Author: Mohamed Naahee

MDP lawyer Mariya Didi outlines criminal charges against President Waheed

Former Chairperson of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and lawyer, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, has released a report claiming President Mohamed Waheed should face criminal charges for violating Article 30 of the Penal Code, for his alleged participation in unlawfully toppling the government of the Maldives.

Didi, who is an LLM graduate from the Aberystwyth University and the country’s first female lawyer, argued in her report that President Waheed played a “pivotal” role in the “unlawful overthrow” of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration on February 7.

The report is the second released by the now-opposition MDP, following the Aslam-Ameen report which interviewed police and military sources, and alleged that Nasheed’s government was toppled in a premeditated coup d’état through deliberate sabotage of the chain of command.

Didi however stated that the evidence for her report was drawn from the ‘timeline’ released by the government’s own three-member Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), and information collected from political forums and individuals.

The MP for Machangoalhi North stressed that while she had drawn on evidence from the CNI timeline, she still believed that it was not impartial or credible, as the information had come from the government itself.

Facing pressure from the Commonwealth, the government had agreed to reconstitute the panel to include a representative of former President Nasheed, a retired foreign judge, and UN and Commonwealth monitors.

Charges

MP Mariya Didi’s report alleges that President Waheed was personally culpable in the unlawful toppling of the Maldives’ government, which is punishable by law under articles 30 and 33 of the Penal Code. The punishment for such an offence includes life imprisonment or banishment for life, including a period of “hard labour” as determined by the sentencing judge.

Article 30 of the Penal Code states: “The punishment for a person who plots to remove the president or topple the government by the use of unlawful weapon (weapons that could harm a person) is imprisonment for life or banishment for life and the Judge has the authority to decide a period for rigorous imprisonment while the person serves the sentence.”

Article 33 of the Penal Code states: “Articles 30, 31 and 32 includes all kinds of coup d’état and attempts of it.”

In her report, Didi stated that it was evident that former President Mohamed Nasheed was elected and sworn in as President, as both the head of state and the head of government on November, 11, 2008 for a term of five years under article 106(b) of the constitution and article 28(c) of the Penal Code.

The former MDP chairperson argued that there was no stipulation in the constitution dictating that the position of Vice President is an elected position, and that rather the VP is appointed by the elected President, both as his running mate and to the office if elected.

Didi further argued that as Waheed was appointed rather than elected, he was not eligible for presidential privileges under Article 127 of the constitution, which allow a criminal sentence to be delayed until the end of a president’s term if determined by a resolution passed by parliament.

Waheed had deviated from his mandate as Vice President while still in the position, Didi argued, as article 117(a) stipulates that, “The Vice President shall exercise such responsibilities and powers of the President as are delegated to him by the President.”

Evidence

According to point 14 of the CNI’s timeline, on January 30 Waheed met the members of the opposition coalition at the Vice President’s official residence after midnight.

“The Vice President met with some leaders of the [opposition] coalition on the night of 30 January 2012 at Hilaaleege, his residence. He was asked at the meeting whether he was prepared to carry out his legal responsibilities. He said he was ready to do so. Coalition leaders held a press conference after the meeting to announce their endorsement of the Vice President [for President],” the CNI timeline stated.

Didi claimed that after the meeting on January 30, other members of the cabinet had asked Waheed about his meeting with opposition but he had refused to reveal any details.

She argued that this was against the spirit of the article 117(a) of the constitution since the Vice President’s duties were only those delegated to him by the president, and that he had no authority to hide any information which he had acquired in his capacity as the vice president.

In her report, Didi stated that given the midnight meeting and background of anti-government protests calling for the toppling of the government, she inferred the details of the forthcoming ‘coup’ were delivered to Waheed as he had succeeded to power on February 7 without any inquiry as to what had actually happened.

Waheed’s acknowledgement of the resignation amid the police and military mutiny, and formation of a ‘national unity government’ consisting largely of the accused opposition parties, was sufficient evidence that Waheed had accepted his role in the plot to topple Nasheed.

Five days later

Point 17 of the CNI timeline states: “Following Coalition discussions, protests began at Artificial Beach on 2 February 2012. At the protest, Adhaalath Party leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla calls for police to arrest President Nasheed within five days.”

Didi observed that five days after Imran called for the arrest of Nasheed, Nasheed had resigned and Waheed had been sworn into office.

She argued that the only way a president could be removed from office under the Maldivian constitution was through an election, death, voluntary resignation or parliamentary resolution under article 100(a) of the constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority of the chamber.

The article 100(a) states: “The People’s Majlis, by a resolution, may remove the President or the Vice President from office only on the grounds of:

1. Direct violation of a tenet of Islam, the Constitution or law;

2. Serious misconduct unsuited to the office of the President or Vice President;  or

3. Inability to perform the responsibilities of office of President or Vice President”

Didi submitted in her report a statement given by Waheed to Villa TV on February 7, between 2:00am and 3:00am, which was mentioned in point 90 of the CNI timeline.

Point 90 of the timeline states: “The Vice President speaking via the media at his residence in Hilaaleege called on the military and the police not to obey any illegal orders: ‘Yes! It is also my duty to say something at a time of such national crisis. I support the peaceful activities of the many to protect the country’s constitution and its faith. It is important at this time that all Maldivian institutions especially those of law enforcement to protect and maintain the Constitution and laws. I call upon everyone not to obey an illegal order. In this sorrowful time, I also call upon the Maldivian security services not to leave room for those seeking to dissolve our security and not to allow any harm to be caused to people and their property, especially the media. It saddens me very much that VTV and other places have been damaged tonight. I call upon those who cause such damage to refrain from doing so.  I also assure you that I will do everything I can as the Vice President of this country to free us from this dangerous and tragic time. May Allah return our country to a peaceful and secure state, Amen.’”

Didi claimed that the live TV statement was in violation of article 117 of the constitution, in which the Vice President’s duties included only those delegated to him, and that Waheed in the capacity of Vice President had no right to give such a statement encouraging anti-government activities.

