Category: Politics

Police probing MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy’s “contemptuous remarks” against judiciary

Police have begun investigating opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy for allegedly making “contemptuous remarks” against the  judiciary, during a TV program broadcast by opposition-aligned television station Raajje TV.

Fahmy told Minivan News that police called him on Wednesday and informed him that the case was being investigated on the judiciary’s request.

However police media official Sub-inspector Hassan Haneef said he was “unsure” whether  police were currently investigating the matter, but said cases concerning contempt of court previously been investigated and sent for prosecution.

Police sent a case concerning Imthiyaz Fahmy for prosecution in June 2012, requesting he be charged with disobeying orders, obstructing police duty and physically assaulting a female police officer during an MDP demonstration on May 29, that had followed the dismantling of the party’s protest camp at Usfasgandu.

In a subsequent statement condemning “excessive use of force” against demonstrators, Amnesty International staed that according to Fahmy, “police in Dhoonidhoo told him he was arrested for ‘disrupting peace’.”

The next day in court, police stated that he had been detained for ‘physically attacking a woman police officer.”

Fahmy denied the charges pressed against him by the prosecution.

Regarding the new police investigation, Fahmy claimed the judiciary was attempting to silence elected members of the public and that allegations of contempt of court were a facade.

“People elected me to find faults in institutions such as the courts find ways to reform them, to correct those faults. I have been elected as a member of parliament by the people to talk about such issues and that is my responsibility. It is a duty vested in me by the people and I will remain firm in executing that duty,” Fahmy told Minivan News.

He further claimed that discrepancies and flaws within the courts were already being widely discussed by the general public.

“The courts themselves do not comprehend the real meaning of the concept of judicial independence,” he claimed.

“They should also understand that dignity and honour is not a one-way train. It goes both ways. Their actions should be of a standard and performed in a transparent fashion so as to have dignity.”

In a statement issued during her visit to the Maldives in February 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul  stated that she had found that the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself, in the Maldives.

“The requirement of independence and impartiality does not aim at benefiting the judges themselves, but rather the court users, as part of their inalienable right to a fair trial,” Knaul stated in her concluding statement.

Beyond Knaul, Fahmy noted that several other international experts on judicial independence, including International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), judicial expert Professor Paul H Robinson, United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) as well as the report by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) – which was set up to look into the legality of the controversial ascension of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to presidency on February 2012 – had highlighted “serious flaws” within the judiciary.

“The first thing is that the judges were wrongfully reappointed. The constitutional provisions indicate that the judges were appointed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) wrongly without proper consideration being given to Article 285 of the constitution. That is unconstitutional,” he added.

Fahmy – who is a lawyer himself – claimed that other powers of the state including the legislature and the executive had been set up in accordance with the 2008 constitution and that it was only the courts and the judiciary that had failed to be established in accordance with the new constitution.

“Am I being punished for coming out and speaking the truth? What is so wrong in me reiterating the same facts that are being highlighted by several respected international authorities on the same issue?” he questioned.

Apart from Fahmy, cases against several other MDP MPs are either being currently investigated or being heard in the courts including that of MP Ali Waheed (the party’s Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader), MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor (the party’s spokesperson for international affairs), MP Abdulla Jabir, MP Mohamed ‘Matrix’ Rasheed and MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed.

Charges faced by the MPs include contempt of court, obstruction of police duty as well as offence of consumption of alcohol.  According to the constitution, a member of parliament loses his seat should he be convicted of a criminal offense that requires serving a sentence longer than a period of 12 months.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Leaked draft agreement opens possibility for US base in Maldives

The United States has confirmed it is in discussion with the Maldivian government over the signing of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), an unauthenticated draft version of which outlines conditions for the potential establishment of a US military base in the country.

The draft agreement, obtained by Maldivian current affairs blog DhivehiSitee, “incorporates the principal provisions and necessary authorisations for the temporary presence and activities of United States forces in the Republic of Maldives and, in the specific situations indicated herein, the presence and activities of United States contractors in the Republic of Maldives.”

A spokesperson for the US Embassy in Colombo was unable to verify the authenticity of the leaked draft, “as the agreement has not been finalised.”

“There are no plans for a permanent US military presence in Maldives,” the spokesperson stated.

“SOFAs are normal practice wherever the Unites States cooperates closely with a country’s national security forces. SOFAs generally establish the framework under which US personnel operate in a country when supporting security-related activities and the United States is currently party to more than 100 agreements that may be considered a SOFA,” the spokesperson added.

Senior Maldivian government officials were meanwhile recently invited aboard a United States aircraft carrier (March 27) as it passed by the Maldives.

Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb, Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz and Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen were flown to the USS John C Stennis aircraft carrier as part of an arrangement between the US embassy and Maldives Defence Ministry.

The visit was followed by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Maldives and the US government to install a free border control system.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad said today that he had texted President Dr Mohamed Waheed who had no knowledge of any agreement. The Defence Ministry also had no information on the matter, he said.

Imad would not comment on whether the government would be open to such a proposal.

Spokesperson for the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said the party had heard of the proposal – supposedly concerning Laamu Atoll and the site of the former British airbase on Seenu Gan in the south of the country.

“We are wondering what our other international partners – India, Australia, etc – think of this idea,” Ghafoor said.

The party’s parliamentary group leader, MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, said he had heard about the proposal “a few days ago”, and believed the matter would eventually be taken to parliament’s national security committee.

Draft proposal

Under the proposed 10 year agreement outlined in the draft, the Maldives would “furnish, without charge” to the United States unspecified “Agreed Facilities and Areas”, and “such other facilities and areas in the territory and territorial seas of the Republic of Maldives as may be provided by the Republic of Maldives in the future.”

“The Republic of the Maldives authorizes United States forces to exercise all rights and authorities with Agreed Facilities and Areas that are necessary for their use, operation, defense or control, including the right to undertake new construction works and make alterations and improvements,” the document states.

The US would be authorised to “control entry” to areas provided for its “exclusive use”, and would be permitted to operate its own telecommunications system and use the radio spectrum “free of cost to the United States”.

The US would also be granted access to and use of “aerial ports, sea ports and agreed facilities for transit, support and related activities; bunkering of ships, refueling of aircraft, maintenance of vessels, aircraft, vehicles and equipment, accommodation of personnel, communications, ship visits, training, exercises, humanitarian activities.”

US personnel would be be authorised to wear uniforms while performing official duties “and to carry arms while on duty if authorised to do so by their orders.”

US personnel (and civilian staff) would furthermore “be accorded the privileges, exemptions and immunities equivalent to those accorded to the administrative and technical staff of a diplomatic mission under the Vienna Convention”, and be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States.

US personnel and contractors would moreover be permitted to import and export personal property, equipment, supplies and technology without license, restriction or inspection, or the payment of any taxes, charges or customs duties.

Vessels and vehicles operated by, and for, US forces would be permitted to enter and move freely within the territorial seas of the Maldives, free from boarding, inspection or the payment of landing, parking, port or harbour fees.

Disputes would be resolved without recourse to “any national or international court, tribunal or similar body, or to a third party for settlement, unless otherwise mutually agreed.”

At the conclusion of the lease, “the parties shall consult regarding the terms of return of any Agreed Facility and Area, including possible compensation for improvements or construction.”

Each party would furthermore waive claims (other than contractual) concerning “damage to, loss of, or destruction of its property or injury or death to personnel of either party’s armed forces or their civilian personnel arising out he performance of their official duties in connection with activities under this agreement.”

The proposed agreement would supersede an earlier agreement between the US and Maldives regarding “Military and Department of Defense Civilian Personnel”, effected on December 31, 2004.

Diego Garcia and the 2016 lease extension

The US Navy currently operates one of its largest bases outside the US at Diego Garcia, approximately 740 kilometres south of Addu Atoll, the lease for which is due to expire in 2016.

The site includes multiple landing strips for heavy bombers, pier and port facilities for the largest vessels in both the US and UK fleets, and accommodation for thousands of navy personnel.

Part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), the site was leased to the US by the UK following its forcible eviction of the local inhabitants – the Chagos – after its purchase from Mauritius for UK£3 million at the time in 1965. Then-Mauritian Prime Minister, Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, received a knighthood from the Queen the same year.

In 1966, the UK granted the US a 50-year lease of the archipelago in exchange for favours including a US$14 million discount on submarine-launched Polaris missiles.

The lease is due to expire in 2016 with both parties required to end, modify or extend it by December 2014. However, the feasibility of an extension is uncertain as the UK has been engaged in a series of long-running and politically embarrassing court battles with Chagos islanders seeking to return to the archipelago.

The Chagos won a high court victory in the UK in 2000 enabling them to return, but the decision was extraordinarily overruled by the Queen’s royal prerogative. In 2008, the House of Lords overturned the high court verdict, forcing the Chagos to appeal in the European court of human rights.

In April 2010, the UK declared the Chagos Archipelago a marine reserve – theoretically making it the world’s largest marine protected area (MPA). Funds to manage the MPA for the next five years were provided by Swiss-Italian billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli.

