Author: Mariyath Mohamed

“Posing as scholars, they sold out Islam to bring about a coup d’etat”: former President

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed has said February 7, 2012’s controversial transfer of power was by politicians posing as religious scholars “selling out on the religion of Islam.”

Nasheed made the comments while addressing a rally held in the island of Bilehdhoo in Faafu Atoll on Sunday night, where a number of new members signed to the party including the island’s council president.

Only aim of small parties is promoting self-interest

Addressing the crowds, Nasheed stated that the country was seeing the formation of a number of small political parties.

“These parties are not formed with any intention of promoting any specific ideology or philosophy. The objective of forming these parties are to increase the power of their private businesses through these parties,” he stated.

“When they have a political party they sit down for business discussions, and the government is forced to relent. This is the reason why these people create political parties,” Nasheed said.

“After forming such parties, they then contest in elections and say that if they are given cabinet posts, islands, judges and warehouses, then they will into a coalition. The people have no part in such a coalition, it’s only these leaders who enter it,” Nasheed continued.

He further added that although small party leaders did not consider the interests of the general members or citizens when entering coalitions, he regretted that such parties were initially formed by acquiring signatures from those among the public.

“These forms were filled  illegitimately using money as an incentive. We are seeing this for certain beyond any doubt. And once the party is formed, they then sell off the party to this coalition,” he alleged.

“One of the biggest things that this coalition has done is toppling the government which was legitimately elected in 2008.”

“This country has a ‘haram’ government”

“There is no greater sin in Islam than to orchestrate a coup,” Nasheed stated.

“Wearing hats of sheikhs and religious scholars, they have committed a huge sin, an act which is absolutely haram. Today, this country has a haram government. Being a 100 percent Muslim country, we must not let them continue carrying out this haram act in front of our eyes. God willing, we will win this presidential election in one round.”

“God willing, the righteous will always win. Human experience has never shown that a people who have committed a haram act, and remain in that state of sin, can succeed in what they are doing. We have never seen this happen in the past, and except for a few of our countrymen, no one believes they will gain that success even in future.”

During his speech, Nasheed spoke of the rhetoric used by political parties had against his administration prior to the contentious transfer of power in February 2012.

“In their ploy to topple our government, they spoke of two things. One is that it was for the sake of religion. In this context, one issue they raised was that the management of Ghiyasudheen School [in Male’] included foreigners. Meanwhile, we can clearly see that even here the principal is a foreigner, the teachers are foreigners.”

“After having preached this against Ghiyasudheen School, today it is the children of these religious scholars who are enrolled to study in that school. [Adhaalath Party MP] Muhthalib’s child goes to that school. The Supreme Court Judges’ children also go to that school. All the religious scholars have their children enrolled in this school, and this is because it is a school where the educational standards are very high,” Nasheed said.

“They toppled our government because we were establishing that school, and yet today their children are enrolled there,” he claimed.

“When they were overthrowing our government, they spoke about massage parlours. We are not seeing these places being closed down today. They spoke of the sale of alcohol, and yet the amount of alcohol being sold has not gone down.”

“I am absolutely certain that you will not see any issue that they have raised that has been stopped today,” Nasheed said, addressing many of the accusations that had been made against him by the then opposition coalition.

“By donning the caps of religious scholars and deceiving citizens in the name of religion, they gained power in a government and are now in the midst of the biggest worldly sin,” Nasheed alleged.

“The religion of Islam is a religion which has been given respect and honour in our hearts. They can always play with our hearts when they speak in the name of religion, especially when they do so in the guise of being Islamic scholars,” he said.

“We Maldivians are waking up to this now. We can no longer believe the things they say in the name of being religious scholars.”

“The Adhaalath Party did contest in the parliamentary elections, as well as the local council elections. They did not win a single seat in the first, and only two or three or seats on Fainu in the local council elections, out of a total of over 1700 seats,” Nasheed stated.

“Maldivians have never accepted that religious scholars should get entangled in worldly political matters. They are pious, righteous people who should be advising people like us on religious matters. It will not do when today they themselves are coming out and drafting laws to govern massage parlours,” Nasheed said.

“All of this is clear to us Maldivians now: a coup d’etat was brought about in the Maldives, and this coup was orchestrated by selling out the religion of Islam.”

“’Me, me, mine’ is the motto of small parties”

“The other issue that they spoke of when toppling our government is that we were putting up national assets for sale. They claimed we sold the airport on Hulhule’, which still remains there. No one has left taking the airport with them,” Nasheed stated.

“After the coup, the very people who claimed loudly that airport had been sold and partook in the coup, took the airport themselves. This they did not see as a national asset. The airport that we rent out for development was said to be a national asset, though. It is as if they become assets when they are in the hands of a certain people. As if it is not a national asset as long as it remains in their hands,” he said.

“The whole objective of a small political party is ‘for me, me, mine’; to see what is in it for them and to continue forming coalitions so as to increase the lot they will personally gain from it,” Nasheed continued.

“No development work was carried out in the Maldives in 2012 – the country was at a standstill. These people’s motto is to remain in a standstill. The government is at a standstill. They do nothing besides quarrelling among themselves,” Nasheed said.

“I think that if they make a large coalition, there is no relief for us Maldivians. It will be then be all about their coalition, their interests, their wealth, their businesses and their rule.”

“Children are not to be handled like tuna”

President Mohamed Waheed has meanwhile expressing “deep sadness” after a parent had stopped a child from shaking hands with the him during a trip to Meemu Atoll last weekend.

“The child won’t even know who I am even, but the father has taught the child a very bad lesson. To refuse to shake hands with anyone who approaches is not something Muslims do, not something Maldivians do,” Waheed was quoted as saying in local media.

Nasheed referred to this incident in his speech in Bilehdhoo.

“When ‘Baaghee’ (traitor) Mohamed Waheed went to an island and tried to harass a child, and the parents stopped him from doing so, he released a media statement expressing sadness about this,” Nasheed said.

“I have said even the other day, that parents will of course get angry when you try to hoist a child up like they hoist up tuna onto a fishing boat. I have said even then that we look at this child, carry this child, because their life is our party’s future, this nation’s future. This party has a policy which has to do with everything from their toe to their tip of their hair. This party is the child’s party. This party exists for the sake of the child’s future, for our future. To make their hopes and dreams a reality. And so, parents will not get angry when we approach their children and carry them,” Nasheed stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer contests dismissal from PPM in Civil Court

Umar Naseer, who lost the presidential primaries of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) to Abdulla Yameen, has submitted a case to the Civil Court seeking a ruling that he was dismissed from the party against the party’s regulations.