She further argued that when Waheed said that he supported “the peaceful activities”, point 15 of the timeline revealed that a police officer had been set on fire during the protests.

Point 15 of the timeline states: “A policeman caught fire on 31 January 2012 when a fireball was thrown at the police during the protests near MMA.”

She also pointed out in her report that a journalist from the state broadcaster, Moosa Naushad, had his arm broken after a protester hit him with a wooden stick.

She further stated that the timeline acknowledged that police and protesters had damaged public property and vandalised the MDP ‘Haruge’, and also had also uprooted the city council’s date palms to use as weapons.

Didi stated that despite all these violent activities, Waheed had done nothing to prevent such actions or defuse the situation, but had instead supported the cause of the anti-government demonstrators. This, she contended, indicated that he was a part of the plot.

Didi also alleged that Waheed was involved in the unlawful storming of the state broadcaster by police, military and opposition demonstrators prior to Nasheed’s resignation. She said it was “fishy” that Waheed was so concerned about VTV that he had specifically mentioned the television station’s name in his media statement, but had failed to take any action or make a statement following the raid on MNBC.

She further claimed that it was Waheed’s own brother, Ali Waheed, who had accompanied the rebelling police to take over the station.

Didi stated that Waheed did not try to contact Nasheed even as the situation in the country worsened. Police had openly called that they were ready to confront the military, and two civilians – Abdullah Riyaz (current Commissioner of Police) and Mohamed Nazim (current Defence Minister) – had entered the military barracks and demanded the unconditional resignation of President Nasheed, and ordered him to delegate his powers to the Vice President.

She claimed that such Waheed’s decision not to contact Nasheed at the time implied that he was in support of the unlawful activities.

Didi also claimed that Waheed’s failure to contact Nasheed about what had happened or ask why he had resigned before taking the oath of presidency at 15:25pm on February 7, added further weight to the suggestion that he was part of the plot.

She also alleged that the consistent failure of Waheed’s new government to take action against the rebelling police officers for criminal offences – including the distribution of police weaponry to civilian protesters – clearly denoted Waheed’s part in the coup.

In conclusion, she called on the judges and the Prosecutor General to look into the report and deliver justice to the people of the country.

Government response

Spokesperson of the President’s Office, Abbas Adil Riza told Minivan News that the government welcomed such a “professional” report.

While the government has described the Ameen-Aslam report as a “terrorist act”, Riza said that Didi’s report was a “professional opinion” while the former was “twisted and baseless accusations against police and military officers.”

“It is very good that people like Mariya have decided to abandon their ‘street justice’ and get into the boundaries of the country’s legal system,” he said.

“This may not mean that they have entered into the legal boundary but it is a positive thing. I think it is a step taken towards getting inside the law,” he added.

Riza further stated that the report was Didi’s own opinion, however he said the government would respect any decision made by the courts.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldivian dies in Sri Lanka after falling off from 18 storey hotel

A Maldivian man died in Sri Lanka on Wednesday night after falling off from the 18th floor of the Jaik Hilton Hotel.

Local media identified the victim as Mohamed Midhushah, 37, who traveled to the country on May 12.

According to local news website Sun Online, Sri Lankan police have decided to conduct a post mortem to find the cause of death.

The officials of the hotel said the incident took place around 3:45am in the morning.

The hotel officials also said that Midhushah had fallen into the compound area of the hotel, and that the Slave Island Police station was investigating the matter.

In an interview given to the website, Inspector Ariya Singha from the Slave Island Police station said that at the time of the incident there were nine other people in the apartment including three foreign women: one from Madagascar and two from Sri Lanka.

The inspector also said that police had found a lot of alcohol bottles in the apartment, and that the occupants had been partying when the incident occurred.

He also said that according to the suspects, the incident was believed to have happened after Midhushah went to the balcony for a smoke.

“Witnesses said Midhushah went to the balcony only with a cigarette. They had been partying until it was very late. We found bottles of alcohol inside the premises,” he said.

He also said that the people on the balcony only found out what had happened after they noticed that he was not inside the apartment, and while searching for him they saw lot of people gathered in front of the hotel where they found Midhushah lying on the ground.

Inspector Singha said that Midhushah was dead when he was taken to the hospital, and that the Colombo National Hospital had confirmed his death upon arrival to the hospital.

He further added that the case is being investigated and preparations are underway to conduct a post mortem in the presence of the deceased’s family.

According to the media, Midhushah’s family had already flown to Colombo for the post mortem.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also confirmed of a death of a Maldivian abroad but refused to reveal any further details.

Minivan News was unable to contact the family of the deceased.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill to amend Judges Act ‘custom fitted’ for former Chief Justice, claim MPs

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and some government-aligned MPs have claimed that the first amendment proposed to the Judges Act (act no. 13/2010) by the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrashim Ali, is has been “custom fitted” for former Chief Justice Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim.

Rasheed was the Chief Justice and the President of the Council of Islamic Affairs during former President Gayoom’s administration.

The bill proposes to amend the article 26 of the act, which describes the reasons for declaring the seat of a judge vacant. However, MP Afrashim Ali proposed to change the context of the clause to replace it with privileges of a retiring judge. Afrashim was formerly a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the judiciary’s heavily criticised watchdog body.

If passed, the amendment would mean that the stated privileges would apply to all judges who failed to qualify as a judge or were retired from their seats under 285(a) of the constitution.

According to the amendment, the privileges entitled to the retiring judges include formal titles and a pension ranging from 33-100 percent of the wages received by a serving judge, depending on years of service.

Judges would further be entitled to a lump sum on their date of retirement, again based on years served on the bench, as well as security services, transport benefits, and medical insurance for the entire SAARC and ASEAN region, also applicable to the judge’s spouse.

During the debate, several MPs raised concerns over the bill and questioned the ‘real’ intention behind its submission by PPM MP Afrashim, at a time the country was facing a huge economic crisis.