A leaked US embassy cable dated May 5, 2009 and marked ‘NOFORN’, or ‘No foreigners’, subsequently suggested the marine park was a calculated attempt by the UK Foreign Office to scuttle the resettlement claims of the 3,000 Chagos islanders.

In the leaked US cable, Colin Roberts, the then UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) Director of Overseas Territories, is quoted as saying that the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) has “served its role very well”.

“‘We do not regret the removal of the population,’ since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose,’ he said. Removal of the population is the reason that the BIOT’s uninhabited islands and the surrounding waters are in ‘pristine’ condition,” the cable read.

“Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT,” it adds.

In the cable, Roberts emphasised that the establishment of the marine park would ensure it was reserved for military use and “would have no impact on how Diego Garcia is administered as a base.”

“[Roberts] noted that the establishment of a marine reserve would require permitting scientists to visit BIOT, but that creating a park would help restrict access for non-scientific purposes. For example, he continued, the rules governing the park could strictly limit access to BIOT by yachts, which Roberts referred to as ‘sea gypsies’.”

As a result of the British government’s “current thinking” on the reserve, there would be “no human footprints” or “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands of the archipelago, Roberts stated in the cable.

In response to concerns from US Political Counsellor Richard Mills that advocates of Chagossian resettlement might continue “to vigorously press their case”, Roberts replied that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates.”

However, the escalating Chagos case in the UK suffered a setback as recently as last week – April 18, 2013 – after a UK court ruled that the leaked cable was inadmissible as evidence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil society groups slam government for “failure to ensure conducive environment for elections”

Prominent NGOs have released a joint human rights brief accusing the Maldivian government of failing to create conditions conducive to free and fair elections, ahead of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting to be held in London this Friday.

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) reported that with less than six months before the presidential elections “there are clear signs indicating that the coalition government in power since February 2012 has so far failed to set the conditions for free and fair elections in which ‘all parties and leaders are able freely to conduct election campaigns’.”

“The most critical matter in this regard is the continued interference of the executive on other branches of power, as manifested by the trial of several opposition members to prevent the opposition from running in the upcoming elections,” the brief reads.

Authorities have both failed to ensure a ‘free and fair’ atmosphere with respect to freedom of information or freedom to assembly, as well as made no efforts to inform and educate voters on electoral rights and responsibilities, the report claims.

FIDH and MDN highlight that promoting and protecting human rights has suffered from a “substantial lack of progress” and that a “culture of impunity for perpetrators of past human rights violations” has been institutionalised.

While “human rights abuses reduced drastically” following former President Mohamed Nasheed’s election in 2008, past and present police brutality, torture and impunity have gone unaddressed, states the brief.

Institutions such as the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), and a Presidential Commission – created in 2009 and disbanded in 2012 – failed to investigate and address human rights abuses, including torture committed by the police services, given their limited mandates.

“The coalition government established in February 2012 has been accused of a wide range of human rights violations, from violent repression of street protests, arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment of female protesters, torture, harassment of pro-opposition media, to legal and physical harassment of members of the opposition,” states the brief.

“Since the HRCM made public its reports on these allegations in August 2012, no action has been taken for investigation or redress,” the brief continues.

Systematic omissions have been identified in the the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) “serious enough to raise fundamental questions about the accuracy of the report’s conclusions.” Furthermore, recommendations made by the CoNI on August 30, 2012 regarding human rights abuses, torture, and impunity “were immediately dismissed by senior government officials; this could only encourage the security forces to disregard the rule of law and commit further human rights abuses in impunity,” the brief reads.

“Uncertainties” have caused a “new phase of slowdown” in the country’s legal reform process as well.

“Women have suffered and still suffer from the absence of a strong legal framework… and women’s rights remain at risk of being curbed by religious parties influencing the governing coalition and pushing for the full implementation of Sharia,” the report states.

Rising tensions regarding interpretations of Islam is “particularly an area of concern” given the “fundamental views being introduced by the Adalath party and some religious groups, mainly those that are being linked with Shari’a and harsh punishments,” claims the brief.

“Bearing in mind that there is absolutely no public trust in the judiciary to have the capacity to deliver justice under these circumstances, those critical of these [religious] interpretations have faced violent consequences,” reads the brief. “To date, there are no reports of an investigation or any on-going effort to find the perpetrators of these crimes [of murder and attempted murder].”

Following Nasheed’s claim he was deposed in a coup d’état, the Commonwealth suspended the Maldives from the CMAG, and said it had decided to place the Maldives on its formal agenda in February 2012 because of “questions that remain about the precise circumstances of the change of government, as well as the fragility of the situation in the Maldives.”

