Comment: Partying time may soon be over for small parties

Partying time may soon be over for a bunch of minor political parties in Maldives, if the unanimous decision of Parliament’s Committee on Independent Commissions is anything to go by.

According to the committee’s decision, political parties will require a minimum of 5,000 verifiable members to be recognised by the nation’s Election Commission as such. They would have to have double that number if they intend seeking Government funding under the law.

At present, political parties need to have 3,000 registered members for recognition under the law. The Constitution has also earmarked one percent of the nation’s GDP for election funding, to be distributed in proportion to the number of registered members of individual parties.

Though fewer than a few thousand voters are there in each of the 77 parliamentray constituencies, electioneering is a costly affair in the archipelago, thanks to the high cost of commuting between the widely-spread islands. The nation has a directly-elected Executive President of the US model, but with a 50-per cent-plus-one vote-share for election. Where none of the candidates make it in the first round, the top two move on to a second, run-off round.

All this makes the electoral campaigns costly and competitive for political parties. What’s more, political parties have to fund other elections under the new scheme, for the 77-member Parliament and the decentralised local councils and the seven newly carved-out province and island  councils, too.

Given the infancy of the new scheme, it has become necessary for the national leadership of all the parties to be seen as campaigning even for by-elections to local councils, as this would also be an occasion for presidential and parliamentary hopefuls to reach out to the electorate at that level. State funding thus helped lessen the financial pressure on individual political parties.

Media reports quoting parliamentary committee Chairman and Kulhudhuffushi-Dhekunu MP Mohamed Nasheed, said that considering the nation’s population-size only parties with 10,000 members could be considered to be politically influential. They could be given state funding, to promote ideas, he said, indicating that the discussion in the committee on this particular issue was lengthy and exhaustive.

As and when Parliament passes the committee’s proposal into legislation, parties with less than 5,000 registered members at present would be given six months to enroll more. Those enrolling with the Election Commission after the current proposal comes into force will be given three months for the purpose. “Parties that fail to have 5,000 members within this period will be abolished,” he was quoted as saying.

Three identifiable groups

Political parties in Maldives can be classified under three identifiable categories at present. At the top are the three major parties with substantial membership and parliamentary presence. Topping the list overall is the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) of former President Mohammed Nasheed, followed by his predecessor Maumoon Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), and the latter’s earlier party, namely, the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), headed by Thasmeen Ali.

In a nation with a population less than 400,000, the MDP claims close to 50,000 members. After the vertical split, the DRP and the PPM are yet to prove their split figures, though the latter is believed to be the stronger of the two.

Then there are three other political parties with parliamentary presence, but which are not in the same league as the earlier three. Among them the People’s Alliance, founded by Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen, has formed a common parliamentary grouping with the PPM with the latter as its leader.

The Jumhoree Party (JP), or the Republican Party, is headed by former Finance Minister Gasim Ibrahim. The Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), whose leader, Dr Hassan Saeed, was, amd is a Special Advisor to Presidents Nasheed and incumbent Waheed Hassan Manik, also has a limited parliamentary presence. However, neither the membership of the JP and the DQP, nor their parliamentary representation, obtained through the May 2009 elections now reflect the 15-plus and 16-plus per cent vote-shares registered by Gasim Ibrahim and Hassan Saeed in the first round of presidential polls in 2008.

The last grouping of political parties in the country comprise those that are enrolled with the Election Commission with the existing 3,000-member requirement and may or may not be active – but do not have any parliamentary representation.

Included in the list of eight parties, ironically, is the Gaumee Ihthihaadh Party (GIP) of President Waheed, and the religion-centric Adhalaath Party (AP), or the Justice Party.

While the AP is more vociferous than most political parties in the country, barring possibly the MDP, the party recorded probably less than one per cent vote-share in the presidential polls of 2008 and could not win a single seat in the parliamentary elections only a few months later. However, the AP did manage to win a little more than a handful of seats in the local council elections, conducted under a new law for regional governance, in March 2010. Interestingly, both the AP and the GIP – the later did not contest either the parliamentary elections or the local government polls – have ministerial representation in the governments of President Nasheed, and now Waheed.

The GIP, as whose founder President Waheed was the alliance partner of the MDP for the presidential polls, and became Vice-President as Candidate Nasheed’s running-mate, did not register with the Election Commssion until after it had become too late for the 2008 polls. It did not field any candidates in the later-day elections.

Both the AP and the GIP have another thing in common. Continuing as allies of the government, they saw their ministerial representatives deserting the parent party and joining the MDP, and continue in the government under their new identities.

‘Guided democracy’ or what?

At the conclusion of the 2009 parliamentary polls, as MDP leader, President Nasheed spoke about how the nation had voted for what was tantamount to a two-party system, and welcomed it as a step in the right direction.

As he had pointed out, his MDP and the undivided DRP of the time had managed to win a substantial number of the total 77 seats in the People’s Majlis, or Parliament. Post-poll, defections across the board made the MDP the single largest party in Parliament, and it remains so despite losing two seats in by-elections held after President Nasheed’s resignation on February 7.

The ‘People’s Alliance (PA), which has formed a common parliamentary group with President Gayoom’s PPM since, had come third with seven seats in the 2009 polls. Its ambiguous identity as a separate political party when its founder is said to be an aspirant for the PPM’s presidential nomination, may cause the leadership to revisit its continued existence and separate identity. Other parties had either won less than a handful of seats each, or drawn a blank like the religion-centric AP. Their performance in the 2010 local council elections too was nothing much to go by.

Opinion is however divided over the wisdom of letting the current mushrooming of political parties to continue. While the PPM and DRP, for instance, seem to be sharing the MDP’s views, though their official position is not known, other parties may have a problem accepting the current course – for reasons of their own, and also in the larger cause of democracy.

Indications are that the parliamentary committee having been represented by only those with legislative representation, those that are left out now may be considering the possibility of moving the courts against any new law regulating their continuance, if and when it came into force.

At the end of the day, democracy is all about facilitating louder voice and larger political space even for those left out of the mainstream, otherwise. Or, so goes the argument. However, democratic exception have been made in the legal sense of the term, where ‘reasonable restriction’ has been used as a valid judicial argument to delineate one from the other, ‘men from the boys’.

The question before the nation thus is this: whether, it should continue with what is inherent to the polity as a ‘coalition model’, as witnessed in the 2008 presidential polls, and beyond – though not to the same extent, or to encourage consolidation under identifiable electoral entities?

In the medium-term, consolidation may hold the key to political stability at a crucial stage in the nation’s contemporary history of democratic transition. The trickle-down politico-electoral effect of democracy, particularly in the Third World South Asian neighbourhood, points to the inevitability of splits and splinters emerging, if only over a period, institutionalising the inevitability of coalition politics of one kind or the other.

The US, where a ‘third candidate’, Independent Ross Perot, polled as high as 18.9 per cent of the popular-vote in the 1992 polls, seems to have handled it differently, since. Political commentators and leaders of the two mainline parties in the country, namely the Democrats and Republicans, called the ‘Ross Perot Effect’ an “aberration that will not be allowed to continue”. Subsequent presidential polls have proved as much, and the globally-televised public debates of presidential hopefuls, among others, are tailored to keep out ‘non-serious candidates’, thus making the world’s most powerful democracy also the ‘most guided’ of all democracies.

Apart from the judiciary, the Election Commission itself may have its views, but its relevance would be more political than legal. Technically, President Waheed too may consider returning any Bill passed by Parliament for regulating political party membership and state funding, for reconsideration.

It would then remain to be seen if the Majlis would the stomach to revisit the Bill and return to the same conclusion, if the original conclusion itself is one of endorsing the committee’s current proposition. It may thus be too early to say which way Maldives would go, but the fact is that Maldivians have started thinking ahead in the matter – and there is an element of unanimity among the ‘big players’ for now, if one were to go by the media reports.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation.

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)

Gasim alleges corruption in Gan airport development deal

Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader and MP for Alif Dhaal Maamigili, Gasim Ibrahim, has alleged corruption in the proposed sale of a stake in the Addu International Airport Company Ltd (AIA) to finance development of the Gan airport in Addu City.

The allegations were made in a six-page letter from the business magnate MP sent on Tuesday to President Dr Mohamed Waheed, which was leaked to local media last week.

The JP presidential candidate reportedly contended that the government had decided to sell a 30 percent stake in AIA to a local company named Kasa Holdings “without due consideration.”

‘Champa’ Hussain Afeef, tourism pioneer and business mogul, owns Kasa Holdings.

A consortium formed by the Maldives Airports Company Ltd (MACL), the State Trading Organisation (STO) and the Gan Airport Company meanwhile owns AIA.

AIA Managing Director Shahid Ali – also managing director of STO – confirmed to newspaper Haveeru in September that the AIA board of directors had decided to sell a 30 percent stake in AIA to Kasa Holdings for MVR60 million (US$3.9 million).

Shahid explained that Kasa Holdings and a Malaysian company had bid for the project following a public tender or announcement. He added that the Finance Ministry was consulted prior to the decision to sell the 30 percent stake.

Moreover, the bid announcement was made after the President’s Office approved the process, he said. However, the sale has been held up after the Transport Ministry asked the consortium to review the process and determine if the valuation was in line with the Public Finance Act.

Shahid said in September that AIA had requested legal advise from the Attorney General and that the government had not instructed the company on how to proceed.

Gasim meanwhile said in his letter that MVR60 million for 30 percent of AIA’s share was “a very small amount” as the value of the airport would be higher than MVR 3 billion (US$200 million).

Moreover, while US$44 million had been estimated as the cost of developing the airport, the JP MP claimed that the project could be completed with US$24 million.

An “open tender just in China alone” for the project would suffice to prove his assertion, Gasim wrote in his letter to Dr Waheed.

If the sale goes through, Gasim warned that Kasa Holdings would be positioned to acquire 70 percent of AIA by moving to sell 40 percent to a buyer of its choice.

“If a member representing the government does not attend a board meeting held to sell this 40 percent, Kasa Holdings will have the power to sell 40 percent of shares to whoever it pleases at whatever price it wants,” Gasim wrote. “In light of my experience on how these [deals] are completed, I have to say that the ultimate result would be the remaining unsold 40 percent being sold to a buyer of Kasa’s choice and the opening up of the opportunity for Kasa Holdings to control 70 percent, and within this opportunity, for [Kasa] to sell 51 or more percent of AIA to another foreign party.”

Gasim further contended that the move would pose a risk to national security, as the government would have no legal powers over the company.

Cancelling the agreement would mean paying the foreign party a “huge amount in compensation,” he claimed.

Gasim insisted that the Gan aiport should be developed by MACL and offered in his letter to reclaim land for the project free of charge “using my own dredger, employees and machinery with the government only providing oil.”

In October 2011, Gasim opened the Maldives’ first private airport at his native Maamigili with his ‘Flyme’ Villa airline landing the first flight in the new airport in Alif Dhaal atoll.

Gasim’s Jumhooree Party, part of the ruling coalition, is among parties calling for the nationalisation of the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport and cancellation of the previous administration’s concession agreement with Indian infrastructure giant GMR to develop and manage the Hulhule airport.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government withholding allowance, claims office of former President

The office of former President Mohamed Nasheed has accused the government of “negligence” in providing the legally-mandated monthly allowance to cover expenses of the former’s president’s office.

In a press release on Thursday, the former president’s office noted that article 8 of the Privileges and Protection for Former President’s Act (Dhivehi) states, “In the event that a former president wishes to conduct social work beneficial to the community, the state shall provide up to MVR175,000 (US$11,350) a month to arrange for an office, employees and other matters.”

The social work to be carried out by the former president’s office included “efforts to develop and strengthen democracy,” the press release explained.

Article 128 of the constitution states that a former president “serving his term of office lawfully without committing any offence, shall be entitled to the highest honour dignity, protection, financial privileges and other privileges entitled to a person who has served in the highest office of the land.”

The Privileges and Protection for former Presidents Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation passed by the 17th parliament elected in May 2009.

The press release meanwhile revealed that the government first provided the state benefits due to the former president by law “four months after he left office” when a letter was sent to the Finance Ministry on April 30.

However, the financial benefits were discontinued four months later in August 2012.

Officials of various rank at the Finance Ministry as well as Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad were approached “repeatedly” regarding the benefits and all requested information was provided in a letter on August 27, 2012.

While Finance Minister Jihad had said that the ministry would send a letter seeking further information concerning the work of the former president’s office, the press release noted that the said letter had not been sent as of November.

On Jihad’s claim to local media that he was unaware of the location of the office and had sent a letter seeking clarification, the press release stated that “the minister should believe that a letter sent to an office whose address he did not know would not be delivered.”

“We note that this office has not been informed of the reasons for the sudden discontinuation of the benefits previously provided,” the former president’s office said, adding that a “verbal explanation” by ministry officials that the benefits were discontinued on orders from the Finance Committee of parliament was refuted by the committee.

While the amounts to be paid as benefits were specified in the law, the press release alleged that the Finance Ministry had not deposited the full amounts.

The law stipulates a monthly allowance of MVR 50,000 (US$3,243) for a president who has served one term.

The former president’s office expressed concern with the ministry’s failure to adhere to the law and called on the government to “respect the laws” and ensure “administrative fairness” by the state.

In October, local media gave conflicting statements regarding the reasons for the withholding of Nasheed’s office allowance.

Sun Online reported Jihad as saying that the issue was related to the unknown location of Nasheed’s office whereas Haveeru said that the suspension of privileges was related to a disagreement over whether former presidents were required to conduct charitable activities.

“In reality, the office should be involved in holding social activities. However, the concern of these members is that there is no social work to be seen by the (Nasheed’s) office,” Jihad was quoted by Haveeru.

“It has to be clarified. Hence the financial allowances have been halted for the time being. We still haven’t been provided with the information we sought in relation to the office,” Jihad told the paper.

Meanwhile, in March, the government had questioned Nasheed’s eligibility for state benefits on the grounds that he had not completed a full five-year term in office.

In June, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza revealed that the state had spent MVR 1.3 million (US$84,300) on healthcare costs for former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his wife from 2010 to April 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Participation of UK legal experts in Nasheed trial a “unique challenge”

A Maldivian legal expert has described the use of foreign legal experts in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed as “unique”, pointing out that the Maldivian legal system makes it particularly difficult for such experts to contribute to proceedings.

Mohamed Shafaz Wajeeh, a practising layer in Male’ and former Director of the Legal Director at the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) said that while foreign advisers to corporate clients was fairly common, foreign experts for a specific criminal case was not.

“From a common law/international standards perspective, I believe foreign legal involvement is very much prevalent, especially if you consider the number of foreign legal experts who would be advising corporate clients operating in the Maldives in resorts, major telecom providers etc,” Wajeeh told Minivan News.

“However, the Nasheed trial is unique in that common law/international standards perspective expertise is being brought in for stated involvement in a specific criminal court case, as part of the defense team, not merely on a corporate/commercial transactional matter in an advisory capacity,” he added.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) revealed earlier this month that it was to add the expertise of two UK-based lawyers to the legal team working on the Judge Abdulla Mohamed detention case.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar were brought in to work alongside Hisaan Hussain, Abdulla Shair. On Thursday, it was announced that Kirsty Brimelow QC – a human rights expert – would also join Nasheed’s defense team.

Azhar is an expert in Shariah law – the Maldives legal system encompasses a combination of common and Shariah legal practices.

“It is not uncommon for foreign legal experts to be involved in transactional matters in an advisory capacities, but virtually never as Shari’ah experts (in recent history),” said Wajeeh. “What’s unique is for foreign legal experts to be involved in a criminal case – in the defence team, and especially in a court case.”

Lawrence, Azhar and Brimelow will work alongside Hisaan Hussain, Abdulla Shair, Hassan Latheef and Ahmed Adbulla Afeef – although the latter two have been barred from appearing in court on technical grounds.

Afeef will not be allowed to attend the hearings in an official capacity after failing to sign the Supreme Court’s new “Regulation on Lawyers practicing law in the courts of Maldives”.

Wajeeh cited this particular regulation as “disturbing” and “dangerous” – further sign, he feels, of the need for major reform of the judicial arm of the state which he described as undeveloped and “primeval”.

Latheef cannot appear as he has been listed by the Prosecutor General (PG) as a witness to the detention of the Judge. Latheef described the inclusion of his name on this list as unnecessary and “irrelevant” as the judge’s detention was not in question.

In the press release announcing Brimelow’s inclusion in the case, appearing on Nasheed’s website, it was acknowledged that legal restrictions would also prevent any of the UK experts appearing in court.

“I imagine they would be severely restricted – if not intentionally, then due to the structure of the legal system,” said Wajeeh.

“Foreign legal experts can’t attend as lawyers, they can’t attend in Nasheed’s stead either (only lawyers may represent individuals in criminal cases),” he added.

“I’m not really sure if they can sit at the bench even. My understanding would be, if the foreign legal experts are to be allowed into the Court room at all, they would have to go in and sit in the public gallery,” he continued.

Latheef explained that Ms Brimelow was the only member of the legal team scheduled to be present in Male’ for the trial, and that the team would be applying for a permit from the Attorney General to allow her to appear in court.

“This has been done once before,” explained Latheed, “although the lawyer involved was married to a Maldivian.”

Wajeeh also noted that there were certain procedural factors which would make it difficult for UK experts to fully participate in the case, in particular the use of Dhivehi in the courts without English translation services being readily available.

“The foreign lawyers would of course be free to offer their views and opinions to the appointed defence team on drafting submissions and responses in defence of Nasheed, given the documents are efficiently translated for their use,” explained Wajeeh.

“This would mean they could play a minimal role in the formal hearing, although could potentially play a crucial role in how the defence argument takes shape.”

Nasheed’s trial continues tomorrow at 4:00pm at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is has been temporarily relocated to Male’ for the purpose of the case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Indian investors concerned about government’s political interference: Business Standard

Indian companies operating in the Maldives are expressing concerns over political interference they claim is derailing their substantial investments in the country, reports India’s Business Standard publication.

Officials involved in the Apex Realty housing development project – a joint venture between developers SG18 and Indian super-conglomerate TATA – told the Standard that the government was attempting to take over the site in Male’ given to the company, with the intention of building a new Supreme Court.

After being elected in 2008, former President Mohamed Nasheed moved the Supreme Court into the opulent palace of his predecessor, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, opting for the less lavish building of Muleaage as the Presidential residence.

“A recent meeting held with the Maldivian Housing Minister is said to have ended abruptly with officials from the firm and the Indian High Commission being asked to leave,” the Standard reported.

President Mohamed Waheed’s Media Secretary, Masood Imad, confirmed to the publication that the meeting had taken place, and said the minister had given them time, even though it was “unannounced”.

“I am told that the meeting continued for about an hour. TATA Housing officials were raising issues that were not in the contract but the Minister accommodated most of the issues. Most of the issues discussed were procedural,” Masood was reported as saying.

A source involved in the deal confirmed to Minivan News that the government had offered land in Hulhumale’ to the developers as an alternative to the agreed site in Male’. However, the same source said the developers felt the change would affect the financing of the project.

Minivan News was awaiting a response from the Indian High Commission at time of press.

GMR grievance

Indian infrastructure giant GMR has also raised concerns about the new government’s handling of its concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), signed with the former administration.

The company has previously sought to downplay its issues with the government in the media, however “public statements and press conferences of some government ministers and coalition party leaders are clearly aimed at arousing public sentiments against GMR and creating undue challenges for us,” the company told the Standard.

“To gain political advantage, some elements of the government itself have started hampering the smooth functioning and development of the airport,” the company added.

Moreover, the government was passing new laws and policies that were harming its interests.

“GMR was granted required approvals and licenses to operate Arrival Duty Free on December 30, 2011. We made huge investments in development of arrival duty free area. However, the government later revoked the licence citing that earlier the licence was given in error,” the company told the Standard.

“Similarly, On April 23, 2012, the GoM (Government of Maldives) passed an amendment to Business Registration Bill to restrict any foreigner to carry on Duty Free business, cargo clearance business, and bonded warehouse business at the airport. This step is clearly directed against GMR.”

The comments follow a US$2.2 million bill handed to the government’s side of the airport contract – the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) – following a third quarter in which the airport developer deducted its contractually-mandated airport development charge (ADC) from concession fees due the state.

In the first quarter of 2012 the government received US$525,355 of an expected US$8.7 million, after the deduction of the ADC. That was followed by a US$1.5 million bill for the second quarter, after the ADC payable eclipsed the revenue due the government.

Combined with the third quarter payment due, the government now owes the airport developer US$3.7 million.

The US$25 ADC, stipulated in the developer’s concession agreement signed with the Nasheed government, was to be levied on all outgoing passengers at INIA.

However, the former opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – now part of the coalition government – in late 2011 filed a successful case in the Civil Court challenging the legality of the charge on the grounds that it was a tax not approved by parliament.

Nasheed’s government instructed MACL to deduct the ADC from the concession fees due the government while it sought to appeal. However soon afterwards Nasheed resigned in controversial circumstances, handing power to his Vice President, who swiftly replaced much of the government with appointments from the former opposition.

Speaking to the Standard, Masood said that the government “will not target any investment, Indian or otherwise unduly. The assurances given by the President securing foreign investments in Maldives are valid and stand true.”

However Attorney General Azima Shukoor told media this morning that “After the necessary research, we have said that the GMR agreement causes financial loss to the state.”

She expressed confidence that the government would win the case in the Singapore court of arbitration, the next hearing of which is to be held on November 19.

“I would like to point out that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) still hasn’t finished the complete investigation into the GMR matter. This also presents difficulties for us, she said.

“I have met with the heads of ACC and Auditor General two, three times. I can’t say anything about the investigations. But I haven’t heard back anything after I shared the information I had available with them.”

Other elements of the government have also persistently called for the airport’s nationalisation.

DQP Leader Dr Hassan Saeed, now Waheed’s Special Advisor, at the launch of a book (in Dhivehi) last month criticising the airport development, said that the “only way to reclaim the airport from GMR” was to invalidate or cancel the concession agreement.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel – also a DQP member – said at the launch that it was the “duty of the most capable people in the country” to step forward and help “liberate” the nation from “grave problems” during the current “difficult times”.

The religious Adhaalath Party, likewise aligned with the current government – in September called for a “national jihad” to nationalise the airport development.

Another government-aligned party, the Jumhoree Party (JP) headed by resort tycoon, media owner and member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Gasim Ibrahim, has also called for the nationalisaiton of the airport.

In September Gasim urged the government in to reclaim the airport, even at a cost of US$700 million, as it was worth “a thousand times more”.

Gasim’s comments followed GMR’s decision to suspend the credit facility for his Villa Air airline, due to unpaid bills totaling MVR 17 million (US$1.1 million) for fuel, ground handling and passenger service fees.

In late September GMR sponsored the inaugural Maldives Travel Awards, held on Gasim’s Paradise Island resort.

Paradise won the title of ‘Leading Business Hotel’, while Gasim’s Villa group of companies also picked up an award for ‘Leading Domestic Airport’. Gasim himself received a ‘Lifetime Achievement’ award.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill on death penalty drafted, unclear on action on past sentences: AG Shakoor

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor stated on Thursday that the government’s bill on implementing death penalty would be made public early in the coming week.

Speaking at a press conference in Velaanaage, Shakoor confirmed that the AG’s office had completed drafting the bill, which was now in the final stages of discussion. She confirmed that the bill would be made public on the office’s website in the coming week, stating the matter “is very much connected to public sentiments and a large number of people feel this matter needs a fast solution”.

Saying that “it was a pity” that three weeks had passed in the drafting stage, Shakoor said that unlike most other bills, the death penalty implementation bill was going through processes of in-depth research and further discussions among a high-level group appointed by the government.

According to Shakoor, the research took much longer than the state had expected, adding that the AG office had included the legal systems of Medina, Egypt and America in its research.

“I would like to point out that the death penalty is still implemented in over 50 countries across the world even today. Not all of these are even Islamic states. Nor is murder the only crime for which the sentence is given. For example, some countries sentence people to death for being caught trying to bring in narcotics to the country. We are considering all of these points and have made a comparative legal assessment,” Shakoor explained.

Other crimes besides murder which are punishable by death according to Islamic Sharia include apostasy, adultery, sodomy, rape and high treason.

“We need to conduct an academic exercise since we are trying to do this through a rather weak penal code,” Shakoor said.

“If this can be done before the penal code pending in parliament is passed, it might be best to include this as part of that code. Right now, we have drafted this with the thought that if the penal code gets passed up front, then this can be passed as a separate act on death penalty.”

Shakoor said that the bill was important as the current practice was to charge murder convicts under Article 88 of the existing penal code.

Article 88 of the Penal Code states that disobedience to order is a crime, while Article 88(c) details that if the result of violating the article leads to a death, the case should be dealt with according to Islamic Sharia.

Shakoor provided details of the drafted bill, stating it would be looking at the investigation stages, prosecution stages, sentencing and the implementation of sentences.

“The act looks into deciding on the number of judges who will sit on the sentencing panel. Furthermore it considers the rights of the family, the rights of the murder victim, the rights of the victim’s family, the final rights of the convict during sentencing,” Shakoor stated.

Responding to a question regarding how those sentenced to death prior to the bill being ratified would be dealt with, Shakoor said “it is difficult to give a straightforward answer as the final discussions on the bill have not yet been completed.”

“We too believe that answers to that must come to light through how this bill is composed. However, I believe that a solution must be provided even for past cases. So the act will be drafted to reflect that. You can see for yourselves once the bill is made public,” Shakoor replied.

“When an act is passed which explicitly spells out implementation [of the death penalty], then I believe the benefits of it must be carried to even past cases.”

Among a number of other cases, a young couple charged with the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb were sentenced to death by the Criminal Court in July, a few days after the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) asked the Maldivian state to enact legislation to officially abolish the death penalty. The statement said “the state itself has admitted that capital punishment does not deter crime.”

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed adds third British legal expert to defense team

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has further bolstered his legal team by accepting the services of Kirsty Brimelow QC ahead of the continuation of the Judge Abdulla Mohamed detention case on Sunday.

Brimelow will join fellow UK-based legal experts Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar on  Nasheed’s defence team.

A statement appearing on Nasheed’s website describes Brimelow as a criminal law specialist with international experience who is “particularly sought after in cases with a human rights law element”.

Brimelow was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2011 and has, among a number of high profile cases, acted as Legal Adviser to the Constitution Commission of Fiji. She is vice-chairwoman of the Bar Human Rights Committee and appears regularly on British television and radio.

Earlier this month, the Department of Judicial Administration informed local media that two of Nasheed’s lawyers, Hassan Latheef and Ahmed Adbulla Afeef had been barred from the trial.

Latheef had been barred from the trial as the state had called him as a witness, while Afeef was was barred as he had not signed new behavioural regulations for lawyers recently issued by the Supreme Court, explained department spokesperson Latheefa Gasim.

This leaves just two of Nasheed’s lawyers able to appear in court – former President’s Office Legal Advisor Hisaan Hussain and criminal defence lawyer Abdulla Shair.

Nasheed has stated repeatedly that he feels the outcome of the trial to be pre-ordained, with his conviction designed specifically to prevent him running in next year’s presidential elections.

“On Sunday I will face an extraordinary court, established especially to hear my case,” Nasheed wrote in Britain’s Financial Times this week.

“I am to be tried for abuse of power, in particular for the arrest of a corrupt judge, who was an ally of Mr Gayoom. My conviction is a foregone conclusion. Mohamed Waheed, my former vice-president, may decide to pardon me, but only in a way that ensures I remain barred from seeking office next year,” he wrote.

The issue of Nasheed’s trial was raised in the UK House of Commons this week by Conservative MP Karen Lumley, who asked Alistair Burt – Under Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, about the fairness of Nasheed’s trial.

“We have sought and received assurances from President Waheed of the Maldives that any trial of former President Nasheed will be fair and free from political influence,” replies Burt.

“No trial date has been set. The next court hearing is on November 4 and we expect international observers to be present,” he added.

In response to Lumley’s question regarding the effect of the trial on a sustainable political outcome in the country, Burt said the following:

“The trial process is, of course, a matter for the Maldives, but there is international concern that if it results in the former President being prevented from leading his party into the elections next year, it will be seen as though the process was designed for exactly that object.”

“We urge political stability under all circumstances in the Maldives, and that will no doubt be enhanced if the former President is allowed to lead his party and take part in those elections,” continued the Under Secretary.

The statement on Nasheed’s website noted that the Attorney General’s regulations prevented any of the new additions to his legal team appearing alongside him in court.

“Article 2 (a) of the regulation states ‘a person has to either be a Maldivian citizen or be married to a Maldivian citizen and reside for most part in the Maldives’ in order to practice law in the Maldives,” read the statement.

“This restriction is a hindrance to clients who wish to have foreign legal professionals represent them in courts of the Maldives,” it said.

Nasheed’s legal team raised several procedural issues at the cases first hearing on October 9, all of which were dismissed by the court.

After challenging this ruling in the High Court, and calling for an injunction to halt the trial until the matter was resolved, it was announced last week that the High Court would hold a hearing on the matter on the morning of November 4 – the same day Nasheed’s trial in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate’s Court recommences.

“The party believes that the result of conducting both hearings on the same day will be the defence attorneys losing the opportunity to prepare for the original case at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’,” a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) statement read.

The party held a march around the capital island Male’ on Tuesday calling for judicial reform. Over 500 protesters marched around Male’ with banners and placards displaying messages arguing the importance of judicial independence and of holding the judiciary accountable.

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was originally taken into custody in January after blocking the Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) proceedings into his alleged misconduct. A police mutiny and unrest in the capital led to Nasheed’s resignation three weeks later.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs oppose limiting presidential prerogative on appointing Police Commissioner

Several MPs yesterday objected to a clause in proposed legislation for a new Maldives Police Service Act limiting presidential prerogative to appoint the Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, during preliminary debate on the bill (Dhivehi) submitted by Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

While all MPs supported the 137-page legislation as a whole, most MPs insisted that the presidential prerogative to appoint the Commissioner of Police should remain unchanged and that the head of police should answer to the commander-in-chief.

The bill

Presenting the draft legislation to parliament, MP Nasheed said he sought to “restrict the role of the Home Minister over police” by limiting the minister’s powers.

The Home Minister’s role would be limited to entrusting responsibilities to police for achieving “strategic requirements” or objectives pledged by the ruling party’s manifesto, as well as providing necessary resources and monitoring the implementation of “instructions concerning the main policies and objectives for developing and strengthening the institution”.

“The minister should not state how particular investigations should proceed and interfere in such matters,” he said. “Police should be provided the operational independence or operational autonomy to do police work.”

The bill would also provide new powers over police to the parliament’s Security Services Committee (241 committee) and the Prosecutor General, he added.

Under the proposed procedure for appointing a Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, senior officers from the executive command would themselves apply for the post or propose colleagues, after which the Home Minister would submit their names for evaluation by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the police professional command unit.

Based on the reports by the PIC and professional command, the minister would then take a vote on the chosen candidate among senior officers of the executive command through secret ballot.

The Home Minister could only propose a nominee to the President if he or she is approved by “a majority of the total number of members of the police executive service.”

Moreover, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner would be appointed for a four-year term.

“Revolutionary change”

As all powers currently exercised by police were derived from a regulation formed under one article of the existing Police Act, Nasheed said one of the purposes of the new law was to ensure that all powers vested in police were derived from specific articles in the law.

“These are not just one or two amendments to the Police Act currently in force. These are basic changes to everything in the Police Act from cover to cover,” MP Nasheed said.

Nasheed said MPs and the major political parties had the choice to leave the police service in its current form or “modernise” the institution in light of past experiences.

Police was the one institution that came under the fiercest criticism during the reigns of Presidents Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Mohamed Nasheed and Dr Mohamed Waheed, the MP said.

He added that the new law was intended to “bring fundamental, revolutionary change” to the institution.

If passed, the new law would come into effect on November 11, 2013, which would be the end of the five-year presidential term that began on November 11, 2008 and the ostensible date for the swearing-in of a newly-elected president.

Debate

During yesterday’s debate, MPs from both the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and parties in the ruling coalition objected to the proposed procedure for appointing the head of police.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MP for Kaafu Atoll Kaashidhoo, Abdulla Jabir, warned that the police service could become “a small government” if the president could not directly appoint and dismiss the Commissioner of Police.

“If not, wouldn’t that be like riding a horse without a saddle?” he asked.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP for Thaa Atoll Thimararushi, Adam Ahmed Shareef, concurred that the executive or parliament should have the power to appoint the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner

“My proposal is that the highest authority in the police, that is the Commissioner of Police, should be appointed, in my view, with parliamentary approval after a nomination by the President,” he said, adding that the President should have to seek parliamentary approval for removing the commissioner.

MDP MP for Faafu Bilehdhoo Ahmed Hamza meanwhile objected to the procedure specified in the bill for dismissing a Police Commissioner – which was in effect a no-confidence vote by senior officers.

Hamza contended that the bill “mixes up the three powers” as it was unclear whether the President, parliament or Prosecutor General would answer on behalf of police.

He added that turning the Home Minister into a “symbolic” official was “unacceptable” as ministers in the executive should be accountable to the public.

Contrary to most MPs’ belief that the proposed reforms would free police from undue political influence, Hamza argued that the institution would become more politicised when its chief could be removed through “an election.”

“The Commissioner of Police should be answerable to the Home Minister and the Home Minister should be answerable to the President,” he said.

However, Hamza said the bill should be accepted and amended during the committee stage.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police release CCTV footage of men robbing Randheli resort office

Police are looking for three men who were caught on video footage obtained through the security camera of Randheli Resort’s main office in Male’, after it was robbed of more than MVR 100,000 (US$6500).

According to police, the robbery took place in the early hours of Saturday morning. The thieves took MVR 80,000 (US$5194) and US$3000.

Police have released the video footage of the robbery and appealed to the public to share any information they have regarding the case or persons involved in it.

The video footage obtained by police show three men sneaking from one room to another and roaming around inside the office looking for something.

All three were covering their faces and were wearing gloves. The video shows one man was carrying an object resembling an iron bar.

The video shows the man break breaching a room inside the office using a metal tool and coming out with a bag. Soon after they leave the office.

The face of one of the three men is seen at the beginning of the video footage.

Polices Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef did not respond to calls from Minivan News today.

In a statement police have requested the public to contact 332 2111 or police Serious and Organised Crime Department (991 1099) if anyone has information that might help the police investigation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)