Speaking during the debate, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – who has been supportive of President Waheed’s government – spoke against the bill, claiming that it was a bill fashioned for a specific person: former Chief Justice Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim.

“Now all those Judges who were disqualified after the new constitution was ratified claiming that they too are entitled to receive the same privileges  as those who are currently as serving judges. After two years, they are trying to again link to the past,” he said.

MP Nasheed also said that it was difficult to name Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim on the parliament floor, but that if he continued to pursue benefits and privileges then he has no choice but keep on saying his name.

MDP MP Ahmed Hamza said that he believed there were some “unfair benefits” included in the bill, and that he did not believe retired judges should receive the same benefits as those currently serving on the bench.

“The bill says that a person who has served as a Judge for 30 years should get the same amount of money and privileges as a serving judge. That is unacceptable,” he said.

MP Alhan Fahmy, who recently defected to the Jumhoree Party (JP) from the MDP, said that it was disappointing to see bills being prepared to benefit those who had “hijacked” the judiciary for 30 years, without having provided any betterment or justice to the country.

“We are continuously seeing attempts to protect and find monetary benefits from the national budget by those who were with Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom during his 30 rule,” Fahmy said.

MDP MP Eva Abdulla said that before the parliament began speaking about privileges granted to retiring judges, priority must be given to the quality of judges currently in the courts. She claimed that the MDP government had planned to invest over Rf 300 million (US$19.45 million) improving the judiciary but was stopped after then opposition brought down the government in a coup d’état.

However, PPM MP Ahmed Nihan spoke in favor of the bill, and stated that such privileges should be given to retiring judges and that even if it was targeted for former chief Justice Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim, he would still support it.

“As a chief justice, as a former Minister of Justice, [Mohamed Rasheed Ibrahim] has done a lot of work for the country. We can’t simply abolish the value of his service,” Nihan said

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor described the bill as “dirty” attempt to give unfair benefits to those that served former President Gayoom.

He further said the party will not stand in support of the bill, and said that he was getting the same impression from some of the opposition MPs.

He also added that this was another attempt to corrupt the judiciary, and that some business tycoons did not want to have justice established in the country.

“This is a nasty thing. The coup happened because we had a crippled justice system. Some of those in the coup government want it to remain the same way. But interestingly some of the opposition MPs have started taking our stand. This can be seen even in voting records for the Public Finance Committee’s report on Aasandha,” he said.

Ghafoor said the bill was likely to be thrown out of the house.

Speaking to Minivan News, former member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, alleged that the bill was an attempt to pay back the judges who had colluded in Gayyoom’s conspiracy to bring down democracy.

“Afrashim – who proposed the motion – and Speaker Shahid stand accused in the JSC’s  high treason case pending in Majlis, and have effectively covered this up since 2010,” she said.

“I maintain that the country does not have constitutionally-appointed judges and that parliament has failed to hold an inquiry. Rewarding the corrupt is against national interest,” she added.

In an article written in 2010, Velezinee noted that the parliament had approved the reward “of a hefty lifetime allowance for interim Supreme Court Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy, removed from the bench at the end of the interim period.”

“Mujuthaaz Fahmy has on record a conviction for fraud committed in 1996 for which he was  ‘convicted’ in 1998. He was the chief engineer in co-opting the Judicial Service Commission as a tool in the silent coup to derail democratic government through rigging state-building [independent institutions],” Velezinee wrote in 2010.

“The amendment to the Judges Act proposed by MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem, a member of the Parliament Independent Commissions Committee, applies only to Mujuthaaz Fahmy, a fact that only becomes obvious when one checks the records locked up in JSC and out of bounds to media and public alike. That the independence of Judges has been compromised -and no independent judiciary exists in the Maldives – is a fact evident to the thinking mind,” she wrote at the time.

Several MPs who are supportive  of President Waheed suggested that the most recent bill be accepted and sent to committee, while others suggested rejecting the bill and throwing it out of the house.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP national council pass motion to “do whatever it takes to bring down coup regime”

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) National Council passed a motion on Monday agreeing to “do everything it takes” to bring down the “coup regime” of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, by “all necessary means and sacrifices”.

The motion was proposed by the former chairperson of the National Social Protection Agency (NSPA), MDP constituency president of Haa Dhaal Nolhivaram constituency Ibrahim Waheed, and seconded by MDP MP Ahmed Sameer.

The motion stated that the initial three member panel of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which President Waheed formed to investigate the controversial transfer of power on February 7, had failed to include several “key facts” in its timeline. Despite the absence of these facts, the timeline revealed the transfer was a coup d’état, the MDP stated.

It also stated that the report composed by Mohamed Aslam and Ameen Faisal revealed that the government of MDP was toppled illegitimately, and alleged that the perpetrators of the coup had planned to harm President Nasheed.

The motion further stated that current President Mohamed Waheed Hassan had played a pivotal role in the coup, self-proclaiming certain powers which President Nasheed had not delegated to him as per article 117 (a) of the constitution.

The motion concluded stating that the National Council believed that necessary action needed to be taken to bring down the illegitimate government by all means and any sacrifices needed in the process, until a legitimate people’s government was installed in the country.

During the debate over the motion, several members of the national council claimed that President Waheed had come to power in a coup d’état, and the party should do whatever it took to bring down the regime and install a democratic  government.

Members of the national council expressed concern over recurrent  police brutality, and claimed that this had increased to such an extent that some police and MNDF officers had begun openly robbing people on the street.

Speaking in the debate, ousted President Mohamed Nasheed said that despite the MDP refusing to recognise the initial composition of the CNI, the latest timeline released by the initial three member panel of CNI also implied that it was a coup.

Former MP for Thimarafushi Constituency, Mohamed Musthafa, said during the debate that the party must be willing to make sacrifices to ensure that the “legitimate” MDP government was reinstated, and the democracy was  reestablished.

“Coming out on the street once a week to show our hands and dance about and then go home is not a solution. We need a solution by any means possible,” he said.

He further said that the MDP should not be scared if sacrifice also meant going to prison.