In September 2012, CMAG decided the Maldives would remain on the agenda under the item “Matters of Interest to CMAG”, however its suspension from the international body’s democracy and human rights arm has now been revoked.

CMAG recommendations

FIDH and MDN emphasised that the newly reformed CMAG mandate includes “situations that might be regarded as constituting a serious or persistent violation of Commonwealth values”, and the “systematic denial of political space, such as through detention of political leaders or restriction of freedom of association, assembly or expression.”

“These situations have continuously characterised the political environment of the Maldives especially since the change of power of 7 February 2012.”

FIDH and MDN provided CMAG with five key recommendations in regard to the deteriorating human rights situation in the Maldives.

They compelled CMAG to raise concerns regarding human rights violations in the Maldives, especially allegations of police brutality and torture, and request government authorities take all necessary measures to prevent violence, respect the due process of law and prevent arbitrary arrests.

A review of CMAG’s position on CoNI report should be conducted, especially in reference to “later developments”.

CMAG should also advocate for the preservation and consolidation of democratic achievements and take all necessary steps to guarantee the conditions for free, fair and inclusive elections in September 2013.

Providing technical assistance to the Maldives’ government is recommended. This is necessary to strengthen the rule of law and support the development of public institutions, in particular the judiciary, as well as independent commissions such as the HRCM, the PIC, and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

Finally, provide support to civil society organizations to raise public awareness about the role of public institutions and the importance of separation of powers, develop human rights education programs, and play a key role monitoring democratic and independent institution building.

Maldivian government recommendations

FIDH and MDN also provided the Maldivian government with a list of 11 recommendations to improve the country’s human rights failures.

This includes strengthening independent commissions, such as the PIC, JSC, and HRCM, in accordance with CoNI report recommendations. Reforming the judiciary should also be prioritized.

The physical and psychological integrity of human rights defenders, journalists and members of the opposition must be also guaranteed in all circumstances.

Initiating a national campaign to address past human rights violations (1978-2008), including “accountability for perpetrators, acknowledgement, truth-telling mechanisms, reparations, and legal and institutional reforms to prevent occurrence of new violations” is recommended.

“Such mechanisms would also act as a deterrent to prevent any future form of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest or ill-treatment by State security personnel,” the brief states.

Additionally, the Majlis (parliament) should “urgently enact” pending legislation, ensure civil society is consulted, and that the bills “fully conform with international human rights commitments and obligations of the Maldives.” Furthermore, the death penalty should not be enshrined in those texts.

FIDH and MDN also recommend the government fulfill its various international commitments. This includes investigating allegations of torture, adopting implementing legislation for the International Criminal Court statute, as well as guaranteeing the human rights and protections enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Additionally, the scope of the Maldives’ reservation to Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) – which aims to eliminate discrimination in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, and ensures gender equality – should be significantly reduced.

Adhering to the recommendations of various UN Special Rapporteur’s, which have addressed some of the systemic problems within the judicial system and various human rights issues, is also recommended. As is arranging future Rapporteur’s missions regarding transitional justice and additional human rights challenges.

Government reaction

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dhunya Maumoon told local media yesterday (April 23) that Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Abdul Samad Abdullah had left for London April 22 to participate in the CMAG meeting.

Maumoon highlighted that this marks the first occasion the Maldives has been invited to a CMAG meeting since its removal from the agenda.

“The opportunity for the Maldivian Foreign Minister to participate in a CMAG meeting was a great achievement, and one which resulted from the efforts by President Waheed’s government in cooperation with the Commonwealth,” said Maumoon.

“Now Maldives will have the opportunity to partake in discussions at CMAG. But the Maldives delegation will not be present when the group discusses the Maldives,” she added.

Maumoon also reiterated the government’s position that the Maldives should not have been on CMAG’s agenda and that “the move was prompted by a lack of understanding of the true events that transpired in the Maldives.”

“Some countries” had realized this error and accused Nasheed of influencing CMAG members, Maumoon claimed.

While Maumoon admitted “there was always a fear of instability in Maldives due to the rather infant democracy in the country,” she also highlighted that “international partners have acknowledged the positive strides the country has made brought about in a relatively peaceful manner.”

In April 2012, Maldives’ permanent representative to the EU Ali Hussein Didi criticised the Commonwealth’s involvement in the Maldives, telling the European Parliament that the Commonwealth’s Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) lacked a clear mandate to place the Maldives on its agenda.

