Category: Features & Comment

Government sends out letters to international stakeholders with demonstrably false claims

Letters from the government to stakeholders in India as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the trial and conviction of former President Mohamed Nasheed contains several demonstrably false claims.

An open letter dated March 19 – sent from the Maldives High Commission in India to major political actors – along with a letter from Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights were recently leaked online and reported on by local media.

A ‘Timeline of key events in the trial’ in the letter to Indian stakeholders read: “On 23 February 2015, former President Nasheed was given the opportunity to appoint legal counsel, when he was presented before the judge of the Criminal Court for a procedural remand hearing in relation to the amended and re-filed charges.”

“His legal team was not present at this hearing because they had failed to register themselves as per Criminal Court regulations.”

The claim is false as Nasheed was arrested around 2:30pm on February 22 and brought to the Criminal Court for the first hearing of the terrorism trial at 4:00pm the next day, where charges were read out and he was given three days to appoint lawyers.

Nasheed’s lawyers held a press conference at noon on February 23, announcing they were unable to represent the opposition leader, as the Criminal Court had told them they should have registered two days in advance despite being unaware of the trial until the opposition leader’s arrest the previous day.

Moreover, while remand hearings take place within 24 hours of an arrest, Nasheed was brought to court after the 24-hour period lapsed.

At the same hearing, judges ruled Nasheed be held in a location determined by the Home Ministry until the end of the trial. He was subsequently held in police custody at the Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Center.

The High Commission’s letter also justified Criminal Court’s refusal to grant adequate time to prepare for defence stating the court “determined that all the relevant documents relevant for the defence had been issued as far back as mid-2012, and that no new evidence was being put forward by the state prosecutors.”

But Nasheed’s defence team quit half-way through the trial after they were unable to view documentary evidence submitted by the state as some evidence CDs were left blank or were dysfunctional.

“The court repeatedly reminded former President Nasheed to engage legal counsel or the bench would consider that he waived his right to counsel, but advised former President Nasheed that he could engage counsel at any time,” the High Commission’s letter stated.

However, in subsequent hearings, the court refused Nasheed’s repeated request for between ten and 15 days to appoint new counsel and concluded proceedings four days later.

“Rushed process”

Meanwhile, a letter from Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein was also leaked online.

In a statement on March 18, the UN human rights chief said Nasheed was convicted after “a rushed process that appears to contravene the Maldives’ own laws and practices and international fair trial standards in a number of respects.”

Asserting the independence of the Prosecutor General and judiciary, Dunya insisted that criminal proceedings against Nasheed were fair, transparent and in accordance with the Constitution.

“I can therefore assure Your Excellency that the independence of the judiciary and the fairness of due legal process remain as sacrosanct in the case against [Nasheed] as they would for any other Maldivian citizen,” the letter stated.

“I can also further assure Your Excellency that the government of Maldives will continue to ensure the inviolability of a citizen’s right to a fair trial, insulated from political interference.”

Dunya also falsely claimed that Nasheed was presented before the Criminal Court on February 23 for a remand hearing.

“His legal team was not present at this hearing because none of them had registered their right of audience for the case,” the letter stated.

While the High Commissioner stated that Nasheed was “constrained from calling witnesses” and noted a conflict of interest as “judges in the case as well as the Prosecutor General were witnesses in the investigation,” Dunya claimed both points were “indeed incorrect.”

Dunya said Nasheed had called two of the presiding judges and the PG as witnesses for the defence.

“Mr Nasheed’s request was naturally overruled by the bench on the basis that these officials could not be called as witnesses on evidentiary rules of relevancy and probative value,” the letter stated.

The PG, and two of the three presiding judges were at Judge Abdulla’s home at the time of his arrest and had testified in a 2012 Human Rights Commission of the Maldives investigation. The PG’s case is built on the HRCM investigation.

Conspiracy

The government meanwhile denied a “conspiracy to unwarrantedly convict” Nasheed to prevent the opposition leader from contesting the 2018 presidential election.

In the open letter to stakeholders in India, the government also assured that Nasheed was “afforded a free and fair trial in full accordance with the Constitution and laws” contrary to “speculation and misrepresentation of facts” by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

It suggested that Nasheed’s participation in the 2013 presidential election “amply proves there are no conspiracy theories to eliminate him from the political arena.”

The administration of President Abdulla Yameen could “neither interfere nor influence” any decision by the independent Prosecutor General or the judiciary, it added.

“The independence of the judiciary and the fairness of due legal process have been as sacrosanct in the case against former President Nasheed as they would have been for any other Maldivian citizen. The Maldives government will continue to ensure the inviolability of a citizen’s right to a fair trial, insulated from political interference,” reads the letter.

Likes(3)Dislikes(1)

#NameThatPolice: Police photo warning sparks social media outcry

The Maldives Police Services on Friday warned social media users against harassing and posting photos of individual officers online, prompting a social media outcry with dozens of Twitter users posting pictures of police brutality with the hashtag #NameThatPolice.

“Publicizing photos of individual police officers, with warnings, on social media is unacceptable,” the police said, claiming the act was aimed at intimidating police officers and inciting hatred towards the police force.

Appealing to social media users to be more responsible, the police warned of penalties against continued harassment.

The warning came after opposition supporters started circulating photos of individual police officers accusing them of criminality, brutality and bribery. The police statement, however, appears to have escalated matters.

