No official response from PIC over bystander’s death, authorities “elusive and slow”, says widow

Leaked CCTV footage which has thrown into dispute an official police account of 43 year-old Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim’s death in a motorcycle accident on August 17 has been making rapid rounds on social media.

The family of the victim in September raised the matter with the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), stating: “the ‘accident’ occurred due to a policeman standing in front of Hilaaleege using his baton to hit the head of the driver on a motorcycle which had two people fleeing after stealing, which caused the motorcycle to lose control and drive into Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim’s motorcycle.”

Ibrahim’s widow Naseema Khaleel told Minivan News on Monday that she had received no official response from the PIC to her letter.

“I call the PIC now and then and ask about it. They first said they’ve asked the police for the relevant footage, then later said they had received it. The standard answer since then has been that they are looking into the matter,” Khaleel said.

“The police call every now and then. They called a few days back to ask for the motorcycle registration and bills. They too say they are investigating the case. I do want to take the matter to court. Right now I’m waiting to see if we get a response from PIC,” Khaleel explained. “What else can we do?”

Khaleel stays home taking care of the couple’s two children, and said she has faced much hardship following her husband’s death.

“No state bodies or anyone else have extended any sort of support. My brothers and family help as much as they can. The younger child is seven and I, too, wish to provide for my children, for their education and school activities. But it is hard now,” she said.

Khaleel said she had approached the police after the incident, asking for assistance in taking her husband abroad for emergency medical care, but to no avail.

“I did approach the police to ask for help, but did not get any assistance from them. We had bury him in Sri Lanka in the end. I was not even given the police records, which further complicated things there. Had I gotten at least cooperation from the police, things would not have been as difficult as they were,” she said.

Khaleel said that although the Aasandha health insurance scheme helped with the medical costs, the graveness of the situation called for her and other close family members to travel with Ibrahim. She said the family had not received any assistance even in this instance.

“I am not trying to blame the police or any other persons involved. But even the police have said that Gasim had no fault in this, that he was just an innocent bystander. Then someone needs to take responsibility,” Khaleel said.

“I don’t know what else we can do. They are elusive and very slow, which is why we keep calling back. All I want is justice,” Khaleel told Minivan News.

Investigation almost concluded: PIC

PIC Director General Fathimath Sarira confirmed the PIC had received the letter, and that the investigation was now nearing the point of conclusion.

She also confirmed that the PIC had previously received the leaked footage and that it was part of the ongoing investigation.

Article 41(c) of the Police Act states that Maldives Police Service should inform the PIC upon the occurrence of death or infliction of grave bodily injury to a person due to the use of force by a police officer.

Asked if police had in accordance with the above article notified PIC of the incident, Sarira replied, “Police has notified the commission about the accident over a phone call. Although, when we first heard of the case, it was only said that a speeding motorcycle had collided with a parked one and led to a death. But then later, we got the footage too.”

Asked for clarification on what actions the commission would take if police were found to have failed to notify the commission as required, Sarira responded that police usually did keep the PIC informed and that she could not recall any recent incidents to refer back to.

“We will be concluding this investigation very soon and can then provide more details,” she said.

Meanwhile, Vice President of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Ahmed Tholal stated that they had only become aware of the incident after the leaked video went viral on social media.

“We have today started discussions on the matter in the commission meeting. Only after the commission members conclude discussions can we provide details on how we will proceed to act on this matter,” he said.

“Police Commissioner Riyaz must take responsibility”

Former President Mohamed Nasheed and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have meanwhile released statements condemning the cover-up of the incident, and calling for Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take responsibility for the incident.

“I am shocked and appalled by the leaked video, which appears to show a policeman hitting a motorcyclist in the head with a baton, which led to the death of an innocent bystander,” said Nasheed.

“Under [President Mohamed] Waheed’s administration, we are seeing a return to the thuggish brutality of Maldives’ authoritarian past. I implore the international community to pressure the Waheed government to immediately and impartially investigate this case, to bring human rights abusers in the security forces to book, to cease its harassment of opposition members, and hold early elections so democracy can be restored.”

Warning: some viewers may find the following footage disturbing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police covered-up involvement in death of bystander, suggests leaked CCTV footage

Leaked CCTV footage has thrown into dispute an official police account of 43 year-old Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim’s death in a motorcycle accident on August 17.

Reporting the accident at the time, newspaper Haveeru stated that that according to police, two individuals on a motorbike had stolen a mobile phone from a foreigner on Majeedhee Magu and sped away on a motorcycle. Police had then ordered them to stop, but the two men had ignored the orders and fled from the scene at high speed.

Police said the speeding motorcycle hit the 43 year-old who was sitting on a parked motorcycle in front of the Justice Building, who was subsequently transferred to hospital with head injuries. The other two men were taken into police custody and charged with theft and speeding to avoid arrest, and the stolen phone was retrieved and returned to its rightful owner.

At the time of the accident, police told local media the accident had occurred due to the speeding motorcycle’s collision with Ibrahim’s motorcycle. They had made no mention of any police involvement in the collision aside from ordering the motorcycle to stop.

However, footage leaked on social media – which appears to be from a camera on the wall of the Presidential residence of Hileaage – shows a police officer stepping in front of the speeding motorcycle and appearing to hit the driver on the head with a baton as he rides past.

The driver loses control and collides with Ibrahim sitting on his motorcycle just in front of the Justice Building entry, causing both to fly off their vehicles. The police officer retrieves an object from the ground and wanders away, as other police and a military officer rush to the scene.

Ibrahim’s widow Naseema Khaleel at the time of the collision shared details of his condition with the media: “Doctor says he is 99 percent braindead. He has been kept on the ventilator from day one. The doctor said they’ll turn off the machine at 7:00pm tonight.”

Ibrahim was taken off the ventilator and died on August 20.

Letter to PIC

In a letter to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) dated September 24 and obtained by Minivan News, Ibrahim’s wife expresses regret that police failed to reveal details of the incident.

“The ‘accident’ occurred due to a policeman standing in front of Hilaaleege using his baton to hit the head of the driver on a motorcycle which had two people fleeing after stealing, which caused the motorcycle to lose control and drive into Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim’s motorcycle,” Naseema writes.

She calls on the PIC to investigate the incident in depth and look into whether the police, either as an institution or as individuals, acted in breach of the law.

Article 41(c) of the Police Act states that Maldives Police Service should inform the PIC upon the occurrence of death or infliction of grave bodily injury to a person due to the use of force by a police officer.

Naseema refers to the Act in her letter and suggests that if the PIC had not been informed of the incident by police, it proved they were violating the law. She states that she intends to file the matter in court.

A police source told Minivan News that law enforcement officials were required to assess whether the application of force was justifiable, adding that the officer’s use of his baton on the fleeing suspect was “total negligence on his part”.

“They could have let them go and found them afterwards. They had the number plate, they could easily make out who it was, and there looks to have been plenty of eyewitnesses. What he did was totally stupid,” the source said. “There was also danger for the officer involved.”

The source said it was “very concerning” that police had not released to the public the true account of the circumstances which had led to the death of the bystander.

“There should be a thorough inquiry into police procedure and training in the proper application of force,” the source suggested.

After the footage began to circulate on social media, Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News that police could not respond to allegations that officers were involved in Ibrahim’s death.  Haneef said it was unable to respond as the letter of complaint was addressed to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and not the Maldives Police Service.

“The PIC will investigate and take necessary steps if any police or the institution is found to have committed such an act. The investigation is still ongoing,” he claimed.

Warning – some viewers may find the following footage disturbing

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JP Legal Committee member files Supreme Court case to cancel seats of DRP MPs Nashiz and Azim

The Jumhoree Party’s Police and Legal Committee member Mohamed Haleem Ali has filed a case at the Supreme Court asking it to rule Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs Ali Azim and Mohamed Nashiz unfit to stay in their elected seats following the Bank of Maldives’ foreclosure on their loans.

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

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

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

MPs Nashiz and Azim have been in parliament since the 2009 election, the same year in which the civil court order them to pay the BML debts.

Asked why Haleem was submitting the case nearly three years into the debt case, after the Civil Court had Thursday ruled BML could sell the mortgaged property in lieu of payment by the guarantors, he replied: “Their seats would have been lost after the first month’s failure to pay as per the court order anyway. They are only able to sit in there because the Supreme Court has so far not ruled on the matter.”

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the case submission has been registered at the court. However, a court official said that the court has not yet made a decision on whether or not to accept the case.

JP concerned Haleem acted without consulting party

JP Spokesperson Moosa Rameez said the party had no role in filing the case against the DRP MPs.

“In fact, we are very concerned that Haleem submitted the case without any consultation whatsoever with the party. He’s not an ordinary member of the party, he sits on one of our committees. He ought to have discussed this within the party first. We only learned about it when it was covered in local media,” Rameez said.

Haleem responded saying that he had submitted the case in his personal capacity, and that he felt no need to consult with the party on personal decisions.

“As a party, JP would never wish loss or harm on anyone. I have no comment on the party’s position. However, I did this as an individual, for the betterment of the society. I am a lawyer by profession and felt it was time to take the initiative to bring this to the Supreme Court’s attention,” Haleem stated.

All parties are picking on us as we are the most popular party: DRP

DRP MP Abdulla Mausoom declined from commenting on the case in court, stating that everyone has the right to submit cases to courts, and to defend themselves in whatever way possible.

“I do know, however, that all parties are picking on DRP now. This is because DRP is currently the most promising party for the 2013 elections. Everyone from MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party], PPM [Progressive Party of Maldives] to all the presidential candidates are feeling threatened by DRP due to our popularity,” Mausoom added.

MP Azim has previously alleged that the case of BML debts being scheduled to coincide with the voting on secret balloting during no confidence motions is politically motivated. Azim further alleged that President Mohamed Waheed had tried to intimidate him, asking him to vote in a particular way, offering to cancel the court hearings in return.

Azim had been promptly summoned back to court after he subsequently voted in favour of secret balloting.

DRP Leader Thasmeen Ali declined from commenting on these allegations, stating that he had “not yet discussed the matter in detail” with Azim.

“Now it’s the Supreme Court that will come to a decision on the parliament seat. I believe the court will rule on this in the correct manner in which it should be done,” Thasmeen stated.

Minivan News tried contacting DRP MPs Mohamed Nashiz and Ali Azim. Nashiz was not responding to calls while Azim’s phone was switched off.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court orders DRP MPs Azim and Nashiz to hand over mortgaged property as payment for BML loans

The Civil Court has ruled on Thursday that the properties mortgaged in relation to the Funaddoo Tuna Products unpaid loans are to be handed over to the Bank of Maldives (BML) within a period of 15 days.

The ruling permits BML to then sell the property in order to settle the payments. The mortgaged properties are Madivaru Yacht, Reethi Beach Resort and Funaddoo.

BML said in court today that as a result of delaying payment, the due amount has now risen from MVR 117 million (US$7,587,549) to MVR 206 million (US$13,359,274) , once the loan interest is added.

Representatives of the bank said in court today that the accounts of the individual guarantors have been frozen, according to local media. The guarantors are Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MPs Ali Azim and Mohamed Nashiz, and Ahmed Rasheed of Rafeeguge.

The bank also said that the passports of the DRP MPs have now been held, preventing them from departing the country.

BML declined from commenting on the issue at time of press as the matter is an ongoing case.

Voted against Waheed’s wishes, court summons again: MP Azim

DRP MP Ali Azim has stood by his earlier allegation that the case being carried through now is politically motivated.

The police were given an order to present MPs Nashiz and Azim to court under detention, while the hearing was scheduled for the same time as the taking of votes in parliament to approve secret balloting for impeachment votes.

The court order was first cancelled a few hours after it was issued. Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Haneef had at the time said that the reason provided by the court was that the presiding judge had been abroad, and other cases had been scheduled.

Azim stated in parliament that he had received calls from President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, President’s Political Advisor Ahmed Thaufeeg and Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza, asking him to cast the vote on secret balloting in a way they preferred. He alleged that they had offered to stop the summons if he voted in line with them.

Azim had said in parliament then that he was “not the least bit surprised” that Waheed had called, adding that Waheed had called previously for similar matters, including the Football Association of Maldives (FAM) elections.

However, the MP subsequently voted in favour of secret balloting.

The Civil Court then summoned the MPs to court again, and the hearing was held Thursday.

“We were summoned to court, and then there was the attempt to intimidate me. When I voted against his wishes, the court immediately summons me back again. I believe this is politically motivated,” Azim said today after the hearing.

DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, MP Mohamed Nashiz and Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Yameen proposes Parliament look into EC Member sexual harassment allegations

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Abdulla Yameen has proposed that the Committee on Independent Institutions investigate allegations of sexual harassment against a member of the Elections Commission (EC).

Following a staff protest at the EC in March, a complaint was lodged with the oversight committee that some members were acting in breach of existing laws and regulations. A female employee of the EC who had attended a related committee meeting in June stated then that a member would take hold of her hand while she was serving drinks.

Chair of the committee Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed shared details of the issue. He stated that Yameen was referring to a matter where a female employee had stated that when she served coffee to a particular EC member, he would “take hold of [her] wrist and do something.”

Stating that the accused member had been summoned and questioned on the matter previously, Nasheed clarified that the issue was not an actual complaint filed by any staff member of EC.

Nasheed stated that after reviewing the responses the committee had at the time decided that it was not an issue that needed further attention.

However Yameen said that the matter should be reviewed under the clause regarding Personal Relations of Employees. He proposed that the employee who had made the allegation be summoned to committee to clarify more details of the matter.

Yameen raised the issue the day after the President of the Civil Service Commission Mohamed Fahmy was voted out of his post under sexual harassment allegations.

All PPM MPs who participated had voted against the removal of Fahmy.

Speaking at the debate on Fahmy’s removal, PPM MP Shifaq Mufeed said “We might be faced with an unrecoverable loss if we remove Fahmy, as he is a member of both the CSC and the JSC (Judicial Services Commission). If we remove Fahmy, there may come planned false allegations against other members of independent commissions.”

Elections Commission Vice President Ahmed Fayaz said that he had no knowledge of the matter.

“I have never received a complaint as such from any staff member about any EC members. Nor do I have any knowledge of such a complaint being even officially lodged, verbally or written, at either our commission, the police, gender ministry or anywhere else,” he added.

Minivan News tried contacting Yameen at the time of press, but he was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament votes out CSC President Fahmy over sexual harassment allegations

Parliament on Tuesday voted out President of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy on charges of sexual harassment against an employee.

The 70 members who partook in the vote were split 38 for removing Fahmy, 32 against and 2 abstentions.

The parliament debated on the report on the case submitted by the Committee on Independent Institutions prior to the vote.

Chair of the Committee, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, said that in addition Fahmy himself and the employee who had submitted the complaint Aminath Shahma, other members of the CSC and staff members had been questioned by the committee.

Nasheed said that other staff members, including Fahmy’s personal secretary, had made statements which backed Shahma’s allegations, while Fahmy’s defense had nothing to support it. He added that the committee had asked both Fahmy and Shahma if they were willing to repeat their statements under oath, to which Shahma had agreed while Fahmy refused to respond.

After much debate by MPs with opposing views on the parliament floor, Nasheed responded saying the the Committee on Independent Institutions had oversight mandate over the CSC, and that it did not need to conduct a criminal investigation to remove Fahmy from his post.

“What we applied are widely accepted civil standards. Based on our findings, 7 out of the 10 committee members decided that it was more likely that Fahmy had committed this act than that he did not. And that is enough to remove him from his post,” Nasheed said.

He added that this had no relation to Fahmy’s role in the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – of which the CSC president is by default a member. He also clarified that unlike the claims of some MPs who had spoken in Fahmy’s defense, the Prosecutor General’s office had not sent the case back to the police but rather had asked for additional clarifications.

Workplace harassment: a common problem for women

Many MPs, including independent, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs, spoke in favour of removing Fahmy from his post.

DRP MP Rozaina Adam, MDP MPs Eva Abdulla and Mariya Ahmed Didi spoke of workplace harassment being a common issue faced by Maldivian women.

Although MP Visam Ali stated that the matter needed further investigation and submitted an amendment asking for parliament to postpone Fahmy’s dismissal until the authorities looked into the matter more deeply, Rozaina stated that the parliament was not mandated to run a criminal investigation and that it should remove Fahmy as he was believed to have committed an act unacceptable from a man in his position.

“Honour is not something we get just by addressing each other as ‘Honourable MP’, as stipulated by the regulations. We need to prove to our constituents that we work in their interest,” Eva Abdulla said.

“Even the former Auditor General was removed because this parliament through its findings believed him unfit for his post. It was not done after a police investigation.”

“In the JSC, Fahmy actually voted in a way that benefited [the MDP], by voting that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is illegal. The MDP will work with principles and not a political mindset,” Ali Waheed said.

“Shahuma stood up and shared this issue with a lot of courage. We cannot turn our backs on this,” he went on, “And this HRCM report – They say they can neither prove whether he has or has not done anything. What have they found? What’s the point of releasing this one day before the vote?”

Removing Fahmy may lead to more allegations

Members of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) mainly spoke in defense of Fahmy, alleging that this could “possibly be a politically-motivated allegation”.

Most of them stated that since a criminal investigation was involved it was better to let the police and courts come to a decision on the matter before the parliament voted on removing him.

PPM MP Shifaq Mufeed said, “Let’s not turn this parliament into an investigative body”, adding that the police were more qualified to run a professional investigation.

“We might be faced with an unrecoverable loss if we remove Fahmy, as he is a member of both the CSC and the JSC. If we remove Fahmy, there may come planned false allegations against other members of independent commission,” he said.

“To Shahuma, I have to say: ‘be patient, madam’. Let the police investigate. We are not going to incriminate Fahmy and take Shahuma’s side, nor are we going to incriminate Shahuma and take Fahmy’s side.”

Adhaalath party member and MP Ibrahim Muthalib also spoke against removing Fahmy in parliament today.

“If we are to make our women nude and exposed, and then send them out to mingle with men, then why speak of protecting them? Honourable Speaker, this cannot be done in this manner. If a man and a woman are in a room alone, Satan will be there as the third person and will encourage sinful activities,” Muthalib said.

“Their place is in their houses, to serve their husbands and look after children. If we give them the opportunity to go out and mingle then we can no longer talk about their dignity and protection. It is people who harass women who are now speaking in their defense here today,” he further added.

Cannot confirm whether or not the harassment happened: HRCM

Meanwhile on Monday, a day ahead of the vote against Fahmy in parliament, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) released a report on the case.

HRCM claimed that they had not received enough evidence to prove whether or not Fahmy had harassed the employee.

The report further said that although Fahmy had sent a text to Shahuma with an apology, it was unclear what the apology had been meant for.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives sacks Human Rights Minister, “now under military dictatorship” says ruling coalition MP

Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy Leader and MP Abdulla Jabir has challenged the legitimacy of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and his current government, alleging the country is now run by the police and military.

His wife Dhiyana Saeed, President Waheed’s Minister for Gender and Human Rights, was subsequently sacked.

At a press conference regarding the police raid of  arrests of himself, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, former President’s Special Envoy Ibrahim Hussain Zaki and other persons on charges of consuming alcohol, Jabir strongly criticized Waheed and the current government.

“They were so violent at first I thought they were some pirates or terrorists, they didn’t have badges or identification. Only after hours of brutality did they claim to be police and tell us we were arrested under charges of drug abuse,” Jabir said.

“I kept asking why theywere  acting in such a violent manner, but no one provided a reply.”

He said that they had been handcuffed for close to 12 hours before they had been transferred to the Kulhudhuhfushi court.

Jabir, who had refused to provide urine samples to the police, explained his stand: “I repeated this to the judge too. I said I’m ready to give urine, or even shave off all the hair on my head and give it to them, or even blood,but that they had to follow laws and procedures when making arrests.”

The MP in the ruling coalition party further alleged that “some persons” in the executive had lately been finding it “hard to digest statements in Majlis which were made in the public interest” and had resorted to tactics such as phone tapping. He also said that since military vehicles were involved, it was “reason enough” to believe that Minister of Defence and National Security Mohamed Nazim were complicit.

Jabir said he had made a phone call to the Minister of Home Affairs Dr Mohamed Jameel right after he was released by the court.

“The Home Minister, Dr Jameel, said he had no knowledge [of the arrests]. So I have to say now that this country does not even have a home minister.”

“I am a JP MP who has supported Waheed and voted with his interests in parliament. I am also a deputy leader of JP, which is a coalition member of this government. Why did they then beat us up like this?” Jabir continued.

“Zaki nearly died. I almost died, too. I must say now the government is trying to kill off MPs.”

Speaking of the ministers, Jabir said: “No one has yet submitted a case on their cabinet posts to the courts, and the courts have not decided whether they are in their posts legitimately.”

“Even though the CNI said that this is not a coup, under what law does that CNI even qualify as a legal court?” Jabir said, questioning the legitimacy of the government – of which his own party is a coalition member.

“I see no reason why the President does not have to take the responsibility for this. That is, if there is a president. I now question whether there even is a president here. I guess the courts will provide us with an answer to that,” Jabir stated.

“I was giving Waheed my full support. But now I have been brutally beaten up for no reason at all. How can I support him after this? I can only describe the people behind this as devils disguised as humans,” he continued.

“I now see that what we have in the Maldives is a military dictatorship. We need to hold early elections as soon as possible. I will do everything I can in my capacity as a parliament member to facilitate early elections.”

“You were not even elected”: former HR Minister to President

Waheed administration’s Human Rights Minister, Dhiyana Saeed,  also attended her husband Jabir’s press conference the previous day “as moral support to [her] husband who has been badly brutalised.”

She was subsequently dismissed from cabinet.

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

Saeed then proceeded to demonstrate through role play the exact manner in which the police had brutalised her husband, acting out how and where the police had hit him.

“Police even hit Jabir on his private organs so hard that he is still bleeding. I would know, I have seen for myself,” Saeed said, sharing the doctor’s reports to support the point.

According to Saeed, she had sent a text message to Waheed upon learning of Jabir’s arrest: “I said to him that he would know very well which of the cabinet ministers have spouses who consume alcohol, and that I knew very well why Jabir was arrested. I was implying that it was politically motivated and had to do with Monday’s vote in parliament. If it honestly is about alcohol consumption, then I believe there’s a huge number of people that need to be arrested.”

“I also told him that I am very shocked to see the levels he is stooping to to hold on to his post, and said that he was not even elected by a public vote. I have quite a lot of things I can say under oath too.”

Saeed then claimed that Waheed had responded stating that he was unaware of the arrests, adding that he himself was questioning who could have done this and for what purpose. According to her, Waheed himself said that he suspected it had been done in connection to Monday’s vote, in order to create more hostility towards him among the MPs.

Dhiyana Saeed was terminated from her post as the Human Rights Minister on Monday, following her public criticism of the current administration.

Abbas quits JP over Jabir’s comments

Meanwhile, government spokesperson and council member of JP Abbas Adil Riza has quit the party today, stating as a reason that judging by the statements made by people in the party leadership, he did not like the direction the party seemed to be moving in.

“Jabir’s statements are not sentiments that I can agree with. I don’t accept that it is within my principles to stay with people who evade taxes and defame police and other people. That is why I am leaving the party,” Abbas said.

We acted professionally during the arrest: police

Police have made public their official video of the arrest on Monday. Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef denied that police had caused any physical harm to any of the arrested persons.

He however said that those who had restricted arrest had been pushed to the ground and handcuffed, adding that any damage caused through showing resistance was the responsibility of the arrested.

Haneef stated that police had followed normal procedures and acted professionally in the operation.

Abdulla Jabir and Dhiyana Saeed’s press conference:

Police footage of Jabir’s arrest:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court issues, cancels order to detain DRP MPs Nashiz and Azim over BML debts

The Civil Court issued an order on Sunday to take Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs Mohamed Nashiz and Ali Azim into custody and present them in court.

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

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said police had been working to implement the order. He confirmed that the hearing had been scheduled for 1.30pm on Monday.

After the cancellation of the order, Sub-Inspector Haneef said that the reasons stated were that the judge was currently out of the country and other cases the same judge were presiding on had now been scheduled.

Following the initial issuing of the order, the DRP declined from making any comments on the issue. MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said then that the case involved a personal matter and had no relation to politics or the party.

Dr Mausoom was not available for comment after the cancellation.

Department of Judicial Administration Director Ahmed Majid confirmed that the MPs were being taken to court in relation to a case submitted by the Bank of Maldives Pvt Ltd, asking the court for assistance in seeking due payments from the two persons.

This is in relation to a verdict by the Civil Court ordering Mahandhoo Investments and Kabalifaru Investments – two companies with ties to DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – to repay millions of dollars worth of loans to the Bank of Maldives Plc Ltd (BML). The verdict was also upheld by the High Court in October 2011.

“This is the normal procedure. The courts have summoned them numerous times, and they have continued to fail to attend, with no acceptable reasons presented. It is then legally at the court’s discretion to have police intercept and present them to court,” Majid said.

He further confirmed that the members would be released from custody after Monday’s hearing.

Meanwhile, the vote to determine if secret ballots can be taken during the taking of no confidence votes have been scheduled for Monday’s parliament session.

Waheed attempting to influence vote: MP Azim

DRP MP Azim has alleged that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and other senior members of the executive had approached him, offering to cancel the court summons if he agreed to vote for the secret balloting in a way they preferred.

Azim alleged that in addition to Waheed, his Political Advisor Ahmed Thaufeeq and Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza had called him and made similar statements.

Azim further said in parliament today that he was “not the least bit surprised” that Waheed had called, adding that he had expected as much. He alleged that Waheed had previously called him with similar intentions, including during the Football Association of Maldives (FAM) elections.

Following the arrest of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor and Jumhooree Party MP Abdulla Jabir last Thursday alleging use of alcohol, many opposition politicians claimed that this was a political stunt to jeopardise Monday’s vote.

Both the Maldivian Democratic Party(MDP) and the Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed alleged that there was a “political motivation” behind the arrests.


The Civil Court issued an order on Sunday to keep Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs Mohamed Nashiz and Ali Azim in custody and to present them in court. Later in the day, the order was cancelled, claiming the judge presiding over the case was out of the country.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said that the police had been working to implement the order. He confirmed that the hearing had been scheduled for 1.30pm on Monday.

After the cancellation of the order, Sub-Inspector Haneef said that the reasons stated were that the judge was currently out of the country and other cases the same judge were presiding on had now been scheduled.

Following the initial issuing of the order, DRP declined from making any comments on the issue. MP Dr. Abdulla Mausoom said then that the case involved a personal matter and had no relation to politics or the party.

Dr. Mausoom was not available for comments after the cancellation until the time of press.

Department of Judicial Administration Director Ahmed Majid confirmed that the MPs were being taken to court in relation to a case submitted by the Bank of Maldives Pvt Ltd asking the court for assistance in seeking due payments from the two persons.


Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC refuses to answer to parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee

The Independent Institutions Committee of Parliament met with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on Tuesday, where the JSC declined to answer any questions put forward by the committee on the grounds that the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was a case currently pending at the Supreme Court.

The JSC was summoned in relation to a motion submitted by three members of the committee, which stated that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was being operated and judges to the court had been appointed in contradiction to the law.

President of the JSC, Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed stated that the commission could not answer the questions put forward by the committee at the time.

“I would like to highlight Supreme Court’s temporary order No. 2010/SC-VA-J/2, released on 18th October 2010. Looking at the capacity and legal justifications of this order, on the fourth page of this order it says: ‘the judicial system established in the Maldives under the constitution is an independent judiciary system, and that Article 141 (d) of the constitution states it is an obligation of government institutions and all persons leading the government to protect the independence of the courts, and that Article 141(c) of the constitution states in clear language that neither an individual nor a government official should interfere with the work of judges from the independent judiciary or attempt to influence them. Therefore, since the parliament debating on an issue which is in the courts, one on which the courts have not yet made a ruling, can be considered to be an act under (c) of the previously mentioned article, I have told you the exact phrasing of the prior-mentioned order of the honourable court,’” Adam Mohamed said.

“If you take a look at Article 20 of the Judicature Act you will see (a) says, no, (b) says when it comes to a supreme court ruling, then the executive, members of the parliament, judicial power, persons in independent positions, state institutions, persons in positions of the state, and then it goes on to name many categories…So I am thinking that while our constitutional system is detailed in this manner, and specifically in a similar matter, since an institution with the constitutional power to make a legal decision on the kind of matter put before us has previously issued this order that we can see in black and white, what more is there for us to say on this issue?”

However, Chair of the Independent Institutions Committee, independent MP Mohamed Nasheed denounced the justifications presented by the JSC.

“What you referred to was precisely an order released asking parliament to cease discussions on a specific case submitted following a disagreement between the government and the parliament on a certain issue which comes under the parliament regulations, believing that debate on the issue is something that must not be done,” Nasheed said, adding that opinions expressed in the order were not something that had to be followed.

Nasheed stated that the matter could be looked into by the committee until and unless the Supreme Court issued a halting order for the specific matter in question.

Regarding the JSC’s stand that a matter pending in court could not be discussed in the committee, Nasheed responded saying that the parliament regulations said otherwise.

“There is a ruling regarding this released by the Speaker of the Parliament following a point of order raised by a member during a parliament session. This ruling says that although the previous regulations of the parliament did not permit us to discuss ongoing cases, the current regulations do not have any such clause. I believe that ruling is in effect over the parliament, and over this committee.”

The chair of the committee and the president of JSC debated the matter for the duration of the meeting which lasted for almost an hour, and concluded with the JSC firmly refusing to respond to any questions about the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court as the matter was “currently under the jurisdiction of the highest court in the Maldives.”

Although the chair of the committee stated that the debate would be carried forward between himself and the commission’s president and that other commission members would be given the opportunity to speak should any of the questions be directed specifically to them, the parliament appointee to JSC Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Gasim Ibrahim interrupted with procedural points.

“You are acting against both the parliament regulations and the committee regulations,” Gasim alleged, stating that the JSC could not be summoned without giving notice of 14 days as it included cabinet members.

The continued interruption led to chaos in the meeting, where attendees from both sides hurled verbal attacks at each other, and the chair decided to go into a 10 minute recess.

Following the recess, Nasheed responded that the 14 day notice and provision of the exact questions to be asked were applicable only in cases where a cabinet minister was summoned to a committee on the request of an individual MP to be held answerable to a specific question. He stated that it did not apply in the case of the meeting in process as the committee held the oversight mandate over the JSC and could summon them when they saw it necessary. He also added that the JSC had attended the committee meetings previous under the very same circumstances.

“In yesterday’s committee meeting, we had a unanimous vote to summon your commission here. It wasn’t part of the initial issue. As you know, we have also written to your committee requesting necessary documents,” Nasheed continued, asking “What was your intention in coming here in relation to this issue if you are now going to refuse to answer our questions?”

Adam Mohamed replied that the JSC had received a letter requesting attendance a day ahead, but that the letter had held nothing by way of explaining the purposes of the summons.

Nasheed, however, claimed that the secretary general of the commission had later on clarified the matter from the parliament’s administration and that therefore the committee refused to accept the excuse.

Gasim, who continued to speak loudly throughout the latter half of the meeting claimed that the parliament committee was attempting to project its own failings onto the commission, adding that “you can’t do as you please in here, this is not your home” and “don’t try to act smart”.

When Nasheed requested the JSC president to “control” the commission’s members, Gasim again responded “How is it even possible for him to do that?”, prompting laughter and applause.

No questions concerning the issue on agenda were posed during the approximately hour long meeting.

The meeting was finally ruled closed after the JSC repeatedly insisted that they found it “rather difficult” to answer questions regarding the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court while the case was currently filed in the Supreme Court.

Members of the JSC are Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed, Lower Court Judge Abdulla Didi, Parliament member Gasim Ibrahim, Public member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman, President’s Appointee Mohamed Saleem, Civil Service Commission’s President Mohamed Fahmy, Attorney General Azima Shakoor and lawyer Ahmed Rasheed.

A meeting of the Independent Commissions Committee had been disrupted last week, following disagreements regarding the summoning of JSC.

Meanwhile, earlier in the week Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has criticised the JSC, calling it inept and stating that many of the challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved if the JSC had undertaken its responsibilities “properly”.

Former President’s Appointee to the JSC, Aishath Velezinee has consistently raised questions about the work of the JSC, alleging that much of its actions were against the constitution, as well as criticised the oversight committee for failing to holding the JSC accountable.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)