Author: Mariyath Mohamed

Civil court freezes accounts and imposes travel ban on ‘VB’ heirs

The Civil Court has frozen all bank accounts and issued a travel ban for all heirs of late Moosa Faheem, father-in-law of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The Civil Court order stems from a case filed by Mohamed Anees, who had served as General Manager of four AAA Resorts, before the company split up.

The court order was issued on Sunday, based on the heirs’ failure to settle a debt of MVR 559,555 (US$36,300) owed to the plaintiff in accordance with a Civil Court ruling of 2009.

The court had at the time ordered the heirs to pay the specified amount as damages after it had been proven in court that assets belonging to Anees, including a speedboat and a ‘dhoni’ boat, had been wrongfully passed on to the heirs of Faheem following his death.

Anees had told local media that the amount specified was a value proposed by the court itself as the cost of renting his vessels until the 2009 hearing.

“Moosa Faheem’s family was ordered by court to make this payment back in 2009. But then they appealed the case in the High Court without paying up. However, on July 27, High Court ruled in favour of the Civil Court’s verdict,” Anees told local media.

“The Civil Court has been trying to implement this ruling, but Shaveed’s family members never attend hearings. They didn’t even come to this last Thursday’s hearing. Then at a hearing of another case I’ve filed against them I said it’s possible to do things like freeze their accounts or hold their passports. That then I’d get the payments,” Anees further said.

Meanwhile, a member of Faheem’s family is reported in local media as saying that the court had concluded the case while they have appealed it in the Supreme Court and none of the heirs were in the country. He further said, “This is a political move to tarnish our family name.”

The heirs of Moosa Faheem include Haulath Faheem – wife of current Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – and Mohamed Shaveed, Chairman of VB Brothers Pvt Ltd.

Local media has reported that the Department of Immigration denies having received a court order for withholding the passports of Faheem’s heirs.

Controller of Immigration Mohamed Ali, spoke to Minivan News today on the issue.

“We get lots and lots of court orders to impose travel bans. From magistrate courts, the civil court and many other courts. We implement these orders as they come to us. I will have to check and see if this particular order has been received. But even if it did, to share it with media? I’ll need to seek advice on whether or not to to do that,” Ali said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Religious NGO plans Male’ protest in support of death penalty

Religious NGO “Muslimunge Gulhun” yesterday told local media that it is organising a demonstration calling on the state to implement and enact the death penalty.

The demonstration, to be called ‘Thanfeez’ – translated as “implement – is scheduled to be held at 4:oopm on Friday (October 19) at the Artificial Beach area of Male’.

The demonstration will mainly focus on advocating for the death penalty, which organisers believe will to bring an end to murders occurring in the Maldives, according to a press briefing held at Muslimunge Gulhun head office. The NGO further stated that the demonstrations would also be used to advocate for the penalties of other crimes to be aligned with Islamic Sharia.

Minivan News was unable to locate contact details for the NGO, while Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed and State Minister for Islamic Affairs Mohamed Didi were not responding to calls at the time of press.

However, one event organiser, Ajnadh Ali, is quoted in local media as saying that participants of the demonstration were expected to range from religious scholars to young people with a love for Islam. He further claimed that the demonstration was being planned by people that did not directly represent any specific organisation.

Organiser Sheikh Azmath Jameel stated, “The country has come to the state it is at now because the penalties laid out in Islamic Sharia have not been implemented. I call on every Muslim to join this demonstration.”

Ali Nazeer, another of the event’s organisers, spoke against opening up issues like death penalty to public debate, adding any such discussions should not be entertained in fear of how the international community may react to the implementation of Islamic Sharia.

Although death sentences are issued by courts in the Maldives, traditionally those sentences are commuted to life imprisonment under the power vested in the President.

From January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by the courts. None of these sentences have been carried out.

The last person to be executed in the Maldives after receiving a death sentence was in 1953 during the first republican President Mohamed Ameen. Hakim Didi was charged with attempting to assassinate President Ameen using black magic.