 

Many photos posted by Twitter users were from the brutal police crackdown in the aftermath of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s ouster on February 7, 2012. A Commonwealth backed national inquiry had recommended penalizing officers for brutality, but the opposition says the government had instead promoted officers accused of brutalizing protesters.

Mohamed Shaheed asked, “Are we not allowed to talk about this?”

Speaking to Minivan News, he said the public must publish photos of police brutality, “otherwise it will not stop.”
“This is not aimed at all police officers, just the ones who break the law,” he added.

Some tweets included comical photos of police carrying protesters to police vehicles.

“I think the warning by police is downright ridiculous. Nobody should tell us to stop speaking out against brutality. We will not remain silent when crimes are committed, be it police or any other state institution,” Twitter user Ibrahim Huzam told Minivan News.

“In addition to the lack of discipline and professionalism, police act very hostile towards the public, this is very wrong,” he added.

Tensions are high in Malé with the opposition protesting daily over the imprisonment of former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim. Protests have now entered a seventh consecutive week.

Confrontations between police and protesters have increased recently, and hundreds including MPs and journalists have been arrested.

Chief Superintendent of Police Abdulla Nawaz on March 26 said inidivdual police officers have been confronted and intimidated at their homes, adding that efforts were underway to “psychologically weaken” police personnel

Nawaz also accused certain media outlets of attempting to falsely portray police as brutal towards civilians and said the media cut off live feed when protesters attacked police officers. He warned the police would arrest media personnel if they obstruct police duty.

Former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim has meanwhile accused the police’s Specialist Operations (SO) officers of framing him by planting illegal weapons at his home and committing criminal activities including the chopping down of Malé City’s Areca Palms in October last year.

The police have denied the accusations as baseless and untrue.

Nazim was sentenced to 11 years in jail on Thursday (March 26).

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Maldives human rights watchdog under siege

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has slammed the judiciary for compromising its independence, describing the Supreme Court’s suo moto proceedings over a submission to the UN Human Rights Council as the biggest challenge the watchdog has faced in its 11-year history.

In its 2014 annual report, the independent commission noted the Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court accused the HRCM of making false allegations in the Universal Periodic Review and a confidential report into a 15-year-old rape victim’s flogging sentence.

The Supreme Court and Juvenile Court’s charges affected the commission’s independence and ability to carry out its mandate, the report said.

The controversial suo moto regulations allow the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings, prosecute and pass judgment. The first case of its kind, in March 2014, saw the apex court sack the Elections Commission’s President and Vice President for contempt of court.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Ali Hussein said the judiciary’s “harassment of HRCM” was an indication of the “extraordinary levels of judicial activism in the country.”

“The judiciary is acting outside its boundaries, it is annulling laws, making laws, dismissing members of the independent commissions. The judiciary needs to be restrained immediately. But there is no way to hold them accountable.”

Judges must be educated and sensitised to human rights, fundamental norms and best practices in a democratic society, he continued.

However, lamenting President Abdulla Yameen’s decision to appoint disgraced Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed to the judicial watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Ali said judicial reform was only possible through a long hard people’s struggle.

Hameed was implicated in a series of sex tapes involving foreign women, but the police have closed the investigation citing non-cooperation from the judge, according to media reports. The JSC subsequently refused to take action against Hameed.

Meanwhile, parliamentary group leader of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Ahmed Nihan, said the People’s Majlis must play a key role in mediating the conflict between the HRCM and the judiciary to ensure the commission’s independence.

The majority leader described the dispute as “a teething trouble in a nascent democracy,” and said the HRCM must continue to exist as “a pillar of multi-party democracy.”

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) agreed the responsibility for ensuring HRCM’s independence rested with parliament, but said the PPM-dominated Majlis had no regard for the independence of the state’s watchdog bodies.

MDP MP Eva Abdulla also accused ruling party MPs of harassing human rights commissioners through the parliament.

The five members of the HRCM were summoned separately to the Majlis last week and questioned in a closed-door meeting regarding the commission’s statement condemning the Criminal Court’s 13-year sentence on former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The HRCM on March 14 expressed concern over apparent lack of due process in the opposition leader’s trial, and said the Criminal Court had failed to respond to a request to monitor court proceedings.

Eva also noted increasing threats against the HRCM, most recently that of a group of angry men on February 24 entered the commission’s officers and threatened to harm the five commissioners following a statement condemning the police’s mistreatment of Nasheed ahead of a hearing on February 23.

HRCM Vice President Ahmed Tholal meanwhile received threatening calls and messages after the police claimed he had called them “baagee” or traitor on February 22. The police have since withdrawn the claim.

The Supreme Court’s suo moto case is still pending “like a sword hanging over the HRCM,” Eva said.

The MP for Galholhu North also concurred with JP’s Ali Hussein, stating the judiciary should be held answerable through the JSC.

“We must end this judicial dictatorship. Within the People’s Majlis we must ensure the JSC fulfills its mandate. And above all, appoint qualified judges to the judiciary,” she said.

The HRCM in its report said the judiciary faced the most number of challenges in protecting human rights in 2014. The commission also expressed concern over the sudden dismissal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan in December.

 

Likes(5)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Getting away with murder

This article first appeared on DhivehiSitee.

In the early hours of this morning a 24-year-old Bangladeshi waiter, Shaheen Mia, was brutally murdered at a Male’ café he was working in. A group of masked men stabbed him to death. The day before, on the island of Mundoo in Laamu Atoll, another young man, 29-year-old Ali Ziyadham, was knifed to death allegedly in an argument among a group of men who were drinking home brewed alcohol.

