Category: Politics

HRCM paid food, travel allowance in violation of finance regulation: audit report

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) paid travel and food allowance to employees at a higher rate than specified in the public finance regulations, the commission’s audit report for 2012 has revealed.

The audit report made public on Monday (March 18) explained that amendments were brought to chapter five of the regulations dealing with travel expenses through a circular issued in 2012.

The audit discovered that food and travel allowance paid to HRCM employees for trips within the country on official business was higher than the rates specified in the amended sections 5.09 and 5.19 of the public finance regulations.

In addition, the audit found that the commission outsourced work valued under MVR 25,000 (US$1,621) without signing official agreements with the hired parties as required by section 8.22 of the public finance regulations.

The report also noted that the commission did not seek quotations from three parties as required by the finance regulations for purchases and services valued under MVR 25,000 (US$1,621).

The regulations require state institutions to seek quotations or estimates from at least three parties to select the best offer for purchases, outsourced tasks or services rendered.

Aside from the three issues flagged in the audit, the report stated that the commission’s expenses were in accordance with public finance regulations and the annual budget approved by parliament.

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim meanwhile approved and verified the commission’s finance statement for 2012 as authentic.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Independent Institutions Committee votes to replace Fahmy in CSC

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee voted yesterday to replace Mohamed Fahmy Hassan at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling reversing parliament’s removal of the CSC chair over allegations of sexual harassment.

The proposal to appoint a replacement for Fahmy by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Sameer was passed with five votes in favour and none against.

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed attempted to disrupt the committee meeting on Monday afternoon and did not participate in the vote. Other government-aligned MPs did not attend the meeting.

Riyaz contended that yesterday’s meeting was called in violation of parliamentary rules of procedure and insisted at length that parliament could not challenge Supreme Court rulings.

Monday’s sitting of parliament was meanwhile called off after MDP MPs objected to the Supreme Court ruling on the grounds that the apex court overstepped its constitutional authority.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor stated that the MDP did not believe Fahmy should hold his position in the CSC, accusing him of  having  an “issue of integrity”.

“The committee decided today that he [Fahmy] should go and we should continue looking for another person.

“Effectively we are ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision. The MDP will continue to raise this issue in parliament, it is a policy and it is legally non-negotiable. We cannot compromise on that.”

The sitting was first adjourned at 10:00am when MDP MPs raised points of order after Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim announced the Supreme Court’s decision.

In regard to the morning announcement, Ghafoor said Nazim did not make the “right call” when informing parliament of the court’s decision.

“He [Nazim] informed us of the three issues to do with the Supreme Court in a language that essentially showed an acceptance of those verdicts. We didn’t like this,” he said.

After the sitting resumed at 1:00pm, Nazim announced the cancellation as the issue was to be taken up at a meeting of the Independent Institutions Committee.

On November 20, 2012, parliament dismissed Fahmy in a 38-32 vote after the Independent Institutions Committee looked into a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee of the CSC.

Fahmy however contested the dismissal at the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-1 on Thursday night that his removal was unconstitutional. The majority opinion contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and criminal justice procedures in its inquiry.

The majority opinion held that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy). The CSC chief returned to work on Sunday.

“Fundamental, revolutionary change”

Writing in his personal blog following the Supreme Court judgment, MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – chair of the Independent Institutions Committee – argued that the Supreme Court judgment established a legal precedent that would bring “a fundamental, revolutionary change” to employment termination.

On the Supreme Court’s argument that Fahmy was accused of committing a criminal offence, Nasheed noted that sexual harassment at the workplace was not specified as a crime in Maldivian law. Legislation on sexual harassment is however currently before parliament.

In the absence of a law prohibiting the offence, Nasheed wrote, a person could not be prosecuted for sexual harassment.

Fahmy’s dismissal by parliament was therefore a disciplinary action taken by the institution with oversight powers over the CSC, Nasheed explained.

Under article 187(a) of the constitution, a member of the CSC can be removed “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

As the process to be followed by parliament was clearly specified in the constitution and parliamentary rules of procedure, Nasheed argued that the Supreme Court could not require parliament to adhere to “new conditions and new procedures”.

“While parliament has the power to remove members of the Civil Service Commission and the process to exercise that power is specified in the constitution, the problem that has risen is that the [Supreme Court] has determined that Majlis cannot use that power even in accordance with the procedure laid out in the constitution and law,” Nasheed wrote.

Nasheed further argued that parliament’s removal of former Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem in March 2010 has now been thrown into question in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. Naeem was dismissed after the Finance Committee investigated allegations that he used an office credit card for personal benefit.

The ruling has also raised doubts over the legal status of current Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim, Nasheed wrote.

Nasheed also criticised the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “double jeopardy” in Fahmy’s case. According to the Supreme Court ruling, a person could not be removed from his or her post as a disciplinary action unless he or she was convicted of a crime.

If an employee is accused of a criminal offence, he added, employers would no longer have the right to fire the accused before he or she was found guilty.

“If that is the case, questions have been raised over the dismissal of all police officers, army officer, civil servants and employees of other institutions over cases of misconduct or breach of ethical rules that involves allegations of a criminal offence,” Nasheed explained.

Double jeopardy does not preclude civil, disciplinary or administrative action before or after criminal prosecution, he added.

However, Nasheed argued, the Supreme Court ruling has effectively prohibited employment termination as a disciplinary action as the judgment considered such action “a punishment.”

As a result of the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court, Nasheed wrote, it was “very likely” that most people dismissed from their posts since the adoption of the new constitution in August 2008 would have to be reinstated.

“That is, considering their cases individually, it is certain that no state institution would have adhered to the standard set in this Supreme Court judgment. The standards are that high,” he explained.

Nasheed however stressed at the beginning of his post that he was obliged to accept the Supreme Court ruling as it was the highest court of appeal.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Amnesty report extremely biased”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Sometimes excessive force is absolutely necessary”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP deputy contemplates election coalition, rules out PPM alliance

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) has ruled out a coalition with the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) ahead of elections later this year, despite being open to collaboration with other parties.

DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef told Minivan News the DRP would not contemplate forming a coalition with the PPM beyond the present government, calling any discussion on the matter a “waste of time” considering previous disagreements between the two parties.

The PPM, a coalition partner in the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, was formed by DRP founder former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in 2011 following an acrimonious war of words with the party’s current leader, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali. Thasmeen was directly appointed by Gayoom to be his successor as head of the DRP.

PPM members are currently campaigning ahead of primaries to decide whether MP Abdulla Yameen or the party’s former interim Deputy Leader Umar Naseer will contest as the organisations presidential candidate in September’s elections.

Speaking Friday (March 15) at a rally head at the artificial beach area of Male’, PPM Deputy Leader Ilham Ahmed claimed that unlike MP Yameen, “almost all parties” have said they would unite with Umar Naseeer in a coalition for the next presidential elections, reported Sun Online.

Ilham told the gathered crowd that being able to form a coalition would be important in the upcoming elections, adding that no other party would be interested in forming an alliance with a party helmed by MP Yameen.

MP Ilham was not responding to calls at time of press, while Umar Naseer’s secretary said he was too busy to speak.

However, PPM MP and spokesperson for MP Yameen’s campaign team Shifaq Mufeed has since slammed Umar Naseer’s primary team for making what he called slanderous and untruthful statements.

With its own congress scheduled for next month, DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef said the DRP was presently focusing on its own campaign and manifesto for the presidential elections, but believed the party would never be able to form an alliance with the PPM going forward.

“Our position is very clear, we will not be forming a coalition with the PPM,” he said.

Shareef said that following a split within the DRP that saw supporters loyal to former President Gayoom break away and form the PPM, it would not be possible for the two parties to work together.

“We won’t waste our time discussing a coalition with them,” he said.

Despite rejecting any possibility of working with the PPM, Shareef said that the DRP would not rule out a coalition with parties in the future who they had not already worked with, adding that there was always room for discussions to be held.

However, he claimed that the party was presently in the process of compiling its manifesto for elections to be held next year, while also trying to finalise a venue for the party’s congress scheduled next month.

“Right now we have not been able to get a venue, though we hope to secure Dharubaaruge [conference centre],” Shareef said. “We are not a wealthy party, so we cannot campaign like richer parties and we need to find a new way to do this. We don’t have our own television or radio stations like other parties.”

Spokespersons for the  Jumhoree Party (JP), Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Adhaalath Party (AP) were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(3)Dislikes(1)

Supreme Court overturns parliament’s dismissal of CSC Chair Mohamed Fahmy for sexual harrasment

President of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy Hassan has returned to office after Supreme Court ruled that parliament’s decision to remove him was unconstitutional.

The CSC confirmed to local media on Sunday (March 17) that Fahmy had returned to work after he had been dismissed by parliament in late November last year.

In November last year, parliament voted 38 – 32 to remove the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female employee of the CSC.

On Thursday (March 14), Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy).

Following the judgment, Fahmy would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages since December 2012.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed reportedly said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

Fahmy was alleged to have to have said to a female CSC employee that “it is not appealing when unmarried girls like you get fat”, whilst touching her on the stomach.

Following Fahmy reinstatement, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali today tweeted: “Majlis n civil servants have lost confidence in Mr. Fahmy, President of CSC. In the national interest, he should resign.”

Supreme Court ruling will encourage sexual harassment: NGO

Maldives-based NGO Voice of Women (VoW) expressed its disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the verdict on Fahmy’s dismissal last year.

In a statement published on its website, VoW accused the Supreme Court Justices of having let down the women of the Maldives.

“In a small country like Maldives, where women are terrified to come forward and report cases of sexual abuse, domestic violence or sexual harassment, it took great courage for a girl to step forward and report this case against Mr. Fahmy,” the statement reads.

“By reinstating Mr. Fahmy, after disregarding the Parliamentary no confidence vote, all the women working in Civil Service are in danger of being victims of sexual harassment, as women will be even more reluctant than before to come forward and report such cases.”

VoW raised further concern regarding Fahmy’s seat on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), claiming that he is in a position to “influence the judiciary”.

“As Parliament had dismissed heads of independent commissions in the past with votes of no-confidence (eg Auditor-General on 28 March 2010) without any prior court case, VoW is extremely concerned that this ruling is highly irregular and departs from previously established norms and procedures,” the VoW statement reads.

“VoW calls upon the Parliament of Maldives to exercise its rights as per article 187 of the constitution and immediately take action to remove Mr. Fahmy (whom the parliament members as representatives of the people, do not have confidence in, and who they believe women employees will not be safe with) from his reinstated position.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sri Lankan minister calls for deportation of Maldivian asylum seekers

A Sri Lankan Minister has reportedly called for the deportation of Maldivians who are currently seeking asylum in Sri Lanka.

Local media reported Minister of Technology Research and Atomic Energy, Patali Champika Ranawaka, as calling on the government of Sri Lanka to take action against Maldivians who are converging in areas within the country.

During a ceremony to launch Patali’s book entitled ‘Al Jihad Al Qaeda’, the minister allegedly claimed that foreigners were flooding Sri Lanka due to conflicts in other countries.

“Because of the internal tensions in the Maldives, thousands of its citizens are now in areas such as Dehiwela, Ratmalana, Nugegoda, and they are seeking political protection and [it] would be a tremendous problem to Sri Lanka in the near future,” the Minister was quoted as saying in the Sri Lankan publication ‘Mirror’.

Sri Lankan media claimed the minister had then called for the government to carry out a proper census and subsequently arrange for the deportation of those seeking asylum.

The minister’s comments were made in light of proliferation of Saudi ‘madrassas’ – religious teachers – who are accused of propagating extremist Islamic ideas in Sri Lanka.

The minister stated that there are roughly 700 madrassas currently teaching in religious schools in the country, and it had been established that the religious teachers had been connected to recent disputes within Sri Lanka.

A media official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Minivan News today that it had “no comment” regarding the issue.

“If there is any comment regarding this issue made by the ministry, we will make it available to the media very soon,” he said.

Sri Lankan Minister of Technology Research and Atomic Energy Patali Champika Ranawaka was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State must prove ‘MC’ Hameed’s dismissal was lawful: Civil Court

The Civil Court has ruled that it is the state’s responsibility to prove that former head of police intelligence Chief Superintendent ‘MC’ Hameed’s dismissal was lawful and in accordance with the constitution.

The Police Disciplinary Board dismissed Hameed from his position over allegations he provided confidential information to an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) report written by the former government’s Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam, and National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal.

Local media claimed the decision was made by the Disciplinary Board on allegations that the three officers had “worked for the political benefit of a certain party” using their police roles.

Hameed filed a lawsuit in the Civil Court against the Maldives Police Service (MPS) on August 25, claiming that his dismissal from the institution was unlawful.

“The [judge’s] ruling is in reference to the state’s attorney ‘holding onto witnesses’ who would provide testimony regarding my dismissal in which I was sacked unlawfully. This is not the final verdict,” Hameed told Minivan News today.

“The MPS believe they have the privilege of not falling under general employment regulations because they are a separate entity,” he added.

Speaking previously to Minivan News Hameed stated, “I have noted that the dismissal was against the constitution and the Police Act. We have noted many articles that were violated in the dismissal.”

Judge Mariyam Nihayath, presiding over the Civil Court hearing, ruled in favor of Hameed’s lawyer’s argument that it is indeed the responsibility of the state to prove Hameed’s dismissal was legal.

Nihayath explained that all citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to employment and if that right was withheld, it must be in accordance with Article 16 of the constitution, according to local media.

Article 16 guarantees the “rights and freedoms” enumerated in the constitution for all citizens – including employment – are “subject only to such reasonable limits [as] prescribed by a law” and these limits must be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

When asked about today’s Civil Court ruling, Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef instead referred to the Criminal Court case being brought against Hameed by the police.

“The case is being investigated and has been sent to the Prosecutor General’s office. You’ll have to ask them if they have enough supporting evidence,” Haneef told Minivan News.

Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office Media Official Hussain Nashid confirmed to Minivan News that the PG had received the case against Hameed “last November or December” but was “not sure” if the civil court ruling would have any bearing on the state’s criminal court case.

Hameed also confirmed that the MPS previously filed the criminal case against him with the PG’s office, but did not know of any further developments in this regard.

“I have not yet received a summons [to appear in court], so I guess the case is still pending,” stated Hameed.

The Police Disciplinary Board also relieved Superintendent Ibrahim Adhnan of duty and announced it was demoting Superintendent ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik to Chief Inspector of Police, removing the disciplinary badge on his uniform, in June 2012.

Hameed, Adhnan and Manik were among only a few police senior officers who did not join the events of February 7, which saw mutinying police hand out riot gear to opposition demonstrators and launch an all-out assault on the main military headquarters.

Hameed’s arrest and detention

In June 2012, Police arrested Hameed over allegations he had contributed to the MDP’s report into the controversial transfer of power on February 7, the publication of which was derided by the government as an “act of terrorism”.

Following reports that police who cooperated with the Ameen-Aslam report were being rounded up and detained, police initially denied allegations of a “witch hunt” and issued a statement accusing the media of “circulating baseless and false reports”. However court warrants for the arrest of Hameed and Staff Sergeant Ahmed Naseer were subsequently leaked.

The Criminal Court arrest warrant stated that Hameed was accused of “misusing” or leaking information acquired through his position for “the political gain of a particular group”, and participating in the compilation of the “misleading” Ameen-Aslam [MDP] report, which undermines “the public’s respect for the security services.”

It justified his detention on the grounds that Hameed might influence witnesses and attempt to get rid of evidence as “others are suspected of involvement in the case.”

Police issued a statement that day confirming that Hameed had been arrested on charges of leaking “important information collected by the Maldives Police Services intelligence related to national security” as well as providing “untrue and false information” intended to benefit a specific [political] party, which could pose a threat to national security and create “divisions between the police and the public.”

Hameed’s actions were in violation of the Police Act, the statement insisted.

Hameed was held for five days following his arrest. The Criminal Court’s decision to detain Hameed was appealed by his family in the High Court, which ruled that there was no grounds to rule an extension of his detention was unlawful at the time.

The Criminal Court extended his detention period to five days before releasing him on the grounds that it did “not believe the detention should be extended any further,” just a few hours after the High Court upheld its decision to keep him detained.

Hameed’s lawyer Ismail Visham argued during the High Court hearing that his client had been subjected to discrimination.

Visham told the court that there were police officers accused of more serious crimes who had not been detained, alleging that in one instance, a senior colleague presently stood accused of attempting to rape a woman.

He further contended that the Criminal Court judge had extended Hameed’s detention period not based on police evidence, but on the judge’s own view. Visham contended that Hameed had therefore lost the right to respond to the accusations against him.

In response, the state attorney said that Hameed was accused not of a disciplinary matter but a criminal offence, and argued that the Criminal Court judge had declared Hameed a threat to society because police told the judge he might seek to “intimidate witnesses” and “destroy evidence”.

Following his detention, the family of Chief Superintendent Hameed expressed concern over his detention and noted that he was widely respected in the force as “a man of principle”. He has been in the service for over 17 years and has a masters in policing, intelligence and counter-terrorism.

Following the raid and extrajudicial dismantling of the MDP’s protest site at Usfasgandu on May 29, Hameed tweeted: ” Called a ‘baaghee’ [traitor] on the road twice today. Rightly so when our own actions are unjustifiable and thuggery like!”

After his dismissal, Hameed tweeted: “Ayan: Daddy, why were you fired from your job? My response: Because I did not join the bad guys.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP involved in illegal drug business is attempting to frame me: Umar Naseer

Additional reporting by Mariyath Mohamed

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential primary candidate Umar Naseer has claimed that an MP involved in the illegal drug business is attempting to “frame” him.

Speaking at a rally on Friday night (March 15), Naseer claimed that the unnamed MP had tried to ruin his reputation by sending police into his offices looking for contraband.

On Saturday night (March 16), Naseer then posted on both his Facebook and Twitter page that someone had tried to frame him “but I was not in the car I was delivering a speech in Miladhoo”.

Asked what Naseer was referring to, a police source told Minivan News today that a bottle of alcohol had been found in a car belonging to Naseer’s wife when searched by police yesterday.

“Last night the driver of the car had parked after there had been some sort of accident caused by someone on the back seat.

“At that time, the driver found a bottle of alcohol within the car and reported it to the police. We took the driver, questioned him and released him,” the source claimed.

Speaking in regard to the alcohol allegedly found in the car, Police Spokesperson Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef confirmed that a bottle had been found and the case was still under investigation.

“We received a report from a driver of a vehicle stating that there was a bottle of alcohol in the car. Police went to the car, searched it and took the vehicle,” Haneef said.

Last week, Naseer had posted on social media that he had received “intel” that an attempt would be made to assassinate his character by planting drugs in one of his offices.

Speaking in front of a giant display of a mosque set up for his campaign on Friday, Naseer said that he did not partake in acts involving illegal drugs.

“A serving parliament member who is involved in the illegal drug business is attempting to frame me.

“He tried to ruin my reputation by sending police to my business offices in the pretence of looking for illegal substances. I do not get involved in such acts,” he claimed.

Despite Naseer’s claims, when Minivan News asked Police Spokesperson Chief Inspector Hassan Haneef on Tuesday whether police had searched his offices, Haneef denied they had.

“I will not name the MP, I do not need to name him here. He is trying to hide the relations he has with gangs and his involvement in the illegal drug business,” Naseer claimed.

“If I, Umar Naseer, get elected, MPs cannot hide behind their privileges act and run illegal activities. I will take legal action against them,” he added.

Both Umar Naseer and Abdulla Yameen are currently campaigning to win the PPM’s presidential candidate slot for the upcoming presidential elections to be held in September this year.

People say Yameen bathes in mineral water: Umar Naseer

Speaking to crowds at the artificial beach in Male’ on Friday, Naseer claimed that “unlike Yameen” he is an ordinary citizen and not related to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

In regard to Abdulla Yameen – who is also contending in the PPM presidential primary – Naseer claimed that his fellow contender plays “80 percent in defence”.

“We heard our brother MP [Ahmed] Nihan speaking at Yameen’s campaign rally. All he did was try to denounce what the public says about Yameen.

“Nihan said that although people allege Yameen has ties with gangs and gang violence it is not true. He then said that although people say Yameen even bathes with mineral water, that isn’t true either,” Naseer stated.

In response to the PPM presidential primary candidate’s claims, a spokesperson for Abdulla Yameen’s ‘Yageen’ campaign team told local media on Saturday that Naseer had made slanderous and “blatantly untruthful” statements about Yameen during the rally.

The spokesperson, PPM MP Shifaq Mufeed, said that the purpose of such statements was to damage Yameen’s credibility amongst his supporters.

Umar Naseer was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: “Unprofessional police action” will not turn the tide of public resentment

Former Director of Police Intelligence Sabra Noordeen was arrested yesterday (March 16) upon arriving at Male’ International Airport. She was handcuffed for transportation to Dhonidhoo prison on charges of “inciting violence” against police officers on March 5 this year.

She was then taken to Male’ instead, and released “with no reason given at the time”. Her passport was confiscated. Here she shares her experience and concerns about “intimidation” of members of the public by the Maldives Police Service.

I arrived in Male’ at 9.35pm last night. I made my way to immigration and was glad to see a familiar face behind the counter, an immigration officer who I’d played football with occasionally. I handed over my passport for her to process and she scanned it through.

“I’ve been asked to stop you, it says I have to stop you,” she said to me.

“You’re joking,” I responded. With the recent political upheaval in the country.  I thought she was making fun of me.

She was in fact very serious. Another immigration officer came over, and responded to me about why I was being stopped and which watch list they were referring to. He said they had to confiscate my passport due to a court order, and that it was the Maldives Police Service’s request. He told me I could collect my bag and return to the counter.

It was then that I contacted my family about what was happening. I had been on the same flight as three lawyers and the head of [private broadcaster] Raajje TV. I requested their assistance from the arrivals terminal, and they immediately joined me at the counter, with the immigration officer and a police officer who was on duty at the airport.

The police officer said I had to accompany him to the Tourist Police station at the airport. At the station, they only had a court order to hold my passport. As we were getting ready to leave the station, we were told that a court order for my arrest was on the way, and we were asked to sit down.

When I was given the court order for my arrest, I think I laughed. The reason for the arrest was “inciting violence against the police and obstructing police duty”, on March 5 on Majeedee Magu.

They had also managed to incorrectly state my gender as male!

This very thorough court order was issued based on the evidence of a Police eyewitness and a Police officer’s statement.

I was told that female officers from Male’ were on their way to the airport to arrest me and escort me to Dhoonidhoo detention centre. We waited for 45 minutes. Despite the ‘change in leadership’ at the MPS, it seemed there were still only two functioning speedboats in Male’ atoll.

Two female Special Operations officers arrived in blue camouflage uniforms – both were without name tags.

I was handcuffed and made to walk through the airport to the jetty where the Police vessel was yet to arrive.

My loyalty to the institution that is the Maldives Police Service is hard to get rid of.  This is despite the direction that rogue officers forcefully took the institution in with the Police-led mutiny and coup d’etat on 7, February 2012.

One of the officers told me that it was procedure to be handcuffed while on the vessel on the way to Dhoonidhoo. I protested, trying to remember the procedures I had read while working in MPS.

They did not uncuff me, even when they put on the life jacket, which resulted in the life jacket not being fitted properly.

It was placed around my shoulders with the handcuffed arms awkwardly placed in one of the sleeves. I said to her, ‘if something happens, there’s no way I’ll survive like this’.

“We’ll save you,” the female officer replied.

Needless to say, I was not reassured.  On the boat, I was told that I was now being taken to MPS HQ in Male’ instead of Dhoonidhoo and that they were apparently going to release me. There was no reason given at the time.

I was taken into the waiting room in HQ. I was uncuffed, and asked to wait until my release chit and summons for questioning were prepared.

My release chit stated, that they no longer believed I needed to be kept under arrest. My summons to appear for questioning on Monday afternoon was also handed over to me.

I asked why they felt it was necessary to arrest and handcuff me when they could have just served me the summons, without all the dramatics the next morning at my home. I was not given an answer.

I quit the Maldives Police Service on 8 February 2012 with a profound sense of sadness for the institution and the colleagues I left behind. I do not believe that everyone in the MPS was involved in the mutiny or the coup and I do not believe in blaming everyone in a Police uniform. Many will disagree with me.

However, I do believe that MPS cannot fully gain the confidence of the public they claim to ‘protect and serve’, nor guarantee free and fair Presidential elections without significant reform.

This includes the dissolution of the Special Operations (SO) unit, holding all police officers accused of committing acts of police brutality and misconduct accountable for their actions. The removal of Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, Deputy Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Phairoosch and many other Commissioned officers who have disgraced the service is also needed right now.

Until then, unprofessional police action carried out purely for the purposes of intimidating members of the public that the political and politicised leadership of MPS feel threatened by is not going to turn the tide of public resentment against the police.

Sabra Noordeen was former Director of Police Intelligence during the Nasheed administration

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 [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)