Ahmed ‘Maaz’ Saleem, a PPM member who served as Naseer’s campaign manager,  stated that the case also concerned irregularities in the primaries. He reportedly told local media that they did not believe that Naseer’s allegations the primaries were rigged were enough ground for him to be dismissed from a political party in a modern democratic system.

Saleem further claimed that Naseer’s dismissal breached the fundamental regulations of the party itself.

“It’s against democratic principles to dismiss every person who expresses a dissenting view on party matters,” Saleem said.

Saleem went on to criticise other internal issues of PPM, stating that even the party’s Disciplinary Committee consisted of members who remained “under the control of” PPM’s presidential candidate Yameen.

Saleem further stated that a large number of PPM members are still supporting Naseer, and that they would back his claims that the primaries had been rigged through ballot-stuffing, falsifying vote counts and other such actions.

Saleem said that problems had risen in PPM after “a group of corrupt people from some organisation called the PA which does not even have 3000 members” joined the party.

The PA (People’s Alliance) was headed by Abdulla Yameen until the Dhiivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) split and formed the PPM. Yameen then joined PPM, leaving PA to be headed by Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim.

Unfair disciplinary action

Naseer’s close political ally Saleem added that the party had failed to take action against MPs Shifaq Mufeed and Ali Arif, who had strongly criticised the current government and President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in parliament, despite the party’s council having ruled it would not publicly criticise the government as they were part of its coalition.

“President Maumoon himself expressed concern about this action of the MPs,” Saleem was quoted as saying in local media.

“The decision to not criticise this government was made in a council meeting chaired by President Maumoon himself. And then these MPs acted against this decision right in front of MP Abdul Azeez Jamaal (Chair of PPM’s Disciplinary Committee). And even then, the committee did not even look into the matter. Tell me then, where is the justice in them taking action against Umar Naseer?”

Cases against PPM primaries

Saleem further said that “it is not a sensible line of action” to dismiss Naseer for alleging the primaries had been rigged, while there is an ongoing case in the Civil Court submitted by a general member of PPM regarding vote rigging in the primaries.

Earlier this month, member of PPM Rahma Moosa has lodged a case in the Civil Court challenging the results of the party’s presidential primary.

The case was filed claiming that 8,915 people who were not officially registered as members of PPM had been allowed to vote in the primary.

Moosa alleged that the move breached the Political Party Act and compromised the rights of all general members of the party.

PPM Spokesperson Ahmed Mahloof’s phone was switched off at the time of press.

Umar Naseer was not responding to calls. Earlier this month his secretary stated that, as a rule, he would not conduct interviews with Minivan News.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State seeks High Court ruling on President’s discretion to grant clemency in death sentences

The Maldivian state has sought a High Court ruling on the President’s discretion to commute death sentences to life imprisonment.

During a hearing on Monday in a case filed by five citizens seeking to annul laws granting the President discretionary powers of clemency,  the state attorney said the government would prefer the court itself provided a decision on the matter in accordance with Islamic Sharia.

The state attorney insisted that the decision be made by the court, despite the High Court Judges Bench emphasising that the state must provide an answer since the case concerned a constitutional matter.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer alleged that the state had previously been given a number of opportunities to be answerable to the case against them, and that it had used the excuse of conducting research as a bid to buy time, and waste the time of the court. He asked that the bench accept the state’s request and provide a verdict on the case at the earliest.

In the case’s last hearing held in November 2012, the High Court gave the state the last opportunity to be answerable to the charges against them.

Concluding today’s hearing, the bench announced that it will come to a verdict during the next hearing of the case.

The case, submitted in August 2012, seeks the annulment of Article 5(a.i) and Article 21 of the Clemency Act (2/2010).

Article 5(a.i) states that the punishment for the crime of murder cannot be pardoned, although clemency is allowed under restrictions stated in the Act.

Article 21 states that although it may have been stated otherwise in the Act, if the Supreme Court issues a death sentence, or if it backs a death sentence issued by the lower courts or the High Court, it is at the President’s discretion to grant clemency and transfer it to a life sentence with reference to the condition of the sentenced person, related legal norms, the interests of the state and the principles of humanity.

The case against the state asks for this annulment while referring to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Maldives, which states that no law can be enacted in the country which contradicts Islamic principles.

It then adds that according to Article 268, all legislation ratified in the country should be drafted within the principles detailed in the constitution, and that all laws and articles which do not align with this will be considered invalid.

The case, as reported previously by local media, further states that in Islamic Sharia, only the heir of the victim has the right to grant clemency or mercy to a murderer. It then states that a murderer can only be sentenced to death (ie gisas/retribution) if all heirs of the victim agree to it. It then goes on to say that neither the President nor any state institutions have the right to change a death sentence issued by a court of law.

It further states that should the President have it in his discretion to grant clemency in murder cases, this infringes upon the rights of the living heirs of murder victims.

It cited that the last time a death sentence was implemented in the country was in the year 1953, opining that although courts continued to sentence persons to death, “since then, the country has not had even one leader who has had the courage to implement this sentence.”

They case claims that the failure to implement the death penalty has “ruined this nation”, and that it infringes upon the citizens’ right to live, right to equitable treatment and right to travel among a number of other civil rights.

The case was submitted to court by five individuals; Abdul Maniu Hussain of Anbareege in Haa Alif Atoll Ihavandhoo, Hussain Shaheed of Baazeege in Seenu Atoll Hithadhoo, Abdulla Shiyaz of Naseema Manzil in Lhaviyani Atoll Naifaru, Abdulla Naseer of Boalhadhan’duge in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll Gahdhoo and Hassan Waheed of Rankokaa in Haa Dhaalu Atoll Kurin’bi.

Government in support of death penalty implementation

In October 2012, the government announced its intention to introduce a bill to the People’s Majlis in order to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad at the time referred to the October 2012 murder of religious scholar and MP Afrasheem Ali and stated, “We are having enormous pressure since these high profile murders. We have indications – the talk around the town – that there will be more murders.”

He added that the government had received a large number of calls for implementing the death penalty.

Similar to the ongoing case, in April 2012, MP Ahmed Mahloof from the government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), proposed an amendment to the Clemency Act to ensure that the enforcement of the death penalty be mandatory in the event it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

In December 2012, the Attorney General’s Office completed drafting a bill outlining how the death sentence should be executed in the Maldives, with lethal injection being identified as the state’s preferred method of capital punishment.

However, earlier this year religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf has called on Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor to amend the government’s draft bill on the implementation of death penalty, urging that convicts be beheaded or shot instead of given lethal injection.