Last month, on 22 February, a 24-year-old was murdered outside his home in Male’, he was almost decapitated. In January, in the island of Vaavu Rakeedhoo, a three-year-old boy was beaten to death by his mentally ill mother, herself a victim of sexual abuse over a long period of time.

All in all, since November 2013, there have been 12 murders and three abductions in the Maldives. Few have received justice.

Ex-Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim was fired on 20 January. Police raided his home in the middle of the night and ‘found’ weapons. Charged first with conspiracy to overthrow the government and later with importation of weapons into the country, he was remanded in custody. Before being imprisoned Nazim gave a press conference in which he said, ‘no Maldivian citizen will have safety and security.’ He could not have made a truer statement. Law and order are now non-existent in the once peaceful islands.

Just a short decade or so ago, a murder in the Maldives was a rare occasion that got the whole country talking. Back in the early 1970s, a German tourist killed his girlfriend in a Male’ guesthouse. Throughout the eighties and well into the 1990s, Maldivian people still spoke of the murder in hushed tones—killing was such a rare occurrence that people could not forget even the smallest details about the event. Today, killing is so common it is hard to remember who, when or why.

The blame must be taken squarely by the failed criminal justice system of the Maldives. Investigations are set to fail—often deliberately—at all stages: the police never seem to find evidence; when they do, they charge the wrong person; or when the right person is charged, the courts release them for ‘lack of evidence’ or wrongfully obtained evidence, or to teach the government a lesson. In 2011 Judge Abdulla Ghazee, whose continued releasing of violent offenders had made him a national security threat, released a suspected murderer, Shahum Adam, to teach the Health Ministry a lesson. He went on to kill again.

In the year that followed Ablow Ghazee’s release from custody on 7th February 2012, after Mohamed Nasheed was deposed on the pretext of having acted unconstitutionally by having the lawless judge taken into military custody, there were nine murders.

The first was of 21-year-old Abdulla Muheeth (Bobby), killed by gangs in what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. On the night he was killed, there were three other violent attacks in Male’. Muheeth’s killers are awaiting the death penalty. Less than a month after Muheeth’s death, 33-year-old Ali Shifan was attacked and killed by two men on a motorbike in Male’. The next victim was a 75-year-old woman, Fathimath Zakariyya, attacked and killed in her own home on the island of Neykurendhoo; the next a 65-year-old man, Hassanbe, on the island of Maafaru, also attacked and killed in his own home; he was followed by a 16-year-old schoolboy, Mohamed Aruham, attacked and killed while sleeping on a park bench in Male’; 65-year-old lawyer Ahmed Najeeb came next, killed and thrown into a garbage bin; he was followed by a 26-year-old policeman, attacked and killed while on duty on the island of Kaashidhoo; then came the murder of 46-year-old MP Afrasheem, brutally attacked just outside his own apartment; followed by Moneerul Islam, a Bangladeshi worker, also killed in his own home in November 2012.

There was a drop in the number of killings after that, with three in total in the year 2013 – one in March, in July and in December of that year. In 2014, however, the number of killings went up again—five lives were taken violently that year. In 2015, only in its third month, this morning’s murder of Shaheen Mia is the year’s fourth.

The police are not doing their job of law enforcement, and of protecting and serving the community. As observers have pointed out, their main focus seems to be on the political rather than the criminal.

Hundreds of policemen and women are deployed to man every peaceful protest; a flurry of press releases and media briefings precede and follow any demonstration; and dozens are taken into custody from each of them. The gangs that operate on the fringes of these protests, meanwhile, get away with throwing crude oil, chilli water and even petrol at the demonstrators; and with attacking them physically. The only purpose of the police seems to be to stifle opposition to the government, to enforce the government’s power, and to keep people from rising up against it.

The current Home Minister, Umar Naseer, competed in the PPM primaries as a presidential candidate in the 2013 election. He lost to the incumbent president Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom. According to Umar, Yameen rigged the primaries to win. In the subsequent fallout, he alleged that Yameen has deep connections with the gangs of Male’; and also that the President was connected to the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali.

Once made the Home Minister in Yameen’s government, however, he has gone silent on whatever it is that he knows about the president and his gangs. Not only is he silent on Yameen’s alleged criminal activities, but also on any criminal activity. He is Home Minister in name only, his wings cut and vocal chords either bought or being held to ransom. He has no power over the police either. This week, he resorted to issuing orders to the police through Twitter, so powerless is he.

More recently, former PPM MP Ahmed Mahloof who has now been kicked out of the party, has come up with similar allegations of Yameen’s criminality. He implicates Yameen’s right-hand man in government, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb, of being as closely connected with the gangs of Male’ as Umar accused Yameen of being. According to Mahloof, Adeeb knows what happened to journalist and blogger Ahamed Rilwan, abducted at knifepoint from outside his home in August 2014. Pictures of Yameen and Adeeb with members of Male’s various gangs are everywhere. Pictorial evidence shows Adeeb’s connections with gangs exist not only at the local level but also the international – he posed shamelessly with the notorious Artur brothers from Armenia, implicated in arms and drugs smuggling worldwide.

The fact is none of these people with information—Nazim, Umar or Mahloof—are willing to share what they know with the public. It may be because the information is their only bargaining tool, it could be what keeps them alive. According to what Nazim has been revealing in his sham trial, police acts as thugs when commanded by Adeeb, Yameen’s proxy. In October 2014, a group of masked men wielding machetes cut down the areca nut palms lining Male’s main streets. The perpetrators were never identified by the police. According to recent revelations by Nazim during his on-going trial, it was the Special Operations police, pretending to be gang members who committed the crime. Rumour has it that Yameen suspects the trees have been used to put a curse on him using black magic.

The police are also implicated in enabling, and the cover-up of Afrasheem’s murder—they were on duty, closing the roads to his home when the murder occurred. Did they let the killer in, then closed off the road so there would be no witnesses? The public widely suspects they had a role in the abduction of Rilwan. An eyewitness to his abduction called the police immediately after seeing a man being bundled into a car at knifepoint from outside Rilwan’s apartment on the island of HulhuMale’. They did not respond, and never publicised the event allowing Rilwan’s disappearance to go unknown for days. They are still deliberately neglecting the investigation, hiding, obfuscating, impeding any progress. In the killing of Ziyadham on the island of Mundoo on Friday night, according to local media, people reported unrest to the police repeatedly, suspecting something was about to go very wrong. The police did not respond, arriving on the island hours after the killing despite having hours to have prevented it from happening. Less than an hour ago, in response to the latest killing, the police have told local news outlet cnm.mv that it ‘believes’ all citizens are safe.

A deadly mixture of deliberate collusion with violent gangs, the country’s incompetent law enforcement authorities, and the unqualified corrupt judiciary, has made life in the Maldives hell for its inhabitants.

This government is an utter failure on every level. Yet, half the people are fighting to keep it, and the judiciary, in place.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in International Relations

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to editorial@minivannewsarchive.com.

Likes(4)Dislikes(1)

Comment: Imprisoning of former president casts doubt on judiciary

This article first appeared in The Times on March 19. 

The Maldives’ tourist board continues to beam its slogan “the sunny side of life” through calls to boycott the islands over the recent 13 years’ imprisonment of former President Mohamed Nasheed, the first democratically elected President. Richard Branson tweeted that this latest action by those in power had gone “beyond a joke”. A joke legal system is not funny.

Educated in the UK, Mr. Nasheed’s stated and largely executed aims are introducing and enforcing fundamental rights in compliance with international law. He was attempting to drive the Maldives into a democratic structure after the 30-year dictatorship of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. The current Constitution was enacted on 7 August 2008, the State’s first ever multi-party presidential elections with international pre-requisite rights took place between October 2008 and 9th May 2009.

On 5th February 2011 the Maldives held its first ever multi-party local elections as required under the Constitution and newly enacted Decentralization Act. In 2009 former President Nasheed addressed issues of press freedom so as to raise the Maldives out of a ranking of 129 out of 169 countries to 51/52. He became a global leader against climate change and his charisma on the world stage led to David Cameron, in an interview in November 2011, describing him as “my new best friend”.

The former President also made unpopular attempts at judicial reform including entrenching judicial independence in the Constitution. Many Judges in the Maldives are poorly educated with no legal training, including those who ultimately tried and convicted the former President. In a preliminary statement, following hearings in 2012, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it is “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives” and “the state has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised.

Mohamed Nasheed lost power on 7 February 2012 in an alleged coup. In April 2013, the former President was charged with abusing his powers through the unlawful arrest and island detention of Chief Judge Mohamed Abdulla on 17 January 2012. This charge was withdrawn on 16th February 2015 but then in a surprise move, re-emerged on 22nd February 2015, based on the same allegation, as a terrorism charge.

The Former President was taken from his home on that date and detained in Dhoonidho prison, an institution with inglorious association with torture.

The accusation of the detention of a Judge is a serious matter but the underlying narrative cannot be ignored. In early 2012, the former President was fighting to hold power and stability. The Maldives was aflame with language of incitement against the former President and his reforms. There were even calls to arrest and flog the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay after she had suggested in Parliament that punishment by flogging should be reviewed (in line with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights). The Maldives Parliamentary Select Committee subsequently found the President to have been under life or death pressures. During the UN Human Rights Committee’s session in 2012 a panel member noted the “troubling role of the judiciary at the centre” of the disputed free transfer of power on February 7th 2012.

Whilst an action of unlawful detention against a Judge cannot be ignored, context and public interest also should not be ignored when exercising the discretion to prosecute. Alternatives such as an Independent Public Inquiry could have been considered.

The former President’s trial proceeded over 19 days, often late at night. Two of the Judges also were witnesses in the case. They refused to recuse themselves. The defence was refused the right to call witnesses in its own defence. Judge Didi referred to the former President needing to prove his innocence rather than there being a presumption of innocence. On the 9th March 2015 the defence lawyers withdrew from the case after repeatedly having been refused time to prepare.

On the 13th March 2015 the Former President stood alone as he was convicted and sentenced to the near maximum term of imprisonment.

But whilst the circus court is dismantled after its recent performance, it is democracy opponents that are cheering the loudest.

Kirsty Brimelow QC is a barrister with London’s Doughty Street Chambers. She has represented the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago and the Chief Justice of Gibraltar, and currently is acting for the former President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed. 

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to editorial@minivannewsarchive.com

Likes(3)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Get up, stand up

This article first appeared on DhivehiSitee.com. Republished with permission

It is an extremely tense day in the Maldives as tens of thousands of people wait on tenterhooks for what seems to be the inevitable: the imprisonment of opposition leader, former president and icon of democracy, Mohamed Nasheed.

The outcome of the ‘trial’ which Nasheed has been subjected to is certain, the verdict written long before he was charged with ‘terrorism’ and remanded in custody on the island of Dhoonidhoo on 22 February.

Everything that followed since that Sunday, over two weeks ago now, has been a sham and a travesty against justice. The barbarity was put on full display to the world, when Nasheed was brought to ‘court’ for the first hearing. Policemen, belonging to the notorious Special Operations, pushed and shoved Nasheed to the ground.

Pictures and videos of the event shocked the country, and the world.

The current rulers, led by Yameen Abdul Gayoom, shrugged off the outcry with nonchalance. Locally, the police claimed Nasheed had pulled a stunt, fallen to the ground voluntarily like a footballer faking an injury looking for to be rewarded with a penalty. It did not matter that video and pictorial evidence told a different story.

Internationally, foreign minister Dunya Maumoon was recalcitrant, insisting that Nasheed’s trial is a ‘domestic issue’ that no foreigners have a say in. The government remained impervious to all outside criticism. Even the cancellation of a planned trip by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a diplomatic slap of substantial magnitude, did not make any impact on its determination to pursue with their chosen path of leading Nasheed to jail. In fact, as time passed, the government grew more belligerent.

Yameen Abdul Gayoom said on March 9 that people in distant foreign lands should butt out of Maldivian affairs. Brushed aside were the many international treaties which the Maldives is signatory to, which gives the international community the right to particular actions during certain circumstances — such as in times of the destruction of rule of law.

‘Trial’

And what a destruction it has been. Every hearing in the court, itself unconstitutional, has dealt a deathblow to the concept of rule of law. The Prosecutor General’s appointment now appears to have been engineered for the very purpose of this prosecution, as are the panel of three ‘judges’. None of them have adequate legal qualifications, and all of them are in each other’s pockets. All of them have close ties to the man at the centre of these ‘terrorism’ charges—Ablow Ghaazee, himself accused of misconduct and corruption—who Nasheed allegedly ‘kidnapped’.

The three man bench has obstructed justice at every opportunity, refusing to give Nasheed’s lawyers enough time to study evidence; giving them evidence on CDs that do not open or have been damaged; refusing Nasheed the opportunity to appoint new lawyers when the current ones objected to their unlawful treatment; and incredibly, refusing to allow Nasheed to present witnesses with the judgement that no witness can disprove the prosecution case.

Every hearing has been held after sundown, and Nasheed brought to court in darkened vehicles under heavy police escort. The lengths to which prosecutors have gone to separate Nasheed and his supporters, and to prevent media from taking pictures of him, have been ludicrous at times.

On 8 March, about an hour before Nasheed was brought to court, the powers that be spread a blue banner across the entrance to the building, placed strategically to cover the camera angle from which Raajje TV usually shoots Nasheed’s court arrival. The banner read ‘Welcome, International Women’s Day.’ A blatant mockery not of justice alone, but also of women.

There has been much anguish among Nasheed’s supporters. On February 27 tens of thousand came out to protest against the court’s decision to remand Nasheed in custody throughout the trial. It was the biggest political gathering the capital island of Male’ had ever seen. People flooded the main street of Majeedhee Magu almost covering it from end to end.

Since then there have been protests every night and every day in various different locations across the country. But the government is refusing to listen to them no matter how many there are; it seeks to shut them down instead.

Every protest is manned by hundreds of Special Operations police, sometimes with reinforcements from the army. Almost every other protest ends in brutality and/or arrests. Scores have been arrested, taken to prison, then released with the unconstitutional condition that they don’t protest for periods of time as set by the court-–sometimes days, sometimes months.

Leaders of the MDP are handpicked for the arrests, making sure that less and less of them will be able to join protests against Nasheed’s arrest. One person—MP Fayyaz Ismail—refused to sign the court’s unlawful protest ban. He was given an extra 15 days in custody. There is no legal basis for such an order.

An increasing number of locations are being declared ‘no-protest zones’ for various reasons: for residents’ peace; for local business interests; for law and order, etc. etc. Freedom of assembly is being rolled back swiftly, and without hesitation. Other associated freedoms are under similar attack. Journalists are being barred from covering the trial without legal reason. Reporters are being banned from videoing places they are legally allowed to. Police are forcing them to delete footage already recorded without legal authority to do so. The state broadcaster is continuing to ignore the biggest ‘trial’ in the country’s recent history, completely ignoring its duty to keep citizens informed.

Thumbs down

Meanwhile, Yameen and members of his ruling cabal are relishing the distress and helplessness of supporters of democracy and Nasheed. Decorum and statesmanship are nowhere to be seen. When MDP MPs protested against Yameen’s inaugural speech in parliament, he gave into his indignation, getting up and waving his thumbs up and down, then up again, like a crazed Caligula in Roman times.

Yameen’s trusted sidekick, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb, who has shrugged off corruption charges amounting to millions of US dollars and engineered the unconstitutional removal of the auditor general who dared bring up the charges, led a motorbike procession on the streets of Malé this weekend, calling to expedite Nasheed’s conviction.

Among the rats led by this pied piper on a bike with a Rolex watch on his wrist and a sapphire ring on his finger, was the current defence minister, ex-military General Moosa Jaleel. Jaleel in his eagerness to belong to Yameen’s cabal, and thus enjoy automatic immunity, forgot that he is himself on trial for the same charges he was calling Nasheed to be convicted for.

To further increase the public disgust level [or degree of impressiveness, if the onlooker is a supporter of Bro Adeeb], Adeeb has led a ‘movement’ that mimics Yameen’s thumbs-down gestures as if it is something to be celebrated and not shamed by. He has posed with his thumbs down with cabinet ministers and parliament members—as well as with his usual string of young, disaffected men on the fringes, and in the heart of, Maldives’ violent gang culture. Everyone in the Motorcade of The Shamelessness wore t-shirts emblazoned with a thumbs-down signal.

This hatred of Nasheed as a person cultivated with relish by Yameen and Adeeb has been embraced by thousands of their supporters. It has blinded them to the fact that what is being destroyed in this sham is not just Nasheed’s personal freedoms but also every single Maldivian’s many civil and political rights and their right to equal justice for all.

The fundamental problem with the Maldives’ transition to democracy was that it was unable, and oftentimes unwilling, to reform the judiciary. Few had the foresight to see where the democratic transition would end without an independent judiciary based on the principles of rule of law. Now, even on hindsight – with the results on full display – many are still too blinded by personal vendettas, grudges and hate to see that this ‘trial’ of Nasheed is the last nail in the coffin for a democratic future for the Maldives.

Years of anti-Nasheed propaganda have closed people’s eyes to the fact that whatever wrong he may have done, if they want themselves to be treated fairly and equally and live in a just society, they must protest against the injustice he is being subjected to.

Today it is the moral obligation for every Maldivian to stand up against injustice. The subject of concern is not a particular individual, be it Nasheed, Nazim, the common man jailed for six years for stealing a jar of fish-paste; or the murderer who is allowed to walk free because he is in the inner cabal. It is justice itself.

Last time the people should have stood up en masse for justice and did not, the Maldives was robbed of a free and fair election. The result is in office, orchestrating injustice, via the courts that engineered his election. This time if the people fail to stand up, it will shut all doors to another election in the foreseeable future; along with the doors to equal justice for all, quite likely for generations to come.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in International Relations

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to editorial@minivannewsarchive.com


Related to this story

“I was not afforded the rights of the accused,” says Judge Abdulla

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(5)Dislikes(0)

President Yameen will not resign and go home, says PPM MP Nihan

MP for Vilimalé constituency, Ahmed Nihan, is the leader of ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives’ parliamentary group. Minivan News interviewed Nihan ahead of mass anti-government demonstrations planned by the Jumhooree Party and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Zaheena Rasheed: Former President Mohamed Nasheed has a lot of supporters. He has now allied with the Jumhooree Party and they are planning a mass demonstration for today. Do you consider this a threat?

Ahmed Nihan: No. You see, there are about 50 MPs in our parliamentary group, a lot of their constituents are here. The past two days, we’ve been working on finding out how many people will attend the protests. So based on that, we do not foresee any such danger. I do not believe the state should obstruct the right to free speech.  If citizens are dissatisfied with this government, they must be able to say so. But that right must not be abused to violate others’ rights, such as closing down streets, blocking lagoons, they cannot do this. But this is a cautious situation, we must be alert, to acts of terrorism, I’m saying this because this has happened before. And I note, there are some young men who’ve been convicted on terrorism, for example I have one mother whose son was sentenced after vandalizing the Villa TV Station on March 19. What answer do I have for her? There are many on my island, Gaaf Dhaal Thinadhoo, who have terrorism charges pending against them, at least 112, following the torching of government buildings on February 8. I am sure they are not criminals, they became sucked into politics. And tomorrow, how many will be tricked into this again? We will not support vandalism and arson.

Opposition parties say President Yameen’s government is lurching towards authoritarianism. Can you tell me what you believe are PPM’s democratic successes and what you plan to do to protect democracy in the future?

Many Maldivians believe the biggest challenge the country faces is the enforcement of the rule of law. Some are able to walk free, there are many cases where young men wielding swords, machetes and weapons are shedding blood. The whole country used to be in shock when they heard of a murders, but since 2007, we’ve seen over 30 murders. Everyone believes upholding the rule of law is essential in putting an end to this. In the past year, President Yameen, has taken an important step forward for a resolution. For example, the amendment to the Possession of Dangerous Weapons Act, charges will be pressed within ten days and it will be prosecuted within 30 days. This will prevent the intimidation of witnesses, and the accused changing their confession statements. We also have a draft of the Criminal Procedure Act; with this it shows President Yameen is working to turn this country. This is not an easy task for any leader, especially with a large youth bulge.

How does this relate to democratization?

What I’m trying to say is, politics rolls from the courage and determination of politicians, not just from what is written in the law. It must be implemented. To show he has the courage to implement the law, President Abdulla Yameen has said he will enforce the death penalty, once it has passed through all necessary appeals. Delivering justice is our biggest aim. We are in a state of fear, we are seeing such gruesome scenes, who would want to see this?

When there is a link between political stability and public safety, does the government have any plans to initiate talks?

The President met with us on Wednesday, and he said he is always ready for dialogue, but on reasonable grounds. If you look at the real issue behind the current crisis, all these trials are not yet completed. The opposition’s role is to criticize the governing party, MDP is good, and MDP must criticize the government. But the JP’s motives are unclear.

They are not coming out for the people. Gasim Ibrahim is working in his own interest. He left Mohamed Nasheed in 2008, after only 21 days in government, because he did not get what he wanted. It’s the same with us. Even if Mohamed Nasheed comes to power next, if he doesn’t oblige with Gasim’s demands, he will do the same. They were behind the 22 days of protests prior to Nasheed’s resignation. These are the same people who cried and hugged each other when he resigned. And the people who carried Nasheed’s resignation letter, the people who spurred the country into two years of chaos, who forced MDP supporters to the streets shouting traitor, they cannot be clean now. So I think tomorrow’s protests will amount to zero. There will be no benefit to anyone.

They cannot say this government wasn’t elected legally. The question is are Maldivians in the business of overthrowing governments? Are we engaged day to day in overthrowing governments? This cannot become our daily lives.

When the government hands him lagoons, islands, forgives him the money he owes the government, he will turn on Mohamed Nasheed.

So what is your government’s plans to ensure political stability?

Following the events of February 7, some people believe the president will resign. Because Nasheed did. President Yameen will not do that. He is firm, he will not resign and go home. He will face challenges, and he will ensure safety for everyone, and ensure the country remains a sovereign state. This government will not allow any acts that affect our sovereignty. He will protect our sovereignty. The national security forces will stop such acts. I am certain.

Opposition parties are claiming former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defense Minister’s charges are politically motivated. What is your response?

Honestly, if you look at the sequence of events, our new constitution does not give the opportunity for politically motivated charges to be levied against any individual. This is different to previous years, when the president could arrest someone at will for their political beliefs. Political parties are free to operate now, it’s been ten years since we were granted that right. Prosecuting someone for crimes they commit, or may commit is upholding the rule of law; this is the norm anywhere in the world. This is one of the strongest facets of democracy. Justice must be ensured. If this is a society, where an individual is able to evade justice after committing a crime, then there is no democracy here. Even if its President Nasheed or former minister Nazim.

I want to note, it is not the government that presses charges, the constitution clearly states it is the independent Prosecutor General who presses charges. Now, some argue the PG is pro-government. A PG must be appointed to the post through the Majlis as per the constitution. Where will you go, to which court, to see if the person is independent and impartial? As we transition to democracy, there have been many events where all parties were not satisfied with the outcome. This is because we are not a consolidated, institutionalized democracy. The new constitution was most heavily influenced by the then-opposition. Are we to go back to square one again? Where do we start again? Or do we go forward with the current situation, everyone cannot be appeased all the time.

They cannot show us any evidence to back their claim that these charges are politically motivated. President Abdulla Yameen did not initiate these trials. We do not see his involvement at any level in this. But Mohamed Nasheed was involved in the arrest of the judge, he has said so in public, at three events, he went so far as to claim Judge Abdulla would not be able to go within 100 meters of the court. We can see his engagement to that level. But President Yameen has not commented even once on today’s events. I can clearly testify to this.

Many have expressed concern over the Criminal Court denying Nasheed legal representation, when the court sentenced him to pre-trial detention

The problem here is that this case concerns a former president. I personally do not believe a former president should be dragged to court just like that. I am the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives’ parliamentary group leader. Why? Because I proposed the law on privileges to former presidents. Even then I attempted to stop events such as this. The law had an article 9 – MDP threw it out. I had proposed that if criminal charges are to be pressed against a former president, they be passed by a Majlis committee or a majority or two third majority of Majlis. This is not saying they shouldn’t go to court. But MDP annulled it. The result is the challenges President Nasheed is currently facing.

At the time, my idea was that – not everyone becomes president. They would have to take many decisions, which they cannot share with the public, due to national security reasons. So we cannot prosecute them the same way as any ordinary person.

This is not to say that if they commit a crime, whether its Nasheed or Gayoom, the law must apply to them. But because they were former presidents, I tried to ease it for them.

Anyhow, charges have been pressed. And on Nasheed not having had enough time to appoint a lawyer, I hear Nasheed has been afforded the opportunity to defend himself. He still has the opportunity to defend himself, the opportunity to tell us why, for what reasons, he did it. I believe he has that opportunity.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Why we must object to the farce of a ‘trial’ against Nasheed

This article first appeared on DhivehiSitee.com. Republished with permission

On Sunday, former President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, was arrested. The arrest warrant issued by Criminal Court stated “terrorism charges brought against the subject and fears that he may not attend the Court or go into hiding” as reason for arrest.

The evidence and substantiation for Court decision was given as, “how matters had transpired when a case against subject was heard at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and Police Intelligence reports”. The arrest warrant was provided on the request of the Prosecutor General who was according to the arrest warrant, “investigating case”.

Till then, there had been no mention of terrorism charges against Nasheed by any authority nor had an investigation into terrorist activities by Nasheed taken place.

Local media soon reported the trial has been scheduled in Criminal Court for 4pm today, and it emerged that the Prosecutor General had filed new terrorism charges in Criminal Court after withdrawing the case against Nasheed pending in Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for over two years as Nasheed challenged the cherrypicking of his trial bench by the Judicial Service Commssion and the procedural appeals dragged on without decision.

As the new trial begins in a couple of hours, there is more reason than ever before to object to the farce.

  1. The current Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin is a former Criminal Court judge, who worked as a junior judge under Criminal Court chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed who is himself the subject in the case against Nasheed.
  1. Media reports the Criminal Court has selected a bench of three judges – Judge Abdulla Didi, Judge Ahmed Rasheed and Judge Shujau Usman – for the case.

The first two are both former members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who played crucial roles within JSC in both re-appointing Abdulla Mohamed as judge despite him not meeting criteria and pending serious misconduct issues, and in covering up misconduct after re-appointment.