During the vote for the motion, the motion was passed unanimously by the 55 attending members of the National Council.

Earlier, fresh protests erupted following a MDP National Council meeting held right next to the police barricades near the swimming tracks after police raided the MDP’s protest camp Usfasgandu. The clustered meeting of 43 members of the council took the stand that “enough was enough” and that party should take to the streets to get their constitutional rights.

Immediately, 400 protesters gathered in the area to challenge the legitimacy of police and demand the return of Usfasgandu, saying that they had not done anything violent. The protests triggered a brutal police crackdown leading to arrests and injuries.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the purpose of the motion meant that the party would stand firm and strong to defend the public rights.

“The National Council’s decision will be forwarded to a committee within the National Council, and they would decide how the party would act upon the motion. What I know is that we will stand strong to defend the public rights,” he said.

He also added that it was a part of party’s ongoing rally under the name of ‘Insaafuge Dhathuru’, translated as Journey to Justice, which began on February 17, just ten days after the MDP government was ousted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP’s report into February 7 “illegal act of terrorism”: President’s Office

The government has described a report (Dhivehi) released by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) into the controversial change of power on February 7 as an “act of terrorism”.

The MDP released its report in counter to the timeline released last week by the three-member panel of the initial Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), which it had boycotted on grounds that the panel lacked credibility and independence. Facing pressure from the Commonwealth, the government had agreed to recompose the panel to include a nominee of former President Nasheed, a retired foreign judge, and UN and Commonwealth monitors.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said that the MDP’s decision to release a report that included the names of police and MNDF officers it accused of being involved in the alleged coup was an “act of terrorism”, and called on the authorities to take action.

“The report is illegal and an act of terrorism. They can’t reveal the names of officers of the security forces like that and threaten their families,” he said, demanding criminal prosecution.

Asked about the allegations made in the report and whether the government would look into them, Riza responded: “I am saying it is illegal to release such a report, so whatever is mentioned in it is not something we are interested in looking into.”

Asked if the government intended to take action against the MDP, Abbas said “the security services will decide on the matter.”

The report was co-authored by two cabinent ministers during Nasheed’s administration: the former Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam and former National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal.

The authors claimed that the report was composed on fact and that no information had been included that lacked a primary source.

The report was released in a ceremony held at Male’ City Council hall by the former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Speaking during the ceremony, former President Nasheed said that the authorities should look into the findings in the report, which highlights the actions of the police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officials on February 7, and who should be tried in the courts of law.

He further alleged that the perpetrators behind the ‘coup’ were political figures in opposition parties during his administration.

“This report very clearly states the names of those who were involved, and the roles they have played are stated in detail. I hope that the institutions of the state will look into it,” said Nasheed

He added that the report clearly underlines that the toppling of the government was illegitimate, and announced that the MDP would launch peaceful demonstrations and protests to ensure  the findings in the report were looked into.

“The report reveals that during September 2011, the intelligence services and several other sources received information that opposition political figures had begun to collect the information of about 500 officers in the police and the military who were willing to help topple the government. So they have been planning this since last September,” alleged Nasheed.

He said that it was an obligation of the MDP to the people of the Maldives to ensure that the authorities took action on the findings of the report, even if that meant the launch of demonstrations.

Speaking during the ceremony, Interim Chairperson of MDP, MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik said now that the report very clearly stated that the MDP government was toppled in a coup, and the MDP would not remain silent on the matter.

People deserve to know the truth: authors

One of the two co-authors of the report, Mohamed Aslam, stated that people across the country were talking about the transfer of power on February 7 and that “people deserved to know the truth”

He claimed that the reason behind releasing the report was to let the people know what really happened after the initial three member panel of the CNI has attempted to mislead the people about the happenings of the events, by releasing a timeline that lacked truth.

Aslam said that the timeline issued by the CNI lacked several key facts, which he alleged had been deliberately omitted.

“We found that the toppling of the government was  the results of days of planning and discussions by several people,” he said.

Aslam alleged that those involved in planning the coup included several political figures, some media outlets, certain religious scholars and business tycoons in the country.

“They used the some police officers and MNDF officers to execute their plan,” he said.

Aslam also alleged that while Nasheed was inside the MNDF barracks, the rebelling officers tried to make Nasheed and the generals loyal to him believe that they had no control over the military, with units resorting to brutal violence outside the barracks committing several criminal offences inside police headquarters.

“Those involved in the coup believe that these events were carried out by a lot of people, and that they are protected by a large group of people, and therefore are safe. That is not going to be possible. This is not the same Maldives as years ago,” he told.

Aslam further claimed that some of the police and military officials who were against the coup were willing to give evidence in a court if deemed necessary.

Co-author of the report, Ameen Faisal said they collected information from several police officers of different ranks, and thanked the officers for their cooperation in formulating the report.

He expressed hope that those officers would also reveal the truth to the new CNI formed with the support of the Commonwealth, and followed fellow co-author Aslam in alleging that the timeline released by the initial three member panel of the CNI “lacked a lot of information”.

The report claimed that the genesis of the coup began during a meeting held in September 2011, between a dismissed MNDF warrant officer (grade 1), a retired brigadier general, a retired deputy police commissioner and some of the council members of former President Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), allegedly in an apartment owned by PPM Council Member Ahmed ‘Maaz’ Saleem.

“We always planned on toppling Nasheed’s government” – Umar Naseer

PPM Interim Vice President Umar Naseer has meanwhile admitted to local media that he had always been planning to topple Nasheed’s government since the new President was sworn in on November 11, 2008, following the country’s first democratic multiparty elections.

“From 12 November 2008, we were planning on a way to bring down Nasheed’s government. We talked to anybody who we felt was necessary. We talked on the podiums, the media. But we attempted to do that within the norms of the constitution,” He told local newspaper Haveeru.

He also said that at the end of the day, they had succeed in ousting Nasheed “within the boundaries of the constitution”.

Responding to the report, Naseer further said that the “biggest problem” of Nasheed’s administration was that he had been giving illegal orders to the security forces of the country, and that the opposition parties were giving the security officers the message to not to obey those orders.

“When Nasheed locked up the Supreme Court using the police, I said that it was an illegal order. I said that arresting Abdulla Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim was carried out through an illegal order. The police have the right to not obey to illegal orders under the constitution. That is a new right entitled in the green constitution [the new constitution ratified on August 2008],” he said.

“All I did was tell the police and the MNDF that there was this right entitled in the constitution,” Naseer said.

According to Haveeru, Naseer also admitted that accusations in the report that he had attempted to hold a large demonstration right after the conclusion of the “Save Islam’ rally on December 23 2011, were true.

“They did not want that [to hold demonstrations]. But even that night, we would have toppled Nasheed’s government from the street ‘constitutionally’,” he said.

Naseer in an interview given to the SBS dateline program “Mutiny in Maldives” in February explained in English what happened from the perspective of the opposition demonstrators on February 7.

“We had a small command centre where we do all the protests. I command from the centre and give instructions to my people. On the protesters’ side, we were informing and educating the police and army through our speeches and television programs,” Naseer told at the time.

Asked by journalist Mark Davis if the opposition had made any other inducements, such as promises that they and their families would be “looked after” if they switched sides, Naseer said “there were”.

“We called on the army and police and said that if a person was fired from his position because of their refusal to follow an unlawful order, the opposition would take care of them,” Naseer said.

“I had told Nasheed to resign, and that I was afraid for his life – because if Nasheed came out of the headquarters, people might beat him on the streets,” Naseer said.

Minivan News tried contacting Naseer, but he did not respond at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former Commission of National Inquiry panel releases timeline “for public opinion”

The former three-member panel of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) has released a ‘timeline’ of events it claims took place from the period of January 16 to February 7, for the stated purpose of “finding public opinion”.

The composition of the panel has since been revised to include a representative of former President Mohamed Nasheed and a retired Singaporean judge, as well as international monitors from both the Commonwealth and UN.

The 282-point Dhivehi document does not feature any input from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who contested the panel’s impartiality prior to the re-composition. The report begins its findings on the day police attempted to summon Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, to the day the controversial transfer of power took place. The panel conducted interviews with assorted non-MDP participants, however the report does not source its findings.

The night of February 6

The timeline suggests the initial ‘turning point’ of the unrest began on the night of February 6, after the supporters of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) arrived at the artificial beach in Male’ where supporters of the coalition of then-opposition parties had already been protesting, calling for the release of Judge Abdulla and for the constitution to be upheld.

The timeline states that the Specialist Operation (SO) officers of the police had stationed themselves in Heniveru Stadium, in preparation to prevent any violence that may have taken place if supporters from both sides clashed.

The report stated that police intervened after they received information that the situation was deteriorating from two police officers who were there to assess the situation.

It states that police intervention calmed the situation and cordoned a security line between the two protesting parties, after forcing them further behind the sides of the area they had been protesting.

The three member panel alleged that Minister of Home Affairs Hassan Afeef ordered Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh to withdraw police officers who had been stationed on the site. The Commissioner sent two officers to assess the situation, who reported back stating that the situation had deteriorated, which the Commissioner relayed to the Minister.

The Minister repeated the order but the Commissioner of Police refused to comply, stating that the situation could get worse if the police withdrew their forces.

According to the report, after the commissioner refused, President Nasheed himself called the commissioner and ordered him to withdraw police from the scene.

Faseeh then reportedly sent the Deputy Commissioner of Police to assess the situation, and he too relayed the situation was worsening.

The report claimed that the president called the commissioner a second time and ordered him to withdraw police from the area, stating that he “could not trust the police”.

After this order, the report said that the commissioner personally took the decision to contact the Male’ Area Commander of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), asking that the MNDF intervene as the police were withdrawing.

The statement read that the tactical officer of the SO opposed the idea of withdrawing police from the area, stating that both the protesting parties had weapons that could be used for violence, including wooden sticks and metal rods.

The SO police present in the area refused to withdraw without the MNDF arriving to take over their position, the timeline claimed.

The panel also claimed that a resignation letter was drafted by the police commissioner and was left on his table, as “the commissioner did not believe that the withdrawal of the police was the right decision.”

After the MNDF took over the area, the panel claimed that President Nasheed called the Male’ area commander and ordered him to withdraw MNDF officers from the area, giving him assurances that the MDP supporters would not resort to any kind of violence.

However, the statement read that when MNDF withdrew their officers from the area, violent confrontations began and there “bottles and objects” thrown by both protesting parties, which led the MNDF to intervene again.

February 7

The statement claimed that some of the SO police officers who had been in the Artifical Beach area then went to the MDP protest camp and vandalised the premises, and attacked some of the MDP supporters inside.

An MNDF SWAT team arrived after the SO police officers left premises, “to guard the area”, the panel stated.

The statement read that, as the usual routine of the police is to fall in at the Republican Square after protests ended; the police officers retreated and convened to the area.

The panel said that initially the MNDF attempted to arrest the police officers who by then had begun to gather in Republic Square, adjacent to police and military headquarters. However the MNDF reportedly decided to negotiate with the police officers as the military was outnumbered and police had similar equipment to the MNDF officers.

According to the report, police told the MNDF officers who were sent to negotiate with them that would begin following orders again after they were given assurances that they would not be ordered to carry out any unlawful orders, and that no action be taken against any of the officers regarding their involvement.

“The MNDF officers assured them that the MNDF would not confront police officers in the area,” the panel claimed.

During the negotiations, the panel claimed that police requested to meet the commissioner of police. The MNDF officials proposed officers go into the MNDF headquarters to to meet the commissioner, but police said they wanted to meet the commissioner inside police headquarters.

It was decided that the commissioner would meet meet in Iskandhar Koshi, an MNDF barracks on the other side of Male’, to the police officers initially agreed. However, police rejected the idea after the MNDF insisted the police go without their weapons and riot gear.

President’s arrival to Republic Square and his resignation

The panel claimed that in the early morning of February 7, between 5:00am to 6:00am, President Nasheed informed the commissioner that he wanted to meet the police officers who were at Republican Square.

It further claimed that the President also ordered the commissioner to meet the police officers in Republic Square, however the commissioner left military headquarters and entered police headquarters without meeting police gathered outside the building.

Before meeting the police, Nasheed asked one of the MNDF commanders whether he had any reservations over arresting the protesting police officers, to which the commander reportedly replied that he did.

The President then reportedly told the commander that it would be better if he stayed at home for the time being, however two other commanders also told the President that they had reservations and left.

The panel claimed that Nasheed then told the police officers that they had “done something wrong” and requested they hand themselves over to the MNDF. Police refused the order.

According the panel, Nasheed then returned to military headquarters and ordered the MNDF officers inside the barracks to go outside and arrest the officers who had disobeyed him.

At this point, some of the MNDF officers left the barracks and joined the police officers protesting.

While Nasheed was inside the MNDF base, the panel claimed that the President’s secretariat informed cabinet members that there would be a cabinet meeting, but failed to inform Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan as two key staff of the VP’s secretariat had not reported to work.

The panel also claimed that the then-President of the MDP, Dr Ibrahim Didi, called Nasheed and discussed how to resolve the ongoing unrest. Nasheed reportedly asked for Didi’s help in releasing a joint statement by the president and leaders of the opposition parties.

It said that Didi had then contacted opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader, Abdulla Yameen, however both of them declined to help unless Nasheed personally requested they do so.

Dr Didi then informed Nasheed of this response, who told him to make a decision after discussing the matter with MDP Parliamentary Group Leader MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and former Chairperson of the Party, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

The panel alleged that Dr Didi tried contacting MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, who did not respond, and then contacted MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who said he would get back to Dr Didi after consulting on the issue with Nasheed.

After the reply from MP Solih was delayed, Didi reportedly called Nasheed back, and was told that the High Commissioner of India, Dnyaneshwar M Mulay, would contact him.

According to the panel, Mulay contacted Dr Didi and asked him to come to the High Commission. When Dr Didi arrived to the High Commission, the opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group leader Yameen was already there.

According to the panel, as Dr Didi, Mulay and Yameen were discussing how to resolve the crisis, MP Solih called Yameen and informed him that Nasheed was going to resign.

Didi then reportedly contacted Nasheed and asked to him to give the phone to Yameen.

According to the panel, Nasheed informed Yameen that he was going to resign and asked him to ensure the safety of his family, to which Yameen replied that he would do everything to ensure the safety of Nasheed’s family.

The meeting adjourned after the president informed them that he would resign.

New MNDF commander

Meanwhile, according to the panel, two civilians: resigned police officer Abdulla Riyaz (the new Police Commissioner) and dismissed MNDF officer Ahmed Nazim (now the Defence Minister), entered the MNDF headquarters reportedly on the invitation of the Minister of Defence and National Security, Tholath Ibrahim.

After discussions with Nasheed in the MNDF barracks, Nazim came out to the crowd and revealed that he had asked Nasheed to resign unconditionally before 1:30pm that afternoon, along with the commissioner of police and his deputies.

According to the panel, Nazim told the crowd that his demands were “non-negotiable”.

The protesters were then informed that Nasheed would resign, and would announce this in the President’s Office.

According to the panel, Nasheed wrote the resignation letter inside the President’s Office, and then announced it on state television – which by this stage had been stormed by a second group of police and protesters.

CNI statement “lacks legitimacy

The MDP – now in opposition – said it would not formally comment on the statement prior to the release of an official statement.

However, an MDP official told Minivan News that the party did not consider the timeline “substantial”, and said it “lacked legitimacy”.

The party was “not even interested” in the timeline because the investigation would start from scratch under the new composition.

”The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has asked the government to change the composition of the commission and the government has agreed to it. I think the current co-chair of the commission thinks that his work is over,” the party official said.

The premature release of the timeline “for public comment” was “not a good thing”, he added.

The CNI claimed that if anyone wished to propose amendments to the timeline, they should submit amendments before June 21.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Speaker of parliament survives MDP-initiated no-confidence motion 45:25

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid has survived the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) initiated no-confidence motion.

In the vote taken on Tuesday, 45 out of the 74 parliament members present in the sitting voted in favour of Speaker Shahid and 25 voted against him. Two members abstained.

Surprisingly, government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed voted in favour of removing Shahid despite speaking against the motion, while MDP MPs Hassan Adil and Ahmed Rasheed voted against their party line. MDP MPs Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed and MP Ali Riza abstained. A fifth MDP MP, Zahir Adam, was absent.

During the debate over the motion, MPs from the coalition of parties supporting the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan spoke in favour of Shahid, with a number of MPs describing the speaker as the “most able and competent” MP to be in the role.

Speaking during the debate, leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali stated that the motion had been forwarded amid baseless accusations and defended his fellow party member, saying that he had been executing the responsibilities of the speaker in accordance with the parliament rules and procedures.

Thasmeen further claimed that the motion was an attempt by MDP to “break” the coalition after the party leadership’s recent “political failures.”

“Such a motion will not impact the ‘unity’ between the parties in the coalition supporting the government of President Waheed. So therefore I must say, yet again this is another wrong step taken by the MDP leadership,” Thasmeen added.

Former president Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahloof stated that despite his being an outspoken critic of Shahid who made several statements in the media and the parliament floor, he would stand by Shahid’s side today.

“Yesterday, the PPM Parliamentary Group (PG) came to a conclusion that this motion is a ‘trap’ set up by the MDP to ‘finish off’ the people and the ruling coalition,” he said.

“Today at a time where Abdulha Shahid is facing a grave matter at hand, I will stand by him. Abdulla Shahid will get all the votes from PPM. What we ask is that he act justly and equally,” he added.

MDP MP Ali Waheed during the debate alleged that the motion would reveal those MPs who spoke “in two mouths”, referring to the PPM MPs allegations of that Shahid and Thasmeen had cut deals with GMR and the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed to support the privatisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

“Today is not a day  the Speaker should be upset about. Today is a day the Speaker will be victorious. [Because] the people will hear those who ‘smashed’ the DRP speak today,” he said.

“I am happy because today those who accused the Speaker of taking bribes, selling off the airport to GMR and travelling abroad at GMR’s expense, will applaud him [for his integrity],” added Waheed.

Waheed also alleged that the MDP had been “held hostage” while Shahid proceeded with the oath taking ceremony of President Waheed on February 7.

“He let just two or three MPs into the parliament chamber and forgot about the rest of the MPs,” Waheed claimed.

MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed during the debate stated that every time there was a conflict of opinion, it should not be taken as far as a no confidence motion.

“Shahid is not someone who had my support to become the speaker. [But] up until today during our journey with the constitution, he has contributed to a lot of things that we achieved. We don’t need to go to a confidence assessment of the speaker who focused on what we had to do up until today,” he said.

Speaking in his concluding statement at the end of the debate, Shahid stated that even if the position of the parliament speaker is seen as a ‘big seat’ and a great privilege, he had faced a very difficult environment in the last three years during his time as the speaker.

“At times I felt very comforted and proud to see the results [produced] by the parliament members. I never responded to the allegations and claims made against me in parliament. I even did not respond to such allegations and claims even outside the parliament, because I wanted to be sure I was doing my job,” he said.

He claimed that due such the allegations he had to work under circumstances that caused hurt to himself, his family and the party which he belonged to.

“But one person is elected out of 77 members to make some sacrifices. I made those sacrifices during the last three years. I have learned that as someone who makes vital decisions, I can’t please everyone,” he said.

He further stated that there were a lot of members who had opposing views to him, and that there were also members who later came to him and admitted that what they had previously believed was not right as well.

He said that the decision that the members were to make today was a historic one and that it was the first occasion in the parliamentary history of the country where the parliament was to take a no- confidence motion against a speaker.

He advised the members to not to make the issue a political one but rather a decision that they would make for the sake of the best interest of the people. He asked the MPs to think about the people who elected the members before pressing the voting button.

“Whatever way the decision [of the vote] goes, I wish all you members well. Whatever way the decision comes out, I will continue repaying the debt I owe to the constituents of Keyodhoo Constituency who elected me,” he said.

Shahid concluded his speech stating that he did not hold any hard feelings towards any member, and thanked the members who had said “beautiful things” about him.

Many MPs cheered as the Deputy Speaker announced that the motion had failed to get the required number of votes to oust Shahid.

MDP Response

Speaking to Minivan News after the vote, MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said the MDP  parliamentary group had made a decision to take the no confidence motion against the speaker even before the transfer of power on February 7, but had waited for the right moment.

Ghafoor said that one reason for the motion was to assess the current political situation following the emergence of the PPM.

“Our argument is that a political party by the name of PPM has been formed. We wanted to assess the strength of the opposition coalition,” he said.

Ghafoor admitted that for the time being, the coalition of the political parties supporting the government seemed to be united as was seen from the vote, but questioned how long  they would work together.

He said it is inevitable that the coalition would break apart in the near future because of leadership tensions, raising doubts as to whether political figures within the coalition could work together for a longer period.

Asked whether the fact that MDP got 25 votes when the party had 30 MPs meant that there were internal conflicts within the party, Ghafoor said that it did not represent an internal conflict but just “a difference of opinion”.

“Our experience is that we lost four votes today. Two of our MPs abstained from the vote while MP Ahmed Rasheed and MP Hassan Adil voted with the opposition. MP Zahir Adam was absent today,” he said.

Ghafoor further stated that the parliament was a place of discussion and votes but on February 7, the transfer of power did not take place like that. He also said that the vote reflected that the majority of the parliament did not object to the coup.

“While the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has raised doubts over the transfer of power on February 7, today we saw  that despite those doubts, the majority of the parliament voted in favour of a coup,” he said.

Ghafoor said that despite the no-confidence vote not succeeding, the MDP did not view it as a defeat but rather an indication of how the political culture in the country had progressed.

After deciding in April to forward the no-confidence motion, the MDP stated that motion against Shahid concerned allegations that he had been making decisions relating to significant parliamentary issues without discussing them with various political parties.

The party claimed that Shahid had been acting outside of his mandate by deciding to suspend certain parliament regulations, whilst opting to follow others that were to his personal benefit.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government to accept Nasheed’s nominee to CNI

The government has accepted ousted former President Mohamed Nasheed’s nominee for the Commission on National Inquiry (CNI), according to reports in local media.

The government confirmed its acceptance of Nasheed’s nominee, Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed, who was formerly both Principal of ‘Ahmadiyya School’ and Deputy Principal of the British College of Sri Lanka.

“The Government made the decision to accept Mr Saeed’s name to demonstrate its seriousness in allowing the CoNI to continue with the inquiry in a genuinely independent and impartial fashion, and to complete the inquiry in a timely manner, as stipulated in the commitment signed with Sir Donald [McKinnon] on 15 May,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan confirmed prior to his departure to the UK this morning that the government had accepted the nominee proposed by Nasheed.

Waheed said that despite “certain reservations”, Nasheed’s latest nominee was “a good person” and that he hoped the CNI would proceed with its duties with the inclusion of the nominee.

The government previously accepted Manaal Shihab, the daughter of former Finance Minister Mohamed Shihab, however Nasheed had reportedly withdrawn his nominee at the time of the announcement and the confusion led to a statement from the Commonwealth that no nominee had yet been approved.

“Nasheed had proposed her name without proper consultation from his party,” Waheed alleged. “That is why we shall not disclose the name of the nominee yet, because something like that may happen again,” he said.

Asked about his reservations, Waheed stated that the latest nominee had “said certain things” regarding the transfer of power of February 7, but that he and the government were looking to proceed without much of an issue out of it.

“We do not intend to reject the name. We want to proceed with the commission,” he said.

Waheed further stated that Nasheed’s proposed name had been forwarded to the Commonwealth, which was expecting the say on the proposal.

Minivan News tried contacting Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed to confirm the appointment, but he did not respond at time of press.

MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor declined to comment on the matter, claiming that it was not the policy of the party to reveal the names to the media until the government officially did so.

Ismail Shafeeu will not be removed from the CNI

While the government appears to have accepted Nasheed’s nominee to the CNI, it has refused to remove CNI Chairman Ismail Shafeeu.

Shafeeu was the former Minister of Defence and National Security under former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. He was also Minister of Home Affairs during the time when the custodial death of Evan Naseem took place, a key moment in Maldivian political history that led to an uprising against Gayoom and the introduction of multiparty democracy.

Former President Nasheed and the MDP had raised doubts over Shafeeu’s impartiality and his role in the CNI.

Speaking to the press on the occasion to mark 100 days of Waheed’s government after he came to power on February 7, Nasheed said that Shafeeu did not fit the criteria imposed on his own nominee.

He expressed concern that Shafeeu was still on the panel despite an expectation that he would be replaced by the current facilitator of the All Party Talks, Ahmed Mujthaba.

Waheed disputed Nasheed’s assessment of Shafeeu, stating that he would remove Shafeeu as he was “capable and qualified”.

“His integrity and impartiality can be only questioned after close observation of his work at the commission,” said Waheed.

Waheed also reiterated that the government had agreed to revise the commission membership in consultation with the Commonwealth, with the appointment of a retired Singaporean Judge and a representative from former President Nasheed as agreed.

MDP’s Spokesperson Ghafoor has said Shafeeu’s impartiality was not as much of an issue for the MDP following the inclusion of an MDP representative on the panel, adding that the party had compromised during the negotiations.

The appointment of a nominee would be a “good achievement” despite the of barriers and complications set in place by the government to disqualify names proposed by Nasheed, Ghafoor said.

He said that while the Commonwealth had the “moral authority” to impose qualification requirements on the nominees, the government did not, as it was itself the subject under the investigation.

“I just don’t think one can give up the impression that the government is actually helping to resolve the situation here,” he said.

The CNI was established by President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to investigate the controversial transfer of power that took place on February 7. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) claimed that Nasheed was forced out of office in a coup d’etat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dr Didi and Alhan join Jumhooree Party, back Gasim as President

Additional reporting by Musliha Hassan

Former President of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Dr Ibrahim Didi and former Vice President Alhan Fahmy today signed up with the Jumhoory Party (JP) of local business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim.

Former MDP Secretary General Hassan Shah also signed for JP today.

Speaking at the signing ceremony this morning, Alhan Fahmy claimed Gasim Ibrahim’s “experience and service to the country” made him the most capable candidate to rule the country under the current situation.

Beyond his resort interests, Gasim owns television station VTV, is an MP, and a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). VTV was shown on the state broadcaster after it was stormed by police and opposition demonstrators on February 7, while Gasim and several other then-opposition leaders gathered in police headquarters.

Dr Didi and Alhan Fahmy were removed from the MDP leadership posts in a no-confidence vote supported by 95 percent of the MDP’s National Congress on April 30, after the pair were accused of making statements contradictory to the party’s official line concerning February 7.

Speaking at the signing ceremony, Gasim stated that former president Nasheed resigned after realising that he would no longer be able to rule the country.

“At some point the police and the military declined to obey his orders. If that is a coup, then it is a coup,” he said.

Gasim further alleged that Nasheed had given illegal orders to the police and military, and arrested people unconstitutionally and refused to release them – a reference to the detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed.

Gasim also said that Nasheed, who had resigned with the realisation that he had failed, was now trying to “hoodwink” people into thinking he had been ousted by a coup. He described Nasheed’s actions as poisoning the people.

Gasim said that Nasheed “should be arrested” by now and that with “the help of the constitution”, the current administration would arrest him.

Speaking at the ceremony, former Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) President Dr Ibrahim Didi said today he had opened a new page in his political career and looked forward to working for the nation on a JP platform.

” The message that I want to give to my friends and my relatives, is that from the day my political career began, I have been working in the best interest of the nation,” Didi said.

” Unfortunately, all the doors had been closed in [the MDP], and today, I am joining Jumhooree Party because I believe that this platform has all the doors opened for me,” he added.

He said that he did not find any substantial reason to believe that the ousting of former president Mohamed Nasheed had been a coup, and that if JP started mocking people and harassing Islam, he would leave immediately.

Speaking in the ceremony, former Vice President of MDP, MP Alhan Fahmy said that the country would not be able to recover if people were to follow in Nasheed or [former president] Gayoom.

He further alleged that both Nasheed and Gayoom, with the help of their close friends and family, wanted to establish a system in which they could stay in power without limitations.

” I want to say to the young people of the country, those that create and build ideologies. That is, we wont be able to steer our nation to the destinations that we want, if we are to blindly follow a few individuals,” he said.

Fahmy joined Didi in claiming that the controversial transfer of power was not a coup and that it was legitimate.

Also in the ceremony, former Secretary General of MDP, Hassan Shah, claimed that all MDP members knew how to do was gather in a place and protest.

Minivan News tried contacting Fahmy and Didi, but they did not respond at time of press.

Local newspaper Haveeru earlier reported that both Didi and Fahmy insisted on retaining the Presidential and Vice-Presidential positions within their new party, which required an amendment to JP regulations.

Didi and Fahmy were removed from their posts in the MDP after being accused of making statements in contradiction of the party’s official line, concerning the the events that led to the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7.

A motion of no confidence was supported by 95 percent of the MDP’s National Congress on April 30. Both men disputed the legitimacy of the process which led to their ousting.

Dr Didi filed a complaint with the Elections Commission (EC), which was later dismissed, whilst Fahmy staged a sparsely attended ‘free MDP’ rally, protesting against what he alleged was the negative influence of Nasheed on the party.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)