The bill is currently pending approval by parliament, and has given rise to dissenting opinions on the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I have joined MDP to prevent window to democracy from being closed”: Speaker Shahid

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) held one of the largest political rallies in the country’s recent history on Friday (April 19) to celebrate the signing of Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid as a member.

Shahid announced he was joining the opposition MDP Thursday (April 18), after resigning from the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) earlier in the week.

He yesterday addressed thousands of supporters gathered at the Alimas Carnival area of Male’ in his first address since signing with the party at a special rally entitled ‘A New Strength’.

“I am here today with renewed resolve to give new hope to the Maldivian people. I am here with you brave warriors to do all I can to find the best means for the people of the Maldives,” said Shahid,

“In 2008, a flicker of hope was kindled in the hearts of the Maldivian people. A window to democracy was opened. Maldivians used the light of this flame and the opportunities of this window to experience the beautiful gardens of democracy,” Shahid continued.

“As our hearts yearned to stay in these gardens for good, an attempt was made to try and close this window. An attempt was made to extinguish that glow of hope in people’s hearts. It was the courageous members of MDP who obstructed the powerful forces that tried to close this window to democracy.”

“Today, I am here with all of you brave, steadfast warriors to prevent that window from being closed,” Shahid stated.

In his first speech at a MDP podium, Shahid stated that many of his supporters, as well as “many young, assertive technocrats” who have worked with him, were now in the process of joining MDP alongside him.

“People from all over the Maldives called me upon hearing that I have joined the Maldivian Democratic Party. They told me that this decision of mine is in the best interests of the nation at this moment, and assured me that they will join this party with me,” he added, to loud applause from party supporters.

Will not them enslave us in the name of religion and nationalism: Shahid

“The strongest tool used to oppress citizens is to instill fear in their hearts, to make them weak psychologically, to create mistrust between each other, to create a culture of doubt and unrest. It is not surprising that these tactics are being used in our Maldives today,” Shahid said, criticising the present government and its coalition parties.

“The aim of these tactics is to make people lose faith in the democracy that rose in the Maldives, to delude people into thinking that democracy is a useless concept. And along with this, to utilize the ensuing chaos to usurp the power of the people, and to prevent the establishment of an administration that will work for the betterment of the people.”

“I want to say to those orchestrating such actions, that today, the Maldivian people will not give you the opportunity to pull that off. Today, Maldivians will not move away from democracy. They will not give up the powers of the people,” Shahid stated.

Shahid, who has previously spoken out against the MDP and its supporters, stated his reasons for now joining the party on Friday.  He claimed that he had taken the decision as the MDP was the only party that can move the country forward and bring development through its policies and democratic values.

“Allegations that [MDP] is working to undermine the religion of Islam, and the independence and sovereignty of the country are made with the intention of spreading such fear,” Shahid said of the criticisms, which continue to be levied against MDP by its political opponents.

“The easiest way out [for them] is to talk about the fear of losing independence or sovereignty. The minute anybody says a word, they are labelled a traitor, or an enemy. That’s all there is to it. In a space like this, we must question why this happens. In some other countries which are now developed, we saw people being enslaved under the name of religion and nationalism. We will not give them the opportunity to do that to us here,” he stated.

Shahid said that at a time when the Maldives had “more scholars than ever before seen in Islamic history”, rather than spread fear, it is vital to disseminate information that Islam is the religion of science, progress and development.

“Be it independence, or sovereignty, they only exist because of us citizens. They are things that exist for the sake of citizens. Those that speak of protecting sovereignty and independence today, without shedding light on the significance of the citizens, do so because they have nothing more they can speak of, because they do not have any plans or policies for the people. This is something that the Maldivian people will no longer accept,” he continued.

“We are now interconnected with the world. We will not let them isolate us from the world, and take us backwards.”

In conclusion of his speech, Shahid echoed the words of MDP leaders and stated, “The Presidential Elections are right in front of us. I can assure you with certainty that we will win that election from the first round itself. The reason why I am so sure of this is because of the immense support for this party that we see today.”

“Taking off at high speed”

MDP Presidential Candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed stated at the rally that the party was now taking off at high speed to win the September 7 elections.

Gesturing at the thousands of supporters which filled the rally grounds on Friday night, Nasheed stated that this was the sight of victory that was being witnessed at that moment.

Welcoming Shahid to the party, Nasheed stated that he is one of the most experienced politicians the country has ever seen.

“This day will be marked in history. This country’s historians and researchers will emphasize the reason why Shahid joined MDP,” Nasheed stated.

“We will not stay still or take half steps. Tighten your seatbelts. We are taking off at high speed and will stop only after taking oath as President once again this coming November. Shahid has left a campaign that proceeds in slow-motion to join one that moves much faster. We won’t go in slow motion. We take 3 feets steps and move with speed,” he said.

Among other speakers at the rally were MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, Parliamentary Group Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, MP and former Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi and Raa Atoll Councillor Mohamed Waheed.

Shahid’s switch comes almost exactly one year to the day that the opposition MDP submitted an unsuccessful no confidence motion against the speaker, accusing him at the time of making decisions relating to significant parliamentary issues without discussing them with various political parties.

Fall out

Speaking following the announcement of speaker’s switch on Thursday (April 18), DRP Deputy Leader Abdulla Mausoom told Minivan News at the time that the party had no present plans to pursue a no-confidence motion against the speaker as a result of him defecting to the opposition.

However, he claimed that in cases where any politician – whether a speaker or cabinet minister – was deemed to be compromising national issues, then the party “would not hesitate” to take action against them.

Meanwhile, Abdulla Yameen, Parliamentary Group Leader of the government-aligned PPM – the country’s second largest political party after the MDP and minority party of parliament – had his phone switched off today.

Earlier this week, PPM MP Ahmed Nihan said he had worked with Shahid for many years and personally found him to be very capable in his position as speaker.

However, he added that he was not sure how his fellow party members or other government-aligned MPs might view his decision to switch to the opposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lu1rLkgH9IA

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM presidential primary results challenged in court

A member of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Rahma Moosa, has today lodged a case at the Civil Court challenging the results of the party’s presidential primary.

The Civil Court has confirmed that the case was filed today, adding it was uncertain when a first hearing would be scheduled.

According to local media, Moosa filed a case claiming that 8,915 people who were not officially registered as members of PPM had been allowed to vote in the primary.

She contended that the move contravened the Political Party Act and compromised the rights of all general members of the party.

The primary, held late last month, saw MP Abdulla Yameen selected at the PPM’s candidate to stand in the presidential election scheduled for September 7 this year.