Moreover, both carry bias against Nasheed evident in JSC records, especially in discussions of misconduct allegations against Judge Abdulla Mohamed filed with the JSC by the President’s Office in 2009 when Nasheed was in office.

Judge Didi served on the JSC from it’s establishment as an interim commission in 2008 till 2015 as the lower courts appointee. Ahmed Rasheed elected by the law community served on the JSC from 2009 to 2015 and was appointed a Criminal Court judge by the JSC just days ago.

The third, Shujau Usman, was re-appointed a Magistrate by JSC despite a criminal record and was one of three magistrates cherry-picked by the JSC for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench for Nasheed’s case.

Nasheed’s trial then is not simply political persecution by the government of President Yameen but an already orchestrated trial, managed by the JSC, with the Prosecutor General and the Criminal Court bench already set against Nasheed and ready to avenge Abdulla Mohamed.

Meanwhile, heading the JSC today is Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed infamous for his white underpants and sex tapes gone viral on the internet.

Aishath Velezinee sat on the Judicial Services Commission from 2009-2011.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to editorial@minivannewsarchive.com

Likes(10)Dislikes(0)

Comment & Analysis: Rotten politics to defend a democratic constitution?

The Jumhooree Party (JP) in January split from the ruling coalition and allied with the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to “defend the constitution” against what they allege to be President Abdulla Yameen’s repeated constitutional breaches. The new alliance left many confused given the JP’s key role in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s 2012 ouster.

When Haveeru asked Nasheed how he could now trust JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim, he said: “It will be very easy [to understand the alliance] if we talk about interests instead of trust. In the political sphere, nobody should trust the other”.

This statement, I think, perfectly captures the rotten political culture that stands in the way of democratisation in the Maldives. President Nasheed is right. What we have is a political culture where nobody should trust the other. It is indeed a culture where nobody could. “Should” only arises where “could” exists.

It is a culture of extreme opportunism and cynical behavior, established through years of complex, interlocking dependencies fed by corruption, oligarchic money, crime, and patronage. Floor-crossing by elected MPs, some to multiple parties and back in one term, is just one visible aspect of its depth.

But, democracy will not function in the Maldives without a political culture in which we can be confident that the other’s commitment to minimum democratic principles and behaviour will transcend their personal interests.

Sacrifices, compromises, humility

Without this commitment, our only hope is that politicians’ interests and differences always harmonise with democracy. But interests don’t always harmonise with democracy. Substantive differences don’t always benefit from democracy.

Democracy thrives on sacrifices of interests. It requires painful compromises with substantive differences, be they religious or philosophical. And, importantly, democracy derives its sustenance from an ethic of humility.

The ethic of humility decries arrogance, hubris, and bossing around. Democrats dislike treating people as pawns on a chessboard and acting as though one knows all the right moves. That is also why democracy requires honest and robust debate, discussion, and critique.

This is not to say through an opportunistic game of duelling interests, this or that political reform may not happen. It’s also true that in moments of harmony of interests good outcomes could materialise. Sometimes the outcome may not even be what the participants intended.

Democratic failures

The past decade is rife with instances where politicians across the spectrum favored their own interests over democratic process, allowing mistrust, cynicism and opportunism to thrive on.

President Nasheed’s controversial detentions of Gasim and Yameen and the Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, during his term are instances of failure of this transcendental commitment to the democratic process. The 2012 coup by the then opposition parties through the security services is the ultimate breach of this commitment.

Jumhooree Party’s contestation of the first round of presidential elections in 2013 without any reasonable grounds and the abuse of the Supreme Court to manipulate the electoral process is another extreme example where “interests” transcended the commitment to democracy.

Now, President Yamin’s turn towards what may be a form of “competitive authoritarianism,” whereby, through legislative manipulation, he now can control an already corrupt judiciary and other independent state institutions, shows his commitment to democracy does not transcend his narrow political interests.

Yamin has succeeded in removing the Chief Justice and perhaps the only just Justice in the Supreme Court through legislative manipulation by his party’s majority in the parliament. This, of course, could help him manipulate the elections in 2018.

Democracy has become ever more elusive.

A combination of institutions and human behaviour

I’m of course not saying politics is for angels. But without a political culture based on certain minimum human behavioural commitments, democracy cannot be the “only game in town”, which, political scientists Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan claim, is a test of democracy’s consolidation.

I think one of Amartya Sen’s important points in The Idea of Justice is also that institutions alone don’t result in justice. Similarly, institutions of democracy — be they perfect constitutions or genuine elections — alone don’t result in democracy.

A people and a political elite that are behaviorally and attitudinally committed to democratic rules and principles are as crucial.

That is also why I am skeptical of the MDP’s claim that the solution to authoritarian turns in our politics is adopting a parliamentary system.

The forgoing analysis is bleak. A democracy survey in the Maldives in 2013 already painted a bleak picture for the country. The survey points to a crisis of public confidence in key democratic institutions and extraordinarily high levels of public cynicism towards politics as compared to other transitional states.

But that same survey also shows there are some reasons to be optimistic.

Youth comprises around 30% of the population. It is these youth groups that tend to gravitate towards democratic values. A political culture based on their empowerment and mobilisation is perhaps how we may achieve and sustain democracy.

Azim Zahir worked at the President’s Office and Transparency Maldives. He has a Masters in Political Science from the University of Sydney.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to editorial@minivannewsarchive.com

Likes(4)Dislikes(0)