However, the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has announced its intention to submit a bill to parliament to facilitate the implementation of the death penalty.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

FBI assisting with Afrasheem murder investigation: Police Commissioner Riyaz

The Maldives Police Service has said two US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials are providing “technical consultancy” in investigating the murder of religious scholar and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali on October 2.

At a press conference held on Thursday (October 11), Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz also confirmed that two additional suspects have been arrested with regard to the case, increasing the total number of arrests in connection with the murder to six.

According to local media reports, Riyaz confirmed the same day that a total of 80 police officers have been assigned to the case. The police have now questioned 75 persons and are analysing 130 video clips from security cameras around the capital of Male’.

Riyaz further stated his belief that the murder had been committed as a pre-planned, calculated attack.

Talking to local media, Riyaz revealed that police officers had uncovered sufficient evidence, and were further investigating reports of related financial transactions to the case.

He confirmed that police would continue with the investigation until the culprits were found.

In an unprecedented move, the police service also announced that reward money amounting to MVR 500,000 would be granted to any person providing evidence that would lead to a conviction in the country’s courts.

Riyaz added that in cases where threats were made to ‘high-profile’ persons in future, police would be taking necessary precautionary actions to protect them.

Politics and religion

Following the murder of Dr Afrasheem, Maldivian Democratic Party(MDP) activists Mariyam Naifa and Ali Hashim were arrested on Tuesday, October 3 from Dolphin Cafe.

Although police failed to confirm at the time that the arrests were made in relation to the MP’s murder, Naifa’s lawyer confirmed that authorities had arrested her colleague based on ‘intelligence reports’ about the attack.

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

In a press conference held on October 3, Assistant Commissioner of Police Hassan Habeeb stated, “We are not arresting people based on their political affiliations.”

Prior to his murder, Afrasheem had made his last public appearance on a live talk-show on TVM titled, “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Living).

In his last broadcast words, Afrasheem said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed later stated that the Islamic Ministry had in no way forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything in his last TV appearance.

Earlier in September, local media had reported that the Islamic Ministry had held a meeting titled ‘Scholar’s Dialogue’ to hold discussions about how Afrasheem’s religious views contradicted those of other local scholars.

Shaheem had stated at the time that they had not been able to reach a common consensus, but that further meetings had been planned.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police file case against man for pricking girls with a pin

Police said they have completed an investigation and submitted a case to the Prosecutor General (PG) against a man who had been arrested for allegedly pricking girls with a pin.

According to the statement the case was sent to the PG office on September 30.

The 31 year-old man, Hussain Shareef of G Greenland, was charged with harassing a group of girls from Ahmadhiyya School by pricking them with a pin in various areas of their bodies, multiple times.

The police statement said that Shareef was brought into police custody at approximately 7.44pm on August 28, 2011.

The police declined from confirming whether Shareef was being kept in police custody since his arrest or whether he has been freed.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef had not responded at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Prosecution’s only objective to ensure I cannot contest next elections”: former President Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed in a public speech on Tuesday challenged the Prosecutor General (PG) as to why “such a small charge” was being raised against him while he was being accused of “the much larger crime of having hijacked the entire criminal justice system of the Maldives”.

Following Nasheed’s first hearing in the case against him regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, the former president addressed a crowd of over 1500 supporters at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s rally grounds in ‘Usfasgandu’ on Tuesday night.

Speaking at the rally, Nasheed stated that the Prosecutor General had filed a case against him under Article 81 of the Penal Code for the arrest of a judge.

Article 81 of the Penal Code states that it is a criminal offence for any employee of the state to use the constitutional powers to arrest vested on him to deliberately arrest a person who has not committed a crime. The article further details that the maximum penalty for this offence is either a jail sentence or banishment for a period of up to three years, or a fine of up to MVR 2000 (US$130).

“If, as the President of the Maldives, I arrested the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, then it is not as small a crime as is stated in Article 81. The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy,” Nasheed explained.

“In truth, if I have committed the crime he is accusing me of, then it is far more serious than he is currently saying. If such a crime has been committed, then the charges must be for having dismantled the whole criminal justice system.”

“That the PG is not charging me for that, and instead is sticking to such a small charge shows beyond any doubt that he is looking at the matter from a political perspective,” Nasheed alleged.

Nasheed said he was confident that his legal team would prove in court the challenges that the criminal justice system of the country was facing, the problems that the whole justice system of the Maldives was facing, the ensuing risks to national security, and that the steps taken by the President of the Maldives to solve the issue fell within the legislative framework of the country.

“What is the specific moment during the orchestration of the coup that all political actors were noting as most important? The moment when Abdulla Ghazi (Judge Abdulla Mohamed) was released. The coup d’etat that was brought in this country was made possible because our criminal justice system has failed,” said Nasheed.

Nasheed also said that government employees in the southern atolls had raised concerns of not having received their monthly salary.

“Hassan Thaajudeen declared a wage system in the 1600s. Since then, the state has never once failed to pay wages, until now. What we are seeing are the effects of the coup,” Nasheed said.

Regarding the actions of the police, Nasheed stated that there were many police officers who worked with the national interest in mind. He said that these officers were following the orders of their “political leaders” with reluctance.

“The Home Minister may have instructed (police) to shoot me in the head and bring me back. Home Minister may have asked them to bring me with my hands cuffed behind my back. The Home Minister may also have asked them to completely destroy Aslam’s house, or destroy Fares-Mathoda and bring me back. We do not at all doubt that the state has the means and manpower to do so. However, these past few days have made it even clearer to me that there are lots of police and soldiers who are aligned with the national spirit,” Nasheed stated.

Nasheed further stated that the MDP’s campaign trip to the southern atolls, the “Journey of Pledges” had been interrupted by the state with the use of force disproportionate to the situation.

“Some days we fall, but then we get back up even faster,” Nasheed said, stating that the campaign trip would resume on Wednesday morning.

After the first hearing of the case on Tuesday, the court has scheduled the next hearing to be held on November 4. Although Nasheed has been freed from police custody after Tuesday’s hearing, he is still effectively under island arrest.

“We have heard the manifesto of our political opponents. They vow only to detain President Nasheed for a long period of time. There is nothing for the benefit of the people,” Nasheed said.

“Our party’s and my own first pledge is that my name will be on the ballot paper,” Nasheed declared, prompting loud cheers from his supporters.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed presented to court hearing, protesters gathered outside

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been presented to a court hearing under police custody, following his arrest on Monday on an order issued by Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Hundreds of protesters are gathered in the area surrounding the court. Protesters claim that the Hulhumale’ court is unlawful and are calling for Nasheed to be freed.

The arrest of Nasheed on the island of Fares-Mathoda by the police followed a decision by Nasheed’s party to ignore two previous summons and a travel ban issued by the court, which the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) contend has no legitimacy under the 2008 Constitution. The matter is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Excessive force used in arrest: Amnesty

International human rights NGO Amnesty International has stated that the Maldives Police Services (MPS) used “excessive force” during the arrest of Nasheed.

The statement noted eyewitness accounts of the police vandalising the house of former Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam, where Nasheed was staying at the time of arrest. It also highlighted accounts of attacks against supporters outside the residence who were exercising their right to protest peacefully.

Regarding the case against Nasheed, the statement further says that although it is “positive” that the Maldivian authorities are investigating the case, the organisation is concerned that the human rights violations during the 30 year presidency of Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom and those that have occurred since Mohamed Waheed Hassan assumed office in February 2012 were being ignored.

“Investigations into past abuses are always welcome. However, accountability must not be selective – all authorities including former presidents should be held accountable for human rights violations. The focus on human rights violations during only Nasheed’s presidency appears politically motivated,” said Amnesty International’s Researcher on Maldives Abbas Faiz.

Arrest was carried out “very professionally”: police

Police have released a statement claiming that police officers acted “very professionally” in bringing Nasheed into police custody.

The statement says that the police had initially requested Nasheed to hand himself over to the police. According to the police, officers broke down the door of the room Nasheed was in and detained him after he failed to respond to the initial commands. The statemen claims that this is the general course of action used by police in similar situations.

The police denied that any officers used offensive language or that any physical or that psychological trauma was caused to anyone during the arrest.

The statement further notes that from the time Nasheed was brought to the Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre last night, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives and the Police Integrity Commission have been provided with the opportunity to observe the proceedings of the operation to arrest Nasheed.

Police have also stated that Nasheed is allowed access to legal counsel and family under the arranged regulations.

“No chance of a fair trial”

The MDP has claimed there is no chance of a fair trial in the Maldives for former President Nasheed, and Nasheed’s legal team have complained about the “extraordinary way” the trial is being conducted.

President Nasheed’s legal team said they had not received official notifications from the court about trial dates., and were instead learning this information from local media reports.

“Moreover, in an unprecedented move, the Judicial Services Commission, which includes President Nasheed’s political rivals (such as resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim), have hand-picked a panel of three magistrates to oversee the case, whose names have been kept secret. This is in breach of normal practice and in violation of the Judicature Act,” the party stated.

“The coup has not been fully completed,” said MDP spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor. “There is no point bringing President Nasheed down in a police mutiny if he then goes on to win presidential elections 18 months later. To ensure its survival, Mr Waheed’s regime needs to remove President Nasheed from the political equation and that is precisely what they intend to do.”

He noted that the UN Human Rights Committee, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, FIDH, and the Commonwealth had all have expressed concern over the independence and competence of the Maldivian judiciary and called for reform.

Police used force despite Nasheed not showing resistance: Aslam

Former Minister of Housing and Environment, who had accompanied Nasheed on the police boat along with MDP MPs Imthiyaz Fahmy and Ilyas Labeeb, told Minivan News on Monday that Nasheed had not shown any resistance to being arrested, but the police had used undue force in the arrest.

Aslam further said that the police had forced themselves into the house, damaging property in the process. He further said that the police had “pushed around” people inside the house.

In addition to riot guns, Aslam also alleged that police had been carrying firearms.

“We also later on knew that they had pistols. I don’t know what sort of pistols they were. But we saw them packing them away after escorting us on to the boat,” Aslam said.

MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik gave a press briefing following a visit to Nasheed in Dhoonidhoo on Tuesday afternoon, stating that the former president was being kept in detention outside of the normal systems and deprived of his freedoms. He said that he condemned the police treating Nasheed “like a convicted criminal”.

No force used after Nasheed was brought to Dhoonidhoo: PIC

Police Integrity Commission (PIC)’s Vice President Abdullah Waheed confirmed Tuesday that a three member team had visited Dhoonidhoo on Monday night following Nasheed’s transfer to the detention centre.

Speaking to Minivan News, Waheed said that observers had not accompanied the police who had travelled to FaresMathoda to arrest Nasheed, but had stayed at Dhoonidhoo from the time he was brought until midnight.

“During their visit to Dhoonidhoo, our team did not see any force being used against Nasheed,” Waheed said.

“We have not received any complaints from anyone alleging anything was done wrong by police during Nasheed’s arrest,” Waheed said, adding that the commission only looked into matters when an official complaint was filed.

Vice President of Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Ahmed Tholal confirmed to Minivan News that himself and the President of HRCM Mariyam Azra had made a visit to Dhoonidhoo last night in relation to Nasheed’s arrest.

He said that more information could be provided following a commission members meeting, but did not respond to calls later.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed will attend willingly if case is heard in legitimate court: MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has condemned the Maldives Police Service for arresting former President Mohamed Nasheed today, terming it an ‘unlawful’ act.

MDP MP Ahmed Sameer stated that the police, who had demonstrated against being issued unconstitutional orders on the February 6, were now doing the same.