Yameen defeated rival Umar Naseer with a 63 percent of the vote.

According to Moosa, while the Elections Commission (EC) website stated that the PPM had a total of 22,383 members as of March 10, the voter registry published by the party had 31,298 persons listed.

She claimed that members of parties other than PPM had also been included in the voter list, according to local media.

The PPM has previously said that although the additional persons had not been registered at the Elections Commission by March 10, they were allowed to vote as they had submitted membership forms to the party.

However, according to the Elections Commission website, in addition to the PPM’s 22,383 registered members, the party had submitted only an additional 1671 membership forms to the commission.  These forms are currently awaiting verification. This leaves the membership still 7244 shy of the number of voters registered in the party’s primaries.

Elections Commission Vice President Ahmed Fayaz said that the commission has temporarily halted processing political party membership forms.

“We are very hectically working on drafting and finalizing the regulations which must be made following the ratification of the Political Parties Act, as it does not even have any clauses to give us an interim period. Hence, we have temporarily stopped processing the verification of membership forms submitted by any political party, unless in special circumstances. By this, I mean a case like, say, in the instance where some persons need to be registered due to party primaries,” Fayaz said.

Moosa has meanwhile told local media that the case was submitted on the request of a large number of party members, who she said believed that the primary was not conducted in a free and fair manner.

In the first public appearance after Abdulla Yameen winning the primaries, PPM Leader and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom referred to the recently concluded vote as “the most responsible, free and fair, transparent primaries ever held by a political party in the country to date.”

Umar Naseer however accused Yameen of “rigging” the election, alleging undue influence on voters, vote buying, intimidation of his supporters and denying a number of his supporters the right to vote by omitting their names from the voter list.

PPM has since given Umar Naseer a period of seven days in which he is expected to ‘reform and realign with the party’s charter or regulations’ or face expulsion from the party.

Rahma Moosa is reported in local media as being a PPM member who had supported Umar Naseer in the party’s primaries.

PPM Spokesperson Ahmed Mahloof’s phone was switched off, while the party’s presidential candidate Abdulla Yamin was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Umar Naseer’s secretary stated that, as a rule, he will not conduct interviews with Minivan News.

She said that no particular reasons were stated, and that those were the orders she had been given.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I will lead Maldives out of a failing democracy, we don’t want a phobiocracy”: PPM presidential candidate

The newly elected presidential candidate of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Abdulla Yameen on Tuesday night delivered his first address to supporters following the conclusion of the primaries.

“Our motto is ‘nation first’”, Yameen stated. “Any other parties who genuinely want to join us can come knock on our door anytime. You are welcome at any time, whether it be day or late at night.”

“I am not trying to be elected President for want of a castle. I don’t want such a palace. It is also not with the intention of challenging competitors. This is why I’m telling my opponent in the party itself, too, to stop competing with me. I do not intend to compete with anyone. I am here to fight the battle of solving the many issues our country is facing now,” Yameen said.

“I want to repair the damaged social fabric of this country. I want to bring Maldives out of this failing democracy, save it from the impeding dictatorship and establish a modern democracy as facilitated by the systems set in place by our Constitution. We do not want a phobiocracy. We want development and modernisation.”

While the losing candidate who contested against Yameen, Umar Naseer, held his own rally on Monday night, PPM announced Tuesday’s rally to be “the first gathering held by the party after the primaries”.

The statement was made after Naseer aired serious allegations against Yameen during Monday night’s rally, accusing him of a variety of offences including forming alliances with drug cartels, vote buying and various other forms of corruption.

Meanwhile, the party’s council released a ruling after an emergency meeting held Tuesday afternoon, ordering Umar Naseer to offer a public apology for the comments he had made and for holding a gathering ‘against the party’s regulations’ before the commencement of Wednesday night’s official rally.

The council further ruled that should Naseer fail to put forward an apology within the assigned duration, the council would take further disciplinary action against him.

Umar Naseer was not responding to calls at the time of press. Local media has meanwhile reported that he refused to comment on the matter.

Playing in defence

“Many attacks have come at me from inside and out. I do not wish to defend myself, but I will make some comments here for your sake, as you should know the character of the person to whom you have pledged support,” Yameen told the crowds.

“I swear upon Allah that none of the things I have been alleged of doing can be proven against me. I am here with much more stability than that. If I had such actions on my conscience, I would not have stepped out for public service.”

“Just so as to offer consolation for you all, I am saying this. I am not a rich man. I do not own apartments in other countries. I do not control gangs. I am not involved in the illegal drug trade. I do not have even a small connection with the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali,” Yameen said.

“I would like to add that for the sake of our party, let us stop making allegations like this. We are far more responsible and well-established to be making comments of this nature.”

“Most democratic primaries ever held”: Gayoom

PPM Party Leader former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom addressed the hundreds of party supporters at the rally, stating that the recently concluded party primaries were “the most responsible, free and fair, transparent primaries ever held by a political party in the country to date.”

“Both candidates who competed in the primaries showed high competitiveness in the spirit of democracy,” Gayoom stated.

“These historic, free and extremely fair primaries were won by Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayyoom. I congratulate him in your name and mine,” Gayoom continued.

“At the same time, Umar Naseer, who could not win the primaries, also contacted me via phone after the results were announced. He said to me that he accepted the results, and extended congratulations to Abdulla Yameen. He further said he believed the primaries had proceeded in a very fair manner. Naseer also said that the campaign office he had built was from that moment on gifted to PPM, and hence I would like to thank him for the democratic example he has displayed with these actions,” he stated.

Both Gayoom and Yameen have claimed that the party has 31,000 “genuine” members now, and called on the members to each find two new members by the end of May.

“This is not difficult. If we each get two more members, we will soon have 93,000 members and with a little more effort we can easily achieve 100,000,” Gayoom said.

“Our party has the highest number of genuine members now. By that I mean that all 31,000 of our members have submitted complete details of themselves to authorities, including even their fingerprints. The other parties have not done so,” Gayoom alleged.

Official figures on the Elections Commission website show that PPM currently has 22,383 members, with an additional 1671 forms awaiting clearance.

“Our loyalties should be to the party, not to Maumoon”: Gayoom

“Our party always acts in accordance with law and regulations, and it must continue to do so,” Gayoom said. “All party members must follow the party’s regulations. No one is above these regulations. We are obliged to act in accordance with the regulations, or else people will start acting as they please, which would lead us astray from our objectives.”

Gayoom referred to the breaking up of his previous party Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) into factions, stating that he had made a stand for Umar Naseer when DRP had tried to dismiss him from the party in breach of their regulations.

“I stood up for his rights, but then DRP started acting towards me in a very demeaning manner. They went on TV and said they did not need me, my advice or opinions. And so, I had to leave that party. This is an experience I have had related to the importance of following regulations.”

“Article 69 of our regulation states clearly that all PPM members must pledge allegiance to the presidential candidate. We cannot say that we will support him if he acts in any particular way. That is simply not an option,” Gayoom said.

“Our loyalties should not lie with an individual. It should not be pledged to a certain Maumoon, or to anyone besides Maumoon. It should be towards the party itself, with our policies and principles,” he stated.

Furthermore, Yameen called out to Naseer to work with him to lead the party to further successes.

“We were able to win 17 of 20 recent by-elections. This is because of the strength of having worked together, which is why I call out to Umar Naseer to come work with us,” Yameen said.

“The primaries were a test of character of the whole party and its individual members,” Yameen said. “We must not let any weakness seep into the party. Our brother Naseer, who was unfortunate this time and lost the primaries, must also display his test of character now. Our party is larger than any of us individuals,” he continued.

“My biggest strength is that our fountain of wealth, fountain of experience, party leader Gayoom, is here to guide me and our party and lead us. This is my ultimate happiness,” Yameen stated.

Autism Awareness Day

With April 2 declared Autism Awareness Day and marked widely throughout the Maldives, many speakers at the rally pledged support to families with autistic patients.

“Today is the internationally marked day for families with autistic kids to raise awareness in countries of the challenges that they face. Thus, in commemoration of this day, I really wish to extend my heartfelt sympathies, love and support to such children, and so I have now done that,” Gayoom stated.

Presidential candidate Yameen said in his speech, “This is the Autistic Day, isn’t it? If one is not autistic, whichever way one looks, one would doubtless see the development that has been brought to this country in the 30 years.”

Yamin’s comments, though applauded at the  rally, were criticised in social media as being offensive and insensitive.

Responding to criticism and demands for an apology, PPM Spokesperson Ahmed Mahloof initially tweeted “Yameen’s comments on autism are being twisted by MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) members after watching our rally and not being able to digest it.”

He then tweeted an apology on behalf of Yameen, stating “Yameen apologises if there was any misinterpretation of his comments with regard to autism.”

Yameen has since released an official statement on Wednesday, echoing Mahloof’s allegations of political opponents distorting his words and apologising if there was room for misinterpretation.

He also pledged to advocate for the rights of persons with special rights, and offered assurance that such persons will be given equal opportunities in the instance that PPM wins the September 7 elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The culture of flogging in the Maldives: a systematic abuse of human rights

The Maldives is a tourist paradise, crowned the World’s Most Romantic Destination during the World Travel Awards in 2011. But while a popular destination for couples around the globe, it takes a radical paradigm shift when it comes to its own citizens.

Under the 2008 Constitution the Maldives is a ‘100 percent’ Muslim country, with a justice system based on a hybrid of common law and Islamic Sharia.

Although the country does not implement many of the ‘Hadd’ or penalties prescribed by Sharia law, including amputation and stoning, it does practice some selective punishments.

One such penalty is the implementation of flogging for a number of crimes including, but not limited to, fornication outside of wedlock.

In recent days, global media attention has been drawn to the case of a 15 year old-girl convicted of fornication and sentenced to flogging, despite her history of alleged sexual abuse dating back to 2009.

Minivan News has spoken with a number of locals about their experiences with flogging, and the societal impact it has had in the past.

Faheem*, a 47 year old former court official in a small island in the North of the Maldives, shared his experiences in regard to related cases.

“In my 10 years serving as a court official during the 90’s, I have witnessed many people being subjected to public flogging. Although we are, in fact, a Muslim nation, most of these sentences were for cases of extra marital sex,” Faheem said.

“The majority of those who did get flogged were women. Although Islam specifically states that once a culprit has endured the ‘Hadd’ he or she is completely washed of their sins, society does not seem to see it in that way.

These women are tainted for life and forever looked down upon. There were a couple of men too, but the islanders did not react in the same way against the men. They seem to be more easily accepted back into society, their sins are generally forgiven or forgotten in time,” he explained.

“We usually used a paddle, and there were then, like now, specific regulations which the flogger had to adhere to. But there is one particular case that has stayed in my mind, and although I was not directly involved in it, I have always remembered it with a pang of guilt,” he continued.

“The magistrate at the time, Ghazee Zubair, was involved with a woman from our island. Then one day he had to preside over a case against this woman, who had been brought in front of him for charges of extramarital, consensual sex with yet another man,” Faheem said.

“I remember islanders talking about whether he would be impartial in his judgement. He was, to a point. Yes, she was sentenced to flogging. But, the appalling thing is that while all others got the paddle, she was given a hundred lashes with a cotton handkerchief,” Faheem said.

While the paddle is commonly used in the implementation of flogging, it has been replaced with less harsher tools in some cases.

Hussain Haleem, a former court official, said in the past there have been instances where objects such as peacock feathers have been imported for the sole purpose of flogging a woman belonging to the country’s elite, or a single lash with a string of 100 rosary beads, each bead counting as a separate lash. Haleem, however, added that there had been cases in the other extreme, where the flogger has used far more force than is required, causing serious physical harm to the person sentenced.

Court officials attempt to gather a crowd of onlookers when the sentence is being implemented, in a bid to increase the shame of the sentenced persons. People standing around the court building, or waiting to file documents or cases, are frequently asked to join the crowds.

Shame and humiliation

Ibrahim*, a 44 year-old civil servant, talked about growing up as the illegitimate child of a woman who had been flogged.

“It was hard. Mother, who has since passed away, did not come from as elite a family as the man who they say is my father. She was the youngest daughter of a carpenter, a woman with no education, no money and no social status,” he said.

“As a teenage girl, she worked as a maid to help support the family. It was at this house where she worked that I was conceived. Of course, the man involved was rich and well, untouchable, even by the justice system.He denied any involvement and got off scott-free.

“I don’t refer to him as my father. I have never exchanged a word with him. My mother, however, was lashed. She told me that she herself had confessed, saying as per Islam, she deserved to get shamed, to bebeaten for her sin. Her family was so ashamed of her that she was turned out of the house.

“She lived till her late fifties alone, except for me. Growing up with a woman labelled undeservingly as cheap and honourless was not easy. This place is small and everyone calls me a bastard behind my back. That is probably why I have never learned to smile much,” Ibrahim said.

Twenty-six year-old marketing professional Fathima* spoke about how she felt forced to marry a man she was unhappy being with, to avoid the “societal ostracism” of being flogged.

“I was 22 at the time. Hassan, my boyfriend, was 30. We had been in a relationship for about six months and it wasn’t really working out. Hassan was too possessive for comfort, and I was looking for a way out of the relationship. And then, in the middle of all this, I became pregnant,” Fathima said.

“There was no one I could go to with the problem. My parents would have been outraged and I did not, rather I do not, have the courage to take the chance of being found out and flogged; of being banished to some island and losing everything, from my family’s acceptance of me to my reputation and this job I love. So, although things were already sour, Hassan and I got married in a rush,” she continued.

Fathima gave birth to a baby girl less than seven months into the marriage. She said the couple had the baby abroad for fear of being found out if they had stayed in the Maldives for the delivery. After a difficult and emotionally abusive marriage, Fathima filed for divorce a year after the wedding. She does not get any support for the child from the father, and is currently working as a single mother.

“I sometimes wonder if, compared to the hardships I am facing now, it was worth it to spend all my savings on the wedding and the trip abroad for delivery of my child. Hassan was of no help except for the name he lent to my child. I ask myself if it wouldn’t have been better to have just faced the shame of flogging back then.

“Who am I kidding? I don’t think anyone deserves such degrading treatment. Let’s be real. It’s something that the authorities ignore until an official complaint is made or someone ends up getting pregnant, but there is hardly anyone in this country who does not have sexual relations prior to, or outside of, marriage. It’s the hypocrisy I hate worst of all,” she said.

Punishment or repentance?

Usthaz Abdul Mueed Hassan, a graduate of Qatar’s Mauhadini Sanawi and Azhar University, said that in its true spirit, Islam holds repentance and forgiveness in higher regard than the implementation of Hadd penalties.

Mueed, who holds a state-issued permit to lecture on religious issues, spoke to Minivan News about the implementation of Hadd, while also commenting on the case of the 15 year-old rape victim sentenced to flogging.

“There is a verse in the Quran which comes in light of an incident in Quraish. The people of Quraish used to sell or give out their young females to guests they held in high regard, against the wishes of these youth. The verse was in response to questions that arose as to whether these youth would be considered sinners,” Mueed explained.

He referred to the conclusion of Verse 33 of Noor Surah in the Quran which reads: “But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them yet after such compulsion is Allah Oft-forgiving Most Merciful [to them].”

“In circumstances where a woman is forced into sexual relations, like in the instance of rape, Hadd will not apply to them. As in the verse I’ve quoted, Allah himself has forgiven them. None is above Allah. And since He has granted forgiveness, there is no more for us to do. It is very clearly stated so,” Mueed said.

“Anyone who reads these verses in the correct way and in their right order can clearly make out under what circumstances a punishment should and should not be given,” he said.

“Islam does not permit any Hadd to be delivered if there is any ‘Shubha’ [doubt] about the offence having been committed,” Mueed said, referring to sayings of Prophet Muhammad, as cited in the book Fiqh Al-Sunnah, Part II.

“The Prophet has also said that when seeking to implement Hadd on a person, if there is detected even the slightest reason to let it go without implementing the Hadd, then do so. He then says that this is because it is far better for the person in charge – be it a judge, a president or an Imam – to err in forgiving a person than to err in sentencing a person to any Hadd,” Mueed said.

“So even in the current case of the 15 year-old, if there is the slightest doubt – say for example, the girl is not fully mature and aware, or she is not explicitly aware that fornication is ‘haram’ (prohibited) – then it is better to not implement the sentence,” Mueed stated.

Mueed said that in Islam, proving offences like Zinah (fornication out of wedlock) beyond doubt is deliberately made to be difficult to achieve. Even if a person confesses to a crime, if he or she later denies it, then the Hadd cannot be observed, he said.

“For example, for this Hadd, there has to be four male witnesses with perfect eyesight who have seen the act occur at the same time, in the same manner. Four eyewitnesses being there is in itself unlikely, unless it is in a highly corrupted society and such acts are committed outside in public places. Furthermore, if three of them provide witness and the fourth ends up differing, then these three witnesses will be sentenced for ‘gazf’ (false accusation against a chaste and virtuous person of having committed fornication),” he continued.

“What is the reason for this to be made so complicated in Islam? It is to discourage implementation,” Mueed stated. “One must not take the literal, word by word, meaning of the Quran and Prophet’s sayings. We must interpret its words in the light of the true spirit of the religion and with reference to history.”

“For Hadd of Zinah to be sentenced upon a person, there are four requirements that must be met: the person must be of sound mind, must have reached puberty, must have committed fornication willingly without any compulsion and must know that the act of fornication is ‘haram’ in Islam,” he explained.

The religion-based political party Adhaalath Party, members of which largely dominate the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, has meanwhile stated that “No one has the right to criticise any penalties specified in Islam,” and that “criticising issues like this would encourage enemies of Islam, create confusion among the general public and open up opportunities for people who aim to stop the practice of similar penalties commanded in Islam.”

In a statement released in February, the party said “The purpose of penalties like these in Islamic Sharia is to maintain order in society and to save it from sinful acts. It is not at all an act of violence. We must turn a deaf ear to the international organisations which are calling to abolish these penalties, labeling them degrading and inhumane acts or torture.”

Corporal punishment is cruel, degrading, unacceptable: UN

Human Rights Advisor at the UN Country Office Safir Syed expressed concern over the implementation of flogging, especially in the case of minors, in the Maldives.

“It is unacceptable and against international standards. It is also important to keep in mind, apart from the physical trauma, the psychological effects the punishment may cause,” Syed said.

Stating that corporal punishment, including flogging, are explicitly prohibited under international law, Syed backed his statement citing from numerous UN standards and human rights mechanisms.

“While Article 7 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child add that ‘State Parties should ensure that no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age,'” Syed quoted.

Syed noted that in July 2012 the UN Human Rights Committee had called on the Maldivian state to “abolish flogging and explicitly prohibit corporal punishment in all institutional settings.”

Similarly, in 2007 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had expressed concern that corporal punishment is considered lawful as a sentence for crime and for disciplinary purposes, and called on the state to abolish the use of corporal punishment under such circumstances.

Syed also referred to the 2005 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, on the legality of corporal punishment under international law.

“The Special Rapporteur stated that any form of corporal punishment, be it flogging, amputation, etc, is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Rapporteur also said that States cannot hide behind domestic laws as justification for this violation of human rights obligations,” Syed said.

Meanwhile, an online petition by Avaaz.org calling on the Maldivian government to end the practice of flogging women and children for the crime of fornication has been signed by over a million people worldwide.

*Names changed at request

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Amnesty International is biased; sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”: Human Rights Ambassador

Human Rights Ambassador of the President’s Office “Sandhaanu” Ahmed Ibrahim Didi has accused Amnesty International of “fabricating stories about the human rights situation in the Maldives” and of releasing reports about the Maldives without conducting any studies or research.

The Human Rights Ambassador has previously held a press conference declaring that there “should be no opposition parties”, and that “I cannot believe, in fact, I do not at all want to believe, that there can be anyone with views opposing that of the government.

He has also labelled the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) an “unlawful organisation which commits terrorist activities and attempts to undermine the powers of the state”, and called for the Elections Commission to dissolve it, on the grounds that “they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.”

In a number of letters to the NGO obtained by Minivan News, the Human Rights Ambassador initially spoke highly of the international human rights NGO, crediting it for the freedoms of assembly and expression currently constitutionally guaranteed to the country’s citizens.

“All Maldivians, especially me, should be very thankful to Amnesty. They helped me immensely back when I was jailed. I must say that, if not for Amnesty, we might still be stuck in an extension of that long 30 year regime [former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration]. Back then, we did not even have the rights guaranteed to a German frog. That’s right, even the German frog has won a court case which gave him the right to scream as loudly as he likes,” Ibrahim Didi said at a press briefing held on Wednesday.

“It was an initiative and pressure of Amnesty International that led to Maldives signing the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). When vocal youngsters on the street yell ‘baaghee’ [traitor] and vulgarities at me, I don’t say anything and instead smile at them because they are using a right that I guaranteed for them,” Ibrahim Didi said.

“But when these youthful protesters claim that the freedom of expression they use is a right they ensured for themselves, then they are simply wrong. I did it. I got those rights for us. It is I, who achieved the guarantee of these rights, who is now here is the Human Rights Ambassador,” Ibrahim Didi stated.

“Now, going back to the issue, although Amnesty was of great help, now they are being the exact opposite. Now they are acting wrongfully,” he said.

“Amnesty’s Abbas Faiz claims to have conducted studies, but actually they are righting these reports without having conducted any formal research or studies. They are causing so much trouble in the country,” the ambassador alleged.

“I am deeply saddened to utter such words against Amnesty, words which will doubtless upset them. However, this is my responsibility as the Human Rights Ambassador placed in the President’s Office. I have also twice written directly to Amnesty about these concerns,” he stated.

Ibrahim Didi did not clarify whether or not he had received responses to the letters sent to the international human rights civil society. He shared copies of the letters with the media, the first sent on October 30, 2012 titled “Ref: Police violence as ex-president is arrested on 8th October in Fares Mathoda” and the second sent on March 7, 2013 titled “Ref: Former President’s arrest ‘selective justice’ – Amnesty International.”

“Amnesty report extremely biased”

In a letter sent to the NGO regarding the first arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed to present him to court in October 2012, Ibrahim Didi called Amnesty’s statements regarding the issue “incorrect and extremely biased”, stating they were issued “blindly without any research.”

The letter then aims to explain why the detention of Nasheed was necessary, stating that it was in relation to the former President having “violated the country’s constitution several times”. The letter, however, only offered as example the contentious case of Nasheed’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, calling the detention “the most ruthless action ever conducted by the military against a citizen of the country in the known history”.

Ibrahim Didi also dismissed any allegations of executive involvement in the arrest of Nasheed, insisting that “the judiciary of the state operates independently.”

He then denied the allegations made in the Amnesty report, repeatedly stating that the NGO had “failed to conduct sufficient research”.

“When [Nasheed] was arrested and there was no confrontation between Nasheed’s supporters and the police. The ex-foreign Minister did not attack the police, for him to be kicked and pepper sprayed on his face as Amnesty’s report says. There was clearly no resistance displayed to use pepper spray in the whole operation. The whole operation was recorded on video and televised on local media,” he claimed in the letter.

“The source of Amnesty’s report was based on an eyewitness and without further investigation it was broadcast, tarnishing the Maldivian police integrity. Hence, we strongly urge Amnesty International to refrain from such exploitations without fully probing into facts as it leads to destruction of peace and harmony in the country.”

The Human Rights Ambassador, while dismissing allegations of police brutality, also offered justification for the police actions of February 8, 2012:

“We vehemently deny any accusation of police brutality during President Mohamed Waheed’s period (since February 2012) but on 8th February the police had to use force to disperse an aggressive Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters who were armed with long sticks and bricks in their hands to batter the police force. And we would also like to note that the police personnel and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) personnel were extremely exhausted on that day while there was no proper command and control formed after Nasheed’s resignation on 7th February sparking chaos in the whole country.”

In conclusion, Ibrahim Didi wrote that Amnesty International seemed to be highly concerned of human rights violations during Gayyoom’s regime, adding “it appears Amnesty International is indirectly rejecting any process of legality as those allegations against Maumoon not being investigated yet.”

Amnesty International had at the time released a report titled “The Other Side of Paradise: A Human Rights Crisis in the Maldives”, chronicling human rights abuses in the country since the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed had responded to the report at the time, saying the NGO had failed to seek any comments from the government. He did not, however, appear to dispute the contents of the report.

“Sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”

In a more recent letter, Ibrahim Didi once again accuses Amnesty of bias, stating:

“We strongly deny that the filing a court case against Nasheed is a ‘selective justice’ being served here as Amnesty International suspects,” the letter read.

“Former President Gayyoom’s rule has been also investigated for three long years during Nasheed’s 3 year term,” Ibrahim Didi wrote. “Apart from the wages and office expenses a Singapore law firm was hired for 25 million US dollars.”

“So we regret to say that Amnesty’s comments come without any research as usual and the statements are biased, favouring MDP. It looks as it a MDP statement. If one is a little bit fair of the comments of the situation, they would blame on the burning properties, attacking of the peaceful pedestrians in their so-called peaceful demonstrations,” Ibrahim Didi alleged.

“Moreover MDP militant parliamentarians behaved inside the parliament house like thugs, destroying government properties and attacking security forces. They have played hooliganism before foreign dignitaries inside the chambers. In this civilized world no one could see such violent scenarios even in African subcontinent,” he continued.

Ibrahim Didi further stated that contrary to what MDP might say, their protests were not peaceful and hence “to stop this kind of violent protests, sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary to minimize damages.”

He further labels MDP’s demonstrations as “illegal”, adding “If these demonstrations are legal and peaceful, we the whole Maldivians can come out and demonstrate at any time. Some can come out to demonstrate to hang Nasheed and his power clique for robbing the state wealth, shrinking our economy.”

Ibrahim Didi states that the trial against Nasheed is not the only charge against him, but rather “the beginning of a series”.

Stating that “we always believe Nasheed is a mentally ill person”, Ibrahim Didi lists out a number of accusations against the former President. Among these, he states that “Nasheed used state TV and Radio to propagate his party’s agenda” and that “MDP activists along with chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik and Nasheed’s right hand lady, Mariya Ahmed Didi had formed Kangaroo Court and conducted rulings on other citizens.”

Ibrahim Didi then refers to the controversial transfer of power of February 7, 2012, saying Nasheed was either “mentally ill” or “intoxicated and his brain was not functioning properly” on the day.

Ibrahim Didi stated that the Commission of National Inquiry’s findings and the HRCM report proves that Nasheed had resigned voluntarily and that “this is not a disputed resignation at all as Amnesty says.”

The Ambassador said that he “wonders why [Nasheed]’s foreign friends love him so much”, and stated he knew why the local ones did.

“They have altogether robbed the state wealth and sold government assets at cut rates and treasured them for future and now looking forward for some more. Now all these criminal are on the street, the drug addicts and the drunkards. Together they are trying to evade from the courts verdict. This has nothing to do with political instability in the country,” he accused.

“The country is not in a red alert situation here because of some paid street hooligans who shout on the roads and attack innocent civilians.”

Following the arrest of Nasheed earlier this month, Amnesty International stated the arrest an example of “selective justice”, which “highlights the failure of the Maldives authorities to investigate other serious human rights abuses in the country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC acted unconstitutionally in assigning panel of judges to Hulhumale’ Court: Speaker Shahid

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who is also a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), appeared before Parliament’s Independent Commissions Oversight Committee on Tuesday to answer questions regarding the the appointment of a panel of three magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

This panel of three judges were appointed to preside over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed for his detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, and cases against other officials from the former government involved in the detention.

Prior to Shahid’s appearance, JSC Vice Chair Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi and member appointed to JSC from among the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, have attended the committee over the same matter.

Meanwhile, JSC Chair Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed has refused to attend the committee on the grounds the matter is related to an ‘ongoing case.’

JSC acted outside its mandate: Speaker Shahid

Speaking at the committee meeting, Shahid stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the Chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

“However, whether it is within the commission’s mandate to appoint a panel of judges in this manner is an issue which raised doubt in the minds of more than one of my fellow members.”

Shahid then referred to the existing legal framework, quoting articles to back his statement that he did not believe the matter was within the responsibilities of the commission.

He quoted Article 21 of the JSC Act, Articles 48 and 49 of the Judges Act, and from the Judicature Act.

Article 21 of the JSC Act outlines in detail the responsibilities and powers of the commission.

Article 48 of the Judges Act states “A judge can be temporarily appointed to another court in the instance that the court is unable to sufficiently complete assigned work, or if the court has difficulties providing services, or if the judges serving in the court has been suspended from their duties. or if other circumstances which may cause a delay in the completion of work assigned to the court occur.”

Article 49 of the same act states “It is the Judicial Services Commission, with the counsel of the Judicial Council, which will come to a decision on the transfer of judges to oversee cases in other courts.”

Article 55 (a) of the Judicature Act states “In addition to the responsibilities assigned by other laws, the responsibilities of the Senior Judge of a superior court are the following: (a) Determine the Judges who would adjudicate the cases of that court.”

“None of these articles say anything about assigning cases concerning a particular individual to a specific set of people. The JSC is mandated with the appointment and transfer of judges. But it does not say anywhere here that the JSC holds the powers to assign cases to specific judges,” Shahid said.

“Hence, I do not believe that the appointment of a panel of magistrates to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate falls into the mandate of the JSC,” Shahid stated.

“The reason why I need to state this here is because the constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial to all individuals. When things proceed as they are going now, this is being compromised. So I must speak out,” he said.

Responding to a question posed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Abdulla, Shahid said he did not “feel it was the right course of action” to remove then Senior Magistrate of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court Moosa Naseem from the case after he had assumed responsibility for the case.

“Moosa Naseem, who was then in charge of the Hulhumale’ Court sent in his recommendations for magistrates who are to sit on Nasheed’s case to the JSC for comments. This list included his own name. The JSC then replaced all three of these magistrates. Do you feel this was done in the rightful manner?” Abdulla asked.

“I do not think removing Naseem was the right course of action. There should be a good reason to remove a judge from a case from which the judge has not recused himself. I think that is a good issue for this committee to further investigate,” Shahid responded.

Asked about the formation of the Hulhumale’ Court, Shahid answered that his summons letter had detailed that he would be asked specifically about the assignment of the panel, adding that therefore he felt it “unnecessary to even extend [his] thoughts” to any other topic.

Political competitiveness

“As Speaker of Parliament, you have been working with us 77 MPs for years now, in a very politically volatile environment. You are also one of the most senior council members of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), and we belong to your political opponent, MDP,” MDP MP Ali Waheed addressed Shahid.

“In these past few years, there have been times when we have acted very harshly against you. We even initiated a no confidence motion against you. Now to come back, you have just told us that you don’t think the assignment of the Hulhumale’ Court panel is legitimate. This is the panel which will be ruling on the presidential candidate of your political opposition,” Ali Waheed continued.

“My question to you is, under these circumstances, can you tell us in what light you see the events that are unfolding? Do you think the trial that is being conducted by this panel we speak of can be free and impartial?”

Shahid promptly responded that he did not entertain any political thoughts while serving as a JSC member.

“You have pointed out that I come from a specific political party, and you are right. Nevertheless, I was voted in as Parliament Speaker through votes cast by MPs from various parties. When I sit as speaker, I do not see any political action, and instead work as per the regulations and the constitution,” Shahid answered.

“I sit in the JSC because of my role as speaker, and hence as a rule, I have no right to harbour any political thoughts or mindset in the work I do there, nor will I do so,”’he said.

“In casting my vote in JSC or advocating for different matters in the commission’s meetings, the only focus I keep is on doing what is constitutionally mandated. Hence, even at a politically turbulent time, on a very politically contentious matter, I am sitting here in this chair and telling you that in my personal capacity I believe the JSC acted wrongfully in having appointed that panel,” Shahid repeated.

Chair of the Independent Commissions Oversight Committee Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed did not attend Tuesday’s committee meeting. He was also not present at the last two meetings of the committee where JSC members Abdulla Didi and Sheikh Rahman were summoned.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)