Politics – Page 397 – Minivan News

Comment: Need for a domestic legislation on peaceful assembly

Police-public clashes have once again occupied centre stage in the Maldives. Over 100 people are believed to have been arrested in the ‘direct action’ protests organised by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) since 8 July. Several reports of police brutality and excesses have once again come to the fore.

The police authorities allege that the ongoing protests are not peaceful gatherings as many demonstrators attacked policemen and carried out other criminal offences too. MDP meanwhile maintains that the protests themselves are “largely peaceful” and that the police are carrying out discriminatory attacks against its MPs, journalists and harassing and intimidating the protestors.

Whether the police exercised their discretion to use force appropriately and in due consideration with the constitutionally-guaranteed right to assemble needs to be seen against the existing laws and procedures regarding peaceful assembly in the country.

The freedom to assemble peacefully has been guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 32 of the 2008 national constitution. Notably, the right has been guaranteed to all and does not require prior permission of the stat

e. However, this is in contradiction to the domestic “regulations on assembly” which were drafted in April 2006, and later ratified under the General Regulations Act 2008. The regulations required three organisers of public assemblies to submit a written form 14 days prior to the gathering to the Maldives police. Only in April 2012 did the High Court struck down this requirement (among others) as being unconstitutional. The Court also struck down the police authority to deny permission, upholding thereby the principle that the police role is simply to facilitate peaceful assembly.

Despite the frequency of public protests particularly since the democratic transition of the country in October 2008, it is surprising that the government has so far not amended the regulations in tune with the constitutional safeguards. The continuing discrepancy between the two suggests that police powers during public protests remain ambiguous, and that the constitutional safeguards against restriction of the right (Article 32) as well as protection of right to life (Article 21) and prohibition of torture (Article 54) are unlikely to be reflected in their behaviour.

Against this, the police are free to use their discretion on the amount of force necessary in such situations. Their discretion has been found to be excessive in the past.

For instance, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives’s (HRCM) investigation into the police action in controlling the MDP protests on 8 February 2012 was found to be excessive and unnecessary. The HRCM noted that the level of threat posed by the protestors was disproportionate to the force used under Article 14 of the Police Act according to which police may use amount of force necessary to ensure compliance of its lawful orders. It was also noted that the police did not follow properly the protocol as laid down in Regulation on Use of Force and Firearms. Against the requirement, protestors were not given sufficient warning before force and weapons were used to disperse the crowd.

All this suggests an urgent need for domestic legislation on peaceful assemblies, one that can strike a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety. Such a legislation must provide a clear definition of the term peaceful assembly, the kinds of public gatherings that are covered under peaceful assembly, procedure for conducting/organising a peaceful assembly, rights and duties of organizers of such public events, rights and duties of participants of a public assembly, duties of the police including bases on which the police might disrupt or terminate a public assembly and liability in case of any violations of the law.

Such a legislation should be governed by three key principles, as enunciated in the OSCE Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and endorsed by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai in his report (21 May 2012), considered as best practice vis-à-vis regulation of public assembly – presumption in favour of holding assemblies, state’s duty to protect peaceful assemblies, and proportionality.

Together, these impose a positive duty on the state to put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that this freedom is enjoyed in practice. This means that any restrictions placed in the interest of public safety must not impair the essence of the right. In this regard, best practice is considered to be one that discourages seeking prior authorisation for holding a gathering, and one that avoids blanket time and location prohibitions, for instance.

This also entails a duty on the state to train law enforcement officials appropriately in policing public assembly with an emphasis on protection of human rights. The Special Rapporteur notes that the pretext of public security cannot be invoked to violate the right to life, and that any resort to physical means must be rational and proportional. Crucially, it is the responsibility of the national authorities to support any claim of proportionality by relevant facts and not merely suspicion or presumptions.

Lastly, an important best practice emerging in the field of public assembly is allowing human rights defenders to monitor public assemblies. For instance, the London Metropolitan Police invited Liberty, an independent human rights organisation, to act as independent observers while policing a Trades Union Congress march in London in 2010. Such monitoring may itself deter human rights violations, and crucially, make it easier to establish facts amidst allegations and counter-allegations, as is currently underway in the Maldives. This further places an obligation on the state to undertake capacity building activities for the benefit of NGOs and human rights defenders to monitor assemblies.

The right to freedom of assembly is an essential component of democracy that facilitates political mobilization and participation. States have an obligation towards creating an environment conducive for the exercise and enjoyment of this right. A domestic legislation incorporating clear definitions and best standards is the first step towards fulfilling that obligation, and an urgent need in the Maldives frequently disrupted by public protests.

Devyani Srivastava is a Consultant for the Police Reforms Programme (South Asia) of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

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

(1)Dislikes

(0)

MDP votes to boycott elections if Nasheed barred from running

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s National Council has unanimously decided to boycott presidential elections if a court ruling bars former President Mohamed Nasheed from competing.

Nasheed was elected the party’s presidential candidate following the results of internal elections held last month.

Despite being the party’s sole candidate, following the final count of the 258 ballot boxes Nasheed recorded 31,798 votes in favour to 269 against his being the party’s presidential candidate, after more than two-thirds of the party’s membership turned out to vote.

The MDP’s current membership stands at 48,181 according the Election Commission (EC)’s figures, giving it the largest membership of any party in the country.

However, earlier this week the Prosecutor General forwarded a case against the former President to the Hulhumale magistrate court, concerning his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office. Nasheed’s government had accused the judge of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

If sentenced, Nasheed would potentially be barred from competing in a presidential election. The matter appears temporarily stalled after the Hulhumale Court yesterday rejected the case as falling outside its jurisdiction, returning it the Prosecutor General.

“This is our candidate, and if they are going to stop him from seeking election, then we are not going to play by their rules,” said MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

“We have experienced 30 years under [former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom]. His trials have always been politically motivated, and this is a politically motivated trial”, he aded.

“The MDP votes that elected Nasheed [as its presidential candidate] represent twice the registration of the entire Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), and more than 4000 votes than the total membership of the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP),” Ghafoor noted.

“Gayoom is on the back foot. The moment Gayoom said he would not attend talks to negotiate, he isolated himself. His rhetoric and utterances about leaving the Commonwealth are not understood by the democratic international community – we see this man going against the majority. We will not stop seeking early elections, and will continue direct action.”

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said he felt the issue was an “internal matter for the MDP. It is not for the government to comment.”

“I don’t think affect it will affect the legitimacy of the elections,” he said. “Without a congress the decisions of the MDP National Council do not reflect the will of the party’s members.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Hanaa and Murrath sentenced to death for Najeeb’s murder

The young couple charged with the murder of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb were on Thursday sentenced to death by the Criminal Court.

However the government said it expects both verdicts to be commuted to life imprisonment pending the outcome of a cabinet consultation.

Ahmed Murrath, 29, and his girlfriend Fathimath Hana, 18, were arrested and charged with Najeeb’s murder after his body was discovered by police at Maafanu Masroora house, (Murrath’s residence) in early evening of July 1. The body was stuffed inside a dustbin, badly beaten up and with multiple stab wounds.

The judge noted that the decision for death penalty comes following the pair’s confession in court and the statement from all eight heirs of Najeeb requesting for qisas (equal retaliation) – the death penalty – instead of accepting the alternative, blood money.

Murrath, who has previous criminal records, confessed to killing Najeeb out of anger and under the influence of drugs, alleging the lawyer attempted to sexually assault his 18 year-old girlfriend while he was at Masroora House.

The court heard that Najeeb visited Masroora House on June 30 to provide legal counsel on a case related to cash missing from Murrath’s mother’s account and the issue of dividing the house.

Murrath said that he tied Najeeb to a chair, gagged him and taped his hands, feet and face while threatening him with a four-inch knife he brought from the kitchen. He said that his girlfriend Hanaa had no role in it and was sleeping while he killed the lawyer between 6:00am and 7:00am during the morning of July 1.

Hanaa however had confessed in court of “helping” to tape and bind the victim to the chair. She did not confess to killing him and said at the time she was sleeping, intoxicated from drinking alcohol.

The judge however noted that the confessions given by Hanaa and Murrath to the police investigators reveal that the pair together schemed to suffocate the victim to death irrespective of whether he had sexually assaulted her or not, because they wanted to steal money from him.

Even though Hanaa had not confessed to killing Najeeb, the judge concluded that she has to bear full responsibility for the murder as Najeeb was incapacitated from defending his life because she helped bind him to the chair.

This is the first conviction for the teenage girl from Rihaab house in Goidshoo island of Shaviyani Atoll, while it is the 15th criminal offense proved against her boyfriend. He has a 18 year jail sentence of which he had completed only three years. His offences included theft, assault, drug use, and breaking out of prison.

He was released last year under the government’s Second Chance program for drug offenders. The programme was recently criticised by Home Minister Dr Ahmed Jameel over claims that it released prisoners, held in certain cases for committing serious crimes, for political purposes.

Commuted sentence

In addressing the sentences given to the pair by the court, the government said today that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan would be consulting with his cabinet and Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor over the verdicts. In previous cases where the death sentence had been favoured by the country’s courts over the past 60 years, the state has itself intervened to commute such verdicts to life imprisonment (25 years) instead.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said that while consultations on the matter would be held, he did not expect a “departure” from the long-standing state policy of commuting death sentences to life imprisonment.

“There has been pressure from certain groups to uphold death sentences, but I do not think these calls are in line with the will of the Maldivian people,” he said. “The president will also have to look into our obligations under the various international treaties we have signed.”

Just this week, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) asked the Maldivian state to enact legislation to officially abolish the death penalty as part of a wider review of human rights commitments in the nation.

“The state itself has admitted that capital punishment does not deter crime,” the statement noted.

Parliament review

Despite such calls by organisations like the UNHRC, a motion related to the death penalty is currently being reviewed by the parliament which, if passed, will make the enforcement of the capital punishment mandatory in the event it is upheld by the Supreme Court, halting the current practice of the President commuting such sentences to life imprisonment.

Earlier this month, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said the death penalty could be executed within the existing justice system of the Maldives.

Following the murder of Najeeb, the chief justice told local media that Maldives legal system, being based on Islamic Sharia, allows the death penalty to be implemented.

Following Najeeb’s murder – the seventh homicide recorded this year alone – Home Minister Jameel and Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor, as well as and other prominent lawyers and lawmakers, have publicly endorsed their support for implementing capital punishment to deter increasing crime rates.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Ports Workers Union accuse MPL of employee “rights violations” for political activism

The Maldives Ports Workers Union (MPWU) has accused the Maldives Ports Ltd (MPL) of violating employee rights, alleging the state-owned company has unfairly dismissed four employees due to their political activism.

In a letter on July 12 to MPL CEO Mahdi Imad, Chairperson of the MPWU Ibrahim Khaleel said: “Although the constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, it is now common within MPL to stop employees from expressing certain political views, and violate the Employment Act by unfairly dismissing employees and transferring employees to different departments without prior warning or explanation of any offense committed.”

Speaking to Minivan News, Khaleel said the company mainly targeted employees who supported the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

“They send people with cameras to MDP protests to check which MPL employees take part in the protests,” Khaleel said. The MDP has taken to the streets for the 11th consecutive day demanding fresh polls, alleging President Mohamed Nasheed was ousted in a coup d’état on February 7.

In addition to the four employees who have been dismissed, 30 have been suspended and 10 have been transferred from their position at the Malé port to Thilafushi Island port, Khaleel said.

In his letter, Khaleel called on the MPL to “respect an employee’s right to exercise freedoms granted in the constitution and by participating in political activities in his or her free time” and asked the company to withdraw blocks on “social media including facebook, twitter and gmail.”

In response, Imad in a letter on July 16 accused the MPWU of dividing employees and promoting the interests of a certain political party and threatened to take action against the union.

“We have received reports that the union is attempting to divide employees and promote the interests of a certain political party. Hence, I order and advice you not to do so. If this happens in the future, we will have to take action against you,” he said.

Further, access to social-networking sites had been blocked because they “often propagate un-Islamic, sinful activities and propagate the interests of Jews,” Imad said.

Khaleel denied Imad’s allegations, stating that “When MDP was in power, we had a lot of difficulty in registering the union. The MPL management at the time wrote a letter to the Home Ministry requesting that they deny our registration. We are not a political organization, we work for employee rights.”

The MPWU has been contact with other ports workers unions in the region to discuss steps to take next, Khaleel said.

In May, porters working at MPL went on strike after the management confiscated their TV for “watching too much Raajje TV.” Government aligned parties have accused Rajje TV of being aligned with the MDP.

Minivan News also documented the suspension of seven staff at MPL in April. The company claims staff were suspended for violating “norms of good behavior” outlined in the code of conduct, but staff told Minivan News they had been suspended for taking part in MDP protests.

Likes

(1)Dislikes

(0)

Finance Ministry orders all institutions to pay back former govt’s civil servant salary cuts

The Finance Ministry has today issued a circular informing all institutions to pay the amount cut from civil servants from January 2010 to December 2012 by the former government, staring from July onwards.

The circular said the money should be paid monthly and not in a lump sum, and advised all institutions to pay the amount from the annual budget for wages. If the money in budget was not enough, the finance ministry advised the institution to cut the money from the budget allocated for other expenses.

The circular was signed by the Ministry’s Financial Controller, Mohamed Ahmed.

The reduction in civil servant pay was introduced by the previous government in an attempt to manage a financial crisis back in 2009. The initial deduction, agreed between the Finance ministry and the Civil Service Commission (CSC), was only due to last for three months until the government’s income had risen above Rf7billion (US$544 million).

However, after the Finance Ministry refused to restore wages to the previous level, the CSC took the case to the courts.

The Civil Court ruled that the Finance Ministry did not have the authority to reduce the salaries, a cut of up to 20 percent in some cases. The CSC at the time interpreted this as a decision to restore the deducted salaries, a decision upheld by the High Court in May of last year.

In April this year the Civil Service Commission said the wage repayments, amounting to Rf443.7 million (US$28.8 million), will be disbursed in monthly installments over 12 months from July 1 this year. This money has not been accounted for in this year’s state budget, the deficit of which has already drawn concern from the International Monetary Fund.

In January 2010 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that international funding to the Maldives would be threatened if civil servant salaries are restored to former levels.

“One of the primary drivers of the large fiscal deficit has been government spending on public wages, which has more than doubled between 2007 and 2009, and is now one of the highest in the world relative to the size of the economy,” Rodrigo Cubero, IMF mission chief for the Maldives said at the time.

“Measures that would substantially raise the budget deficit, such as a reversal of previously announced wage adjustments, would also put the program off track, jeopardising prospects for multilateral and bilateral international financing,” he warned.

The Maldives is currently facing a foreign currency shortage, plummeting investor confidence, spiraling expenditure, a drop off in foreign aid and a crippling budget deficit of 27 percent.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nasheed and Defense Minister responsible for arrest of Judge Abdulla: HRCM shadow report

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has publicly revealed the names of those it considers responsible for the arbitrary arrest and detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, despite previously stating that it did not wish to reveal the names for risk of prejudicing any court action.

In the shadow report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in response to the Maldives initial state report submitted by the commission to UN Human Rights Committee in June, HRCM explicitly blames those responsible for the arbitrary arrest.

Article 71(iv) of the report reads: “It is conclusive to the investigation that the President and the Minister for Defense and National Security have to take the responsibility for arbitrary arrest and detention of the Chief Judge.”

Article 71(v) reads: “It is conclusive that it was the orders of the President to arrest Chief Judge as there was no action taken against the MNDF for disobedience to the orders of the Courts.”

However, in a press conference held on Wednesday, President of HRCM Mariyam Azra declined to give the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights. HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that it felt could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.

During the press conference, commission member Dr Ali Shameem spoke of the importance of having at least a “presence” of international human rights organsations at a time where the country was seeing violent political turbulence.

“I think it is very important that international human rights organisations have a presence – at least an office here in the Maldives – which we could easily reach on matters regarding human rights,” he said.

However, commission President Azra spoke against the views of the commission member, stating that she was of the view that it was “a domestic thing which we want to tackle ourselves.”

“I do not think we need an international presence. I believe the matter is a domestic thing and I am of the view that a local can be found,” she said.

During the press conference, members of the HRCM stated that their investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who had been in government during the time of Judge Abdulla’s detention, today raised concerns over what it claimed was the “complicit irresponsibility” of the HRCM – a body it alleged was biased towards the political interests of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Furthermore, the commission used the press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.

Speaking to Minivan News, Azra stated that she did had not declined to reveal the names of those who were found responsible, but said she had declined to suggest against whom the Prosecutor General (PG) should press charges.

“It is not my duty to say against whom the charges should be pressed. It’s the PG who will decide it,” she said.

“We have also sent a copy of the report to President Nasheed, the Defence Minister and all the concerned authorities,” she added.

She also stated that she had been unable to answer calls from Minivan News yesterday at time of press.

“Serious Concerns”

Responding to the press briefing, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – of which Nasheed is the current presidential candidate – said it held “serious concerns” in the selective nature of the HRCM’s investigations.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed. The case was yesterday returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

Ghafoor claimed that the decision to move ahead with the charges this week raised questions about allegations of political influence on the HRCM and the information it made available to the PG’s Office.

“I believe there is a very strong link between the HRCM holding this media briefing today and Islamist factions linked to [former President] Gayoom,” he added. “This week this faction has been very active in lobbying the HRCM, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and even the president himself.”

Just last month, Deputy leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has expressed his confidence that the Prosecutor General’s (PG) investigation into charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed will see his imprisonment before the scheduled elections in July 2013.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this. We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” local paper Haveeru reported Naseer as having said.

Likes

(1)Dislikes

(0)

Judge Abdulla’s human rights violated, no physical abuse: HRCM

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has told local media that while Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed had “not been subject to any form of physical abuse“ during his controversial 22 day detention, attempts had been made to violate his fundamental human rights.

Haveeru today reported that HRCM President Mariyam Azra had said that its investigation had uncovered evidence that the judge, who was detained during the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed over allegations that he posed a threat to national security, had faced attempts to remove him from his post and send him abroad.

Local media reports today claimed that HRCM President Azra had opted against giving the names of those involved in the alleged abuse of the judge’s human rights. HRCM also declined to give any other details at present that could influence any potential trials after charges were filed against Nasheed and several senior figures in the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) this week.

Azra was not responding to calls when contacted by Minivan News at time of press.

The HRCM used today’s press briefing to publicise its concerns that “efforts” had been made to “coerce” the judge to commit unspecified actions that would have contravened his human rights.

“Serious concerns”

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today alleged that the HRCM’s investigation had now formed the basis of criminal charges filed against Nasheed. The case was today returned to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office after the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it did not presently have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

In March, the Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz told Minivan News that the completion of the Nasheed cases was being delayed whilst police reviewed certain aspects of the investigation.

The PPM was formed by former President Gayoom, who also serves as head of the party.

HRCM investigation

Former President Nasheed became the first Maldivian president to be summoned before the HRCM in March this year in connection to his alleged role in the controversial detention of Judge Abdulla.

Nasheed had been requested to attend a HRCM hearing filed to try and understand who was responsible for taking the decision to arrest the judge. The former president attributed the initial arrest call to his Defence Ministry, on the grounds of “protecting” national security relating to alleged ethical concerns about the judge.

The summons of the former president was the first of three cases filed at the HRCM involving Nasheed. These cases all relate to potential human rights abuses allegedly carried out both by and against Nasheed during the lead up and aftermath of a controversial transfer of power that saw President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan installed as his successor.

Representatives of Nasheed’s legal counsel at the time claimed Nasheed has used his testimony to claim that he had been informed by the Home Ministry that the judge had allegedly posed a “national threat” – prompting his eventual detention.

The MDP MP added that Nasheed then claimed that the Home Ministry had communicated with the Defence Ministry on the situation, which in turn led to the decision to arrest the judge after bodies like the Judicial Service Commission has raised alleged concerns over his ethical conduct.

“I was told Abdulla Mohamed would not comply with the police’s summons to investigate allegations [against him],” Nasheed later stated at a press conference following the meeting with the HRCM.

“The Home Minister wrote to the Defense Minister that Abdulla Mohamed’s presence in the courts was a threat to national security. And to take necessary steps. And that step, the isolation of Abdulla Mohamed, was what the [Defense] Ministry deemed necessary.”

Nasheed claimed additionally that he had sent representatives to Girifushi to check on Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s well-being during his detention, alongside allowing the HRCM to visit the judge.

The MDP has also alleged that the decision to arrest the judge was related to a number of possible misdemeanour’s that had been attributed to him dating back several years.

In November, the national court watchdog, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), was ordered to cease an investigation into Judge Abdulla Mohamed by the Civil Court under an action the judge himself instigated.

MDP spokesperson and MP Imthiyaz Fahmy contended following Nasheed’s first HRCM summons on March 21 that it was ironic that a leader he claimed who had openly discouraged the use of torture and actively campaigned against human rights abuses, had become the country’s first former leader to have been called in front of the HRCM.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court rejected a case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President Mohamed Nasheed and three Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officers for their alleged role in detaining Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Hulhumale’ Court Magistrate Moosa Naseem told Minivan News that the case was sent back to the Prosecutor General’s Office after the court stated it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases under the Judicature Act.

‘’We studied the case and we found that we do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case according to article 66 of the Judicature Act,’’ Naseem said.

Naseem today told local media that the Hulhumale’-based court can only accept the case after the Chief Justice issues a decree in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Council as stated in the article 66[b] of the Judicature Act.

Article 66[b] of the Judicature Act states that “In accordance with Section (a) of this Article, if additions or omission to the jurisdictions stipulated in schedule 5 of this Act has to be carried out, the modification has to be done in agreement with the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Council and by a decree issued by the Chief Justice.’’

Deputy Prosecutor General Husaain Shameem said he was presently on leave and was not aware of the exact details of the matter when contacted by Minivan News. Prosecutor General Muiz was also not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press.

Earlier, Muiz has said that the case was sent to Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court because it related to the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court. He contended therefore that the case cannot be filed at the same court overseen by the judge owing to a conflict of interest.

Former President Nasheed has said that he is “prepared” to justify the reasons for the arrest of Judge Abdulla, and said he was ready to appear in court and prove his actions were valid.

Nasheed also dismissed accusations of the High Court, the Supreme Court and the prosecutor general that he had ordered the military to arrest Judge Abdulla unlawfully.

“I did nothing unlawful during my tenure,” he challenged.

He also called on the population to be present at his trial and witness what happened in the court, alleging that the whole case was politically motivated and that his opponents were seeking to gain an unfair upper hand from the “political scandal”.

The Chief Judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister and current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel.

In late 2011, Judge Abdulla was himself under investigation by the JSC, the country’s judicial watchdog, for allegedly politically biased comments made to private broadcaster DhiTV. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was due to release a report into Judge Abdulla’s ethical misconduct, however the judge approached the Civil Court and successfully filed an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading the Nasheed administration to appeal for international assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Commonwealth Envoy expresses concern at “rising political tension” in the Maldives

The Commonwealth Secretary General’s Special Envoy to the Maldives, Sir Donald McKinnon, has expressed concern at “rising political tension” in the Maldives – specifically over ongoing street protests and the criminal charges filed against ousted President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets for the tenth consecutive day calling for an early election, alleging the former President was deposed in a coup detat on February 7. Police have clashed violently with protesters resulting in injury to police and public as well as the arrest of hundreds of protesters. However, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has insisted the earliest constitutionally permitted date in which fresh polls can be held is July 2013.

Meanwhile, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz on Monday filed criminal charges against Nasheed for his alleged role in the detention of Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed in January.

The Commonwealth’s Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has urged for early elections to be held in 2012, and has played a crucial role in the reconstitution of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), set up to investigate the controversial transfer of power. The composition was changed after the Commonwealth raised concerns over the body’s impartiality during its first iteration. The CNI is expected to release its report by the end of August.

In a statement released yesterday, Sir Donald called for dialogue among political leaders, urging all parties to show “restraint and restore calm.”

“It is absolutely essential that all relevant actors in Maldives refrain from any actions that could jeopardise the stable environment necessary to allow the Commission of National Inquiry to complete its work and produce an outcome within the stipulated time-frame,” he said.

“Restore calm”

Sir Donald added that he has been in contact with President Waheed and Mohamed Nasheed to discuss the MDP’s ongoing protests, along with the response by security forces to these demonstrations and the charges filed against the former president.

“What is very much needed in Maldives right now is for all concerned to show restraint and restore calm. Any actions that create or exacerbate political instability cannot be helpful to the national interest, including in the difficult economic circumstances at the moment in the country and the global context,” Sir Donald said.

The Maldives is facing a foreign currency shortage, plummeting investor confidence, spiraling expenditure, a drop off in foