the real culprits to escape from the law, as the arrest implied that the government was more focused on destroying its political rivals.

Police denied claims the arrests were made based on political affiliation and declined to officially reveal the identities of the detained, claiming that it could hinder the investigation.

On October 3, just a day after Naifa’s arrest, police conducted a search of the MDP’s protest camp at Usfasgandu.

Police did not confirm if the search of the site with metal detectors was related to the murder of Dr Afrasheem.

However MDP MP Eva Abdulla, who was at the site when police arrived, claimed an officer had informed her that the area was being searched in connection with the Afrasheem homicide case.

Several MDP supporters celebrated Naifa’s release on social media, including Twitter and Facebook.

In one of the tweets, former MP and Chair of the Drafting Committee of the Constitutional Assembly Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail wrote: “Welcome back Nai. We must now seek compensation for your ordeal. Even courts do not have the power to detain [people] arbitrarily.”

“This is a victory. They just tried their best to frame our gal and failed miserably,” another supporter tweeted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)