Likes(3)Dislikes(0)

Parliament accepts bill seeking to abolish Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

Parliament today accepted amendments to the Judicature Act submitted by Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed to abolish the magistrate court in Hulhumale’.

The legislation (Dhivehi) was narrowly accepted for consideration with 32 votes in favour, 31 against as well as one abstention and sent to the Independent Institutions Committee for review.

The Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South proposed the amendments in December 2012, following a controversial 4-3 Supreme Court ruling declaring the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court legitimate.

The judgment cleared the way for the magistrate court to proceed with the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed on charges of illegally detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Nasheed’s formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) disputes the legitimacy of the magistrate court, contending that it was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in violation of the Judicature Act.

Writing in his personal blog after submitting the amendments, MP Nasheed explained that he would have accepted the apex court’s decision as final and incontrovertible if Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla – chair of the JSC – had recused himself.

“The [Hulhumale’] court was formed by the commission. The vote on forming the court was called at a meeting of the commission chaired by [Justice Adam Mohamed]. The case requesting the Supreme Court to declare the court legitimate was submitted by the commission chaired by the justice,” Nasheed wrote.

Justice Adam Mohamed “created the court, filed the case, and decided the case in his favour,” Nasheed wrote.

Echoing the criticism, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, described the decision at the time as “a case of actual bias because JSC would [have] lost the case without the vote of JSC president: 3 for 3 against, [tie-breaking] vote by JSC [president].”

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain, Justice Abdulla Areef and Justice Muthasim Adnan had delivered the dissenting opinion ruling that the magistrate court was not established in accordance with the Judicature Act.

MP Nasheed’s amendments would meanwhile see the magistrate court abolished and its cases transferred to the superior courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court, Juvenile Court and Drug Court) in Male’.

Moreover, an article would be added to the Judicature Act explicitly stating that the islands of Hulhumale’ and Vilimale’ should be considered part of Male’ City.

Vili-Maafanu and Hulhu-Henveiru are both electoral districts or constituencies in the capital with elected MPs and city councillors.

Legitimacy

In a blogpost in October 2012, Nasheed observed that the Judicature Act stipulates that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court, Drug Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island.

The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified, Nasheed contended.

In the latter blogpost on amending the law governing courts, Nasheed explained that the purpose of amending the Judicature Act was to “clarify the Majlis’ intent as the [Supreme Court] has made a decision that conflicts with the intent of the Majlis in passing the law.”

If a Supreme Court interpretation of an article or provision in an act of parliament was “not the outcome intended by lawmakers,” Nasheed suggested that the remedy was amending the law to ensure the desired effect.

If the amendments are passed and signed into law, Nasheed wrote, a magistrate court could not be set up in the capital Male’ on the pretext of “two or three articles in the Judicature Act”.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

During the first hearing of former President Nasheed’s trial at the magistrate court, the ex-president’s lawyers raised procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the court, which were summarily dismissed by the three magistrates on the bench.

Nasheed’s legal team then appealed the magistrate court’s ruling on the procedural points at the High Court.

On November 4, 2012, the High Court granted a stay or an injunction temporarily suspending the trial pending a ruling on procedural points.

The injunction prompted the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to announce that it had suspended all ongoing cases as they could be affected by the questions raised over the court’s legal status.

However, before the High Court could issue a ruling on the appeal, the JSC filed a case in Supreme Court requesting a decision to declare the magistrate court legitimate.

On November 8, 2012, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on the former President’s appeal.

The Supreme Court also ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted over a year ago by lawyer Ismail Visham, which challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and took over the case.

Meanwhile, a week before the Supreme Court delivered its 4-3 judgment declaring the magistrate court legitimate, parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee voted not to recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.

The oversight committee, chaired by MP Nasheed, decided that there were no “legal and constitutional grounds” to support the court’s legal status.

However, in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court issued an order (No. 2012/SC-SJ/05) invalidating the committee’s decision.

The Supreme Court declared that no institution should meddle with the business of the courts, claiming that it held parental authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” and would not allow such “interference” to take place.

“Any action or a decision taken by an institution of the state that may impact the outcome of a matter that is being heard in a court of law, and prior to a decision by the courts on that matter, shall be deemed invalid, and [the Supreme Court] hereby orders that these acts must not be carried out,” the order read.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, the High Court granted a second injunction or stay halting former President Nasheed’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The trial was suspended pending a ruling by the High Court on the legitimacy of the three-magistrate bench appointed by the JSC to preside over Nasheed’s trial.

The injunction followed testimony by members of the JSC to the Independent Institutions Committee claiming that the three magistrates chosen by JSC were appointed arbitrarily.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

‘National Movement’ to protest on behalf of murder victims

The self-titled “Maldives National Movement”, comprised of several NGOs and the religious conservative Adhalaath Party, is organising a special protest for May 3, 2013, on behalf of “the rights of murder victims.”

Speaking to local media at Nalahiya Hotel in Male’ today, Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla said the main purpose of the gathering was to call for justice for murder victims and encourage the authorities to ensure that “such inhumane acts” were not repeated in the future.

The ‘National Movement’ said its member would deliver five demands, which be revealed on the day of the protest.

Imran also suggested that the number of murders were being ignored, criticising media for seemingly forgetting cases after covering them for ten days or even a month.

He also referred to the brutal murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali in October 2012, noting that neither the ongoing trial nor the investigation of his murder had been concluded.

State Home Minister Abdulla Mohamed, spokesperson of the ‘National Movement’, said that 13 Maldivians were reported murdered last year.  He added that compensation for these deaths was also not being received by relatives of the victims.

Mohamed said the protest would be held to show that families and friends of murder victims were being deprived of their rights.

He therefore called on everyone against murder to participate in the event.

Statistics provided on the Maldives Police Service website do not include individual figures on murder rates.

However, the official figures did show a decline in cases of assault over the last three years. Reported assaults fell to 1,416 incidents during 2012, down from 2,001 cases in 2009.

Sheikh Imran and State Finance Minister Abbas Adil Riza, members of the National Movement’s Steering Committee, were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Campaigning

The ‘National Movement’ has held a series of poorly-attended gatherings in recent weeks targeted at parliament.

The group previously accused MPs of violating the constitution late last year and said they would consider a plan to “break up” parliament if its members’ constitutional concerns were not addressed.

The movement was born out of the unofficial December 23 coalition of eight political parties – now part of the coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed –  and an alliance of NGOs that rallied at a mass gathering to “defend Islam” in late 2011.

The rally was held to oppose the allegedly liberal policies and “securalisation agenda” of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Following the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7, the “civil alliance” led a campaign dubbed “Maldivians’ Airport to Maldivians” calling on the government to terminate the concession agreement with Indian infrastructure giant GMR to manage and modernise Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Addu International Airport Company outsources dredging and reclamation of Gan International Airport

Addu International Airport Company (AIA) has contracted a Dubai-based group to undertake the dredging and reclamation component of developing Gan International Airport, Addu City Mayor Abdulla Sodig said today.

He confirmed a company called Gulf Cobla had been awarded the $11.7 million (MVR 180 million) project, which will include land reclamation to build seaplane terminals.  The contract will also include work on constructing revetments on the reclaimed land.  Revetments are barricades used to prevent aircraft from overshooting a runway.

“I had a word with [AIA and the State Trading Organisation (STO)] Managing Director Shahid Ali this morning and he said the project is going well. However, some people have misinterpreted the situation because a contract was given to Lagan and another was awarded to Gulf Cobla,” Mayor Sodig told Minivan News.

AIA is itself a joint venture formed by the Gan Airport Company Ltd (GACL), Maldives Airports Company Ltd (MACL) and the STO.

Sodig explained that a UK company called Lagan had won the main contract to develop the airport, but added that it was AIA who had outsourced additional dredging work that was required to be completed before the main runway expansion could begin.

AIA and STO Managing Director Shahid Ali confirmed to Minivan News today that: “AIA contracted directly with Gulf Cobla to conduct the dredging and land reclamation components.”

Shahid previously told local media that Gulf Cobla’s segment of the project would be completed within eight months and that it will facilitate seaplane services being provided from Gan International Airport.

“Dredging will take about eight months. We predict that the physical work can begin within one month of signing this contract,” he said.

Shahid said he expected the overall airport development project to be complete by September 2014.

AIA is also conducting negotiations with Sri Lankan Airlines, Bangkok Airways, and Air Asia to increase the number of international flights from the airport,” he added.

Gulf Cobla’s Managing Director Joost Post has also made assurances to media that the project would be completed within eight months, noting that the company had previously conducted four projects in the Maldives.

“Southern gateway to the world”

Mayor Sodig today said that the airport development would provide a huge boost to  transport links in the country.

“The airport will start seaplane operations to resorts in the Southern Atolls. Once the Gan Airport is developed, it will be the southern gateway to other parts of the world,” Sodig declared.

Gan Airport’s main runway needs a one kilometre extension toward the northwest and it will also be resurfaced with asphalt, Sodig explained.

“The seaplane base will be developed on the western side of the island,” he added.

“The shallow lagoon across from the western beach will be dredged and the sand will then be used to develop the seaplane strip and reclaim land for the main runway.  The area of the former Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Commander’s residence will be used to develop the seaplane terminal.”

Airport development controversy

Thirty percent of the AIA was sold in November 2012 to tourism pioneer ‘Champa’ Hussain Afeef’s Kasa Holdings to raise finances to develop the Gan airport in Addu City.

Goverment-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader MP Gasim Ibrahim previously denied in parliament that he had spoken against the sale of shares of AIA with the intention of buying shares himself. He claimed he had done so “in the best interests of Addu and the country.”

JP MP Alhan Fahmy added that he also wished to see the Addu airport developed, but was concerned with how the sale of shares had been carried out. Fahmy said that 30 percent of shares being sold off for MVR 60 million (US$3.89 million) was “nothing but daylight robbery”.

Meanwhile, a number of MPs from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) stated at the time that the party supported the concept of privatisation, adding that the development of the Addu airport was originally an MDP initiated plan.  However, the opposition MPs also expressed concern over how the bidding process had been carried out.

During a November 2012 press briefing, STO Shahid Ali stated that contrary to general speculation, the airport had not been “sold”, but rather shares from the company AIA that had been sold to KASA Holdings.

He also refuted allegations of corruption, saying that KASA Holdings had been given higher priority since it was a local company and that all proceedings had gone through the bidding process in a matter which was completely free of any corruption.

Addu City Council previously released a statement welcoming the signing of the contract which they said would lead to the development of the Addu airport.

The statement further noted “the importance of leaving politics aside and for the good of citizens in letting the venture bring positive changes to Addu’s economy.”

The MDP also released a statement in November urging “not to let political feuds, political needs and power play interfere in important work directly related to the development of Addu City citizens, and generally all Maldivian citizens.”

The statement also condemned Gasim’s threats to sack Shahid Ali, stating “This party calls on political leaders to refrain from making unlawful threats through the greed for power and political wants.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government in support of death penalty implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court orders DRP Leader Thasmeen to settle MVR 1.9 million debt to Deputy Speaker Nazim

The High Court today upheld a Civil Court verdict in April 2011 ordering Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali to settle an outstanding debt of MVR 1.92 million (US$124,513) owed to Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim.

MP Nazim, who recently joined the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), sued the DRP presidential candidate in March 2011 to recover MVR 1.92 million (US$124,513) unpaid from a loan worth MVR 2.55 million (US$200,000).

While the High Court upheld the lower court verdict, the ruling (Dhivehi) invalidated the part of the Civil Court verdict ordering Thasmeen to pay Nazim MVR1,800 (US$140) incurred as lawyer’s fees based on a rate of MVR300 per hearing.

Nazim had claimed MVR100,000 (US$6,485) as compensation for lawyer’s fees.

The three-judge panel presiding over the case included High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, Judge Abdulla Hameed and Judge Ali Sameer.

The High Court judgment coincided with the launching today of the DRP’s fourth national congress at the Dharubaaruge convention center with 700 delegates.

At the final hearing of the Civil Court case in April 2011, Thasmeen’s lawyer reportedly claimed that Nazim agreed to sell Shaviyani Kabalifaru, which was leased for development as a resort in 2005, to raise funds to cover the MVR 2.55 million loan.

Thasmeen’s lawyer denied that an agreement was made between the pair to pay back the loan in a month, claiming that Nazim failed to find a buyer for Kabalifaru as agreed upon in November 2008.

The lawyer also denied Nazim’s claim that the loan was taken to pay back Thasmeen’s debts at the Bank of Maldives.

However, Nazim’s lawyer, Mohamed Saleem, disputed both claims, demanding documentation to prove that Thasmeen gave power of attorney to Nazim to sell the resort.

At a previous hearing, Nazim’s lawyer had produced a document with Thasmeen’s signature, prompting Judge Hathif Hilmy to note that the purported loan agreement had a reference number and that it was therefore reasonable to expect Thasmeen to be aware of the details of the amount in question.

At the time the case was filed, Thasmeen’s DRP was in a formal coalition with the minority opposition People’s Alliance (PA) led by Nazim and current PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen.

The DRP-PA coalition agreement was terminated in July 2011 amidst internal strife within the then-main opposition party, which saw a breakaway faction loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom leaving the party to form PPM in October 2011.

Following an acrimonious war of words between then-DRP ‘Honorary Leader’ Gayoom and his successor Thasmeen, the former president withdrew his endorsement of the DRP presidential candidate in March 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government bill on raising import duties narrowly accepted by parliament for consideration

Parliament voted 26-25 today to accept for consideration a bill proposed by the government to increase import duties as part of a raft of measures to raise MVR 1.8 billion (US$116 million) in new income.

The amendments to the Import-Export Act (Dhivehi) submitted by MP Riyaz Rasheed on behalf of the government proposes raising tariffs on a range of items such as liquor, pork, tobacco, perfume, cement, gas and energy drinks.

MPs of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) voted against the amendments while MPs representing parties in the ruling coalition voted in favour.

However, during preliminary debate at today’s sitting of parliament, some government-aligned MPs expressed concern with the potential rise in prices as a consequence of reversing import duty reductions.

The acceptance of the bill for review by committee follows parliament’s 28-27 rejection last week of government-sponsored legislation to raise the airport service charge to US$30.

Hiking the departure tax on foreign passengers was among the measures proposed by the Finance Ministry with the 2013 budget to raise additional revenue, which also included increasing Tourism Goods and Services Tax (T-GST) to 15 percent from July 2013 onward, leasing 14 islands for resort development and introducing GST for telecom services.

Following the narrow defeat of the airport service charge amendment bill, Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad told local media that a “significant amount” would be lost from projected revenue as the additional income was anticipated in budget forecasts.

“If the amendments for the import duty are not passed, we will find it extremely difficult to manage the budgets of institutions. So it’s critical that the parliament expedites work on the bills and support them,” he was quoted as saying by newspaper Haveeru.

Jihad confirmed to Minivan News this week that the cabinet has decided to suspend or delay implementation of development projects financed out of the state budget due to shortfalls in revenue.

The government was in the process of formulating a supplementary budget to be put before parliament by the end of April, Jihad said.

Meanwhile, speaking to press on Sunday (April 21) following the signing of contracts for construction of harbours in four islands, Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muiz said the budget was “in a very fragile state.”

“We can only spend what is earned as income. The government proposed new revenue measures when it submitted the budget. It was approved on principle when the budget was passed,” Muiz said.

“However, according to my information, difficulties have arisen in implementation [of the measures]. As a consequence, aside from these four islands, the finance ministry has instructed me not to sign or commence with any infrastructure project in any island from now on. Unless the People’s Majlis passes new means of earning income for the government, the finance ministry has instructed us not to begin any project financed out of the government budget, be it harbour construction or land reclamation or any project undertaken by the housing ministry.”

Revising import duties

The current administration’s intention to revise the changes made by the previous government to import duties was announced in June 2012.

Import duties were reduced or eliminated for a wide range of goods under the previous administration as part of its economic reform package to introduce direct taxation and restructure government finances.

Through amendments approved unanimously in November 2011, import duties were eliminated for construction material, foodstuffs, agricultural equipment, medical devices, passenger vessels and goods used for tourism services.

Tariffs were meanwhile reduced to five percent for furniture, beds and pillows as well as cooking items made from base metals. Other kitchen utensils had duties reduced to 10 percent.

While import duties were eliminated for most fruits and vegetables, 15 percent was to be levied on bananas, papaya, watermelon and mangoes as a protectionist measure for local agriculture. Areca-nuts had the tariff reduced from 25 percent to 15 percent.

Import duties for tobacco was meanwhile hiked from 50 percent to 150 percent.

However, an amendment proposed by the government to raise import duties for alcohol and pork from 30 to 70 percent was defeated at committee stage.

A shortfall in revenue from lower tariffs was expected to be covered by proceeds from T-GST and GST, the latter of which was introduced concurrently with the import duty reductions.

In December 2012, the Maldives Custom Service (MCS) revealed that income from collecting import duties declined by 50 percent in the first 10 months of 2012 compared to the previous year.

Meanwhile, in November 2012, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission to the Maldives cautioned that a ballooning fiscal deficit had “implied a rise in the public debt ratio, which now stands at over 80 percent of GDP, and has also helped to boost national imports, thus worsening dollar shortages in the economy and putting pressure on MMA (Maldives Monetary Authority) reserves.”

The IMF forecast for the current account deficit in 2012 was “nearly 30 percent of GDP this year.”

“Gross international reserves at the MMA have been declining slowly, [and] now account for just one and a half months of imports, and could be more substantially pressured if major borrowings maturing in the next few months are not rolled over,” the IMF mission warned.

The mission recommended formulating “a realistic and prudent budget for 2013″ to rein in the fiscal deficit, suggesting hiking taxes and “selectively” reversing import duty reductions.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)