Sameer referred to Articles 155 and 245 of the Constitution of the Maldives and Article 53 of the Judicature Act, stating that the police were implementing an order which went against all three articles.

“There are slayings and murders happening continuously, but the focus is instead on politically motivated action against former President Nasheed,” Sameer said.

Sameer also echoed Nasheed’s legal team’s previous statement that there was a case to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Court currently pending in the Supreme Court.

“We are saddened that the Supreme Court is continuing to stay silent on the matter, and is making no efforts to inhibit an unlawful order by an unconstitutional court,” Sameer said.

“Why doesn’t the Supreme Court take the initiative and transfer the case against Nasheed from the unlawful Hulhumale’ court to a legally established court? He would willingly attend then,” Sameer further stated.

The police have an ongoing investigation against Sameer which was submitted by the Department of Judicial Administration on September 12 accusing him of “creating public mistrust” towards the Supreme Court.

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

Ismail writes “[Hulhumale’ court] was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) without authority derived from Law. Therefore the validity of any order or judgements issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.”

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

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

At Monday’s press conference MP Sameer and MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik called on the Minister of Home Affairs and seniors representatives of the Maldives Police Service (MPS) to not encourage the case to be carried out in an unlawful court by having the police obey its orders to arrest Nasheed and present him to the hearing.

The MPS has sent out a press release confirming that they have taken Nasheed into custody and that officers were now heading back to the capital with him.

MDP International Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor has also expressed concerns, stating he did not believe Nasheed would be allowed a fair trial.

“This is not about justice. This is a politically motivated trial to invalidate our candidate’s candidacy and to deliberately disrupt the MDP’s presidential campaign. We are in the largest voting centres and it is very clear who will win the elections. They can only win the elections by invalidating his candidacy. We are deeply disturbed by the developing situation. We do not believe he will have a fair trial.”

Meanwhile, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza has stated on his twitter: “After Tuesday morning either you are with us or with the enemy. There is no negotiation or middle ground after Tuesday.”

Riza made the statement on Sunday evening, while the Hulhumale’ Magistrate issued the arrest warrant to the police on Monday afternoon.

Parliament rejects motion against Nasheed’s arrest

Parliament has rejected an emergency motion put forward by MDP MP and Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik against the arrest of Nasheed.

Speaker and DRP Member Abdulla Shahid stated that the motion was rejected on the basis that it concerned a case ongoing in the Supreme Court to validate the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

He referred to Article 149 of the Parliament Rules of Procedure which states that motions regarding cases ongoing in a court of law could not be accepted by the legislative.

Although Shahid stated that the Supreme Court was currently looking into the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, Moosa Manik stated that the motion was not about the Supreme court case, but about a case lodged at an unconstitutional court.

MDP MP Eva Abdulla echoed Moosa’s statement, saying that since the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was established unlawfully, the arrest warrant for Nasheed issued by the court must be considered invalid.

The motion also spoke of the public outrage that Nasheed’s arrest and unfair treatment against him would cause.

Three magistrates presiding over Nasheed case summoned to Majlis Committee

The Majlis committee with the mandate to oversee work of the executive has summoned the three magistrates appointed to preside over the case against Nasheed regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed.

The three magistrates, whose names have not yet been announced, have been asked to attend the meeting at 3:45pm on Tuesday. Nasheed’s hearing, meanwhile, has been scheduled for 4:00pm Tuesday.

The decision to summon the magistrates was reached in a closed-door meeting of the committee held Monday afternoon.

The committee has an MDP majority with six of their MPs sitting in it, in addition to two  members from the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), two members from Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and one member from the Jumhoree Party (JP).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Islamic Ministry denies religious pressure on murdered Afrasheem, while police seek foreign help with case

Police have revealed that they are seeking international expertise in solving the case of the murder of moderate scholar and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

Police declined to provide any further details about the international help they are seeking, saying instead that they would provide information once the international actors arrived in the country.

Police also confirmed that they had arrested an additional suspect in relation to the murder case, once again declining to identify the arrested “due to the nature of the case”.

Four people have already been arrested in relation to the case, one of whom is female. The criminal court has extended the detention of all four detainees by 15 days.

Although the police have not yet identified any of the arrested individuals, lawyers representing “front-line activists” of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have confirmed that Mariyam Naifa and Ali Hashim were arrested in relation to the murder case.

The party has alleged that the arrests are politically motivated.

Afrasheem “not forced to apologise”: Islamic Minister

Prior to his murder on Monday October 1, Afrasheem had made his last public appearance on a live talkshow on TVM titled “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Living).

In his last words, Afrasheem said that he was deeply saddened and asked for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.

Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed was quoted in local media as saying that the Islamic Ministry had not forced Afrasheem to offer a public apology for anything in his last television appearance.

Shaheem went on to say that Afrasheem had been given the opportunity to appear on the show following a series of requests by the murdered scholar. He said that Afrasheem had asked for the opportunity on Monday’s program, and so the previously arranged guests had been replaced with him.

Shaheem also said that Afrasheem had visited the Ministry of Islamic Affairs on Monday afternoon, requesting a discussion on the topics to be covered in the talk show.

Shaheem furthermore said that in this meeting, Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Gubadh AbuBakr, Afrasheem and himself had spoken about how religious disagreements had led to rifts between close friends, and said that he wanted to “escape from all of this”.

“[Afrasheem] said that he wanted everyone to know what his viewpoints were. And [he] wanted to share this on a channel watched by the largest audience, “ said Shaheem, sharing his discussion with Afrasheem in their last meeting together.

“I think this is a highly esteemed position that Allah has granted [Afrasheem] in timing this program in the midst of all that happened that night. It is fate that the show was arranged for the very night,” Shaheem said.

“Looking at the attack as a whole, it must have been planned for days and days. There’s no other way it could have been carried out under such secrecy,” Shaheem commented.

Shaheem said that he had no knowledge of anyone bringing about a situation where Afrasheem might have been forced to offer a public apology for his views.

Contradicting views on religious matters

Afrasheem’s moderate positions on subjects such as listening to music had previously attracted criticism from more conservative religious elements, who dubbed him “Dr Ibilees” (“Dr Satan”).

In 2008, the scholar was kicked and chased outside a mosque after Friday prayers, while more recently in May 2012, the religious Adhaalath Party released a statement condemning Afrasheem for allegedly “mocking the Sunnah”.

“After speaking to everyone, Afrasheem himself said that he was willing to apologise if the problem was in his statements. That he wanted to make clear what his stands were if he were to speak at any forum or place. That he does not call for wrong beliefs or things,” Shaheem explained.

Regarding the contradicting views on religious matters that had led to criticism of Afrasheem by other local scholars, Shaheem said that Afrasheem had approached him to find a solution.

“(Afrasheem) himself came to me and said Usthaz (scholar) Shaheem, you are the one person who can do this. So help me become one with everyone else. And so, it was under his request that the scholar’s dialogue was organised,” Shaheem was quoted as saying in local media on Sunday.

Although Shaheem said that at the end of the meeting the scholars were “happy with Afrasheem”, local media reported last month that the meeting had ended without reaching a general agreement.

At the time, Shaheem had said that the main focus of the meeting were the disagreements between Afrasheem and other local scholars on certain religious issues.

He had also stated then that the scholars involved had been unable to reach a consensus at the end of the meeting, and that he hoped Afrasheem would align his views with that of the other scholars.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Contradictory findings in PIC’s report on February 8 crackdown

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released the second of its three pending reports regarding police action around the contentious transfer of power in February.

The PIC states that it initiated the investigation due to allegations of police brutality when breaking up the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstration on February 8, following the controversial resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed the previous day.

The PIC report on the events in Male’ on February 8 states that the investigation was carried out with a committee inclusive of all five members of the commission.

However, the report has two contradicting accounts, with President of the PIC Shahinda Ismail including her own findings in contrast to those of the other commission members.

The report states that the PIC looked into three main areas: whether police used disproportionate force in breaking up the MDP demonstration, whether individual police officers committed inhumane acts and acts of violence against citizens after breaking up the protest, and whether there were any police actions of the day which senior police officers must take responsibility for.

The investigation was carried out based on interviews, phone records, photos and video evidence.

Police acts within the law

PIC report contends that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of law and regulations.

It says that police acted in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 6(8) of the Police Act and as protection from any danger that may ensue from the MDP demonstrations.

The investigation justified police action by stating that demonstrators had caused damage to property on their way to the MMA area, and that as there were large numbers of demonstrators, it may have led to unrest had the police not broken up the protest when they did.

The report further states that although sufficient warning had not been issued before breaking up the demonstration, police acted in line with Article 24 of the Freedom of Assembly Act as there was a small number of police officers controlling the demonstration which had a large number of participants, and any delays in breaking it up may have led to danger.

The PIC also stated that there were no incidents on February 8 that senior police needed to take responsibility for. It stated as reasons that there had been no prior knowledge of the protest being planned, that the intelligence department was not functioning at its best due to changes in management after February 7, and that after former President Nasheed’s statement in his resignation speech that his continuing to stay in power may cause harm to the citizens, there was no reason for police to expect his party to orchestrate such a demonstration against the new government.

Individual acts of brutality

The report however went on to say that individuals in the police force had committed acts of violence, inhumane acts, and used verbal abuse against demonstrators on February 8, acting against Article 54 of the Constitution of the Maldives, Article 7(a.11) of the Police Act, Articles 16(a), 16(d.2), 16(d.3), 16(d.5) of the Regulations for handling and use of weapons.

The report highlights 12 specific incidents, including video evidence and interviews proving inhumane acts of police against former President Nasheed, police brutality against MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik and member of parliament Mariya Ahmed Didi and video evidence of police beating 14 individuals with batons.

The commission states here its intention to further investigate these acts, and take legal action against the officers who were involved.

Contradicting viewpoints

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she sees acts of police on February 8 to have been against the law, and that she observed no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Ismail stated that while demonstrations were permitted in the MMA area, there was no evidence beyond that of statements by police officers to prove that any illegal acts had been committed, or that there was any intention to do so by the demonstrators.

Ismail further stated that the police broke up the protest without prior warning, acting against the orders of the officer in charge in the area, Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, order to ‘hold’ without advancing, and also against the advice of Maldives National Defense Force commanders. She said that the police had acted under orders from Unit Commander Seargant Mohamed Naeem.

Ismail described the acts of brutality noted in the PIC report as “targeted attacks to cause immense harm to certain people”, stating that these acts could not be seen as actions to protect anyone and should be further investigated and taken action against.

Ismail also states that Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh and then Acting Head of Police Specialist Operations Department Ahmed Shameem must be held responsible for not having carried out the responsibilities of their posts in a sufficient manner.

She also notes the accounts given to PIC investigations by Fairoosh, Shameen and Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, stating that providing false statements to the investigation is a criminal offence as noted in Article 62 of Chapter 3 of the Penal Code.

Ismail further states that Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and Head of Police Professional Standards Directorate, Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed, must be held accountable for failing to investigate the acts of police on February 8. She states that this failure is a breach of the constitution and the Police Act.

Recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs

The PIC report presents two recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs.

It calls on the ministry to order the police to investigate undue use of force with batons during February 8.

Noting that many officers during the February 8 had had their faces covered with hoods and helmets, the report additionally calls on the Ministry to establish a system in the police which would facilitate identification of police being investigated under similar situations.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that they are in the process of studying the PIC report.

“After studying it, if we find that any steps need to be taken, or any reforms need to be made, then we will work on that,” Haneef said.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Minivan News also tried contacting the Police Integrity Commission, but was unable to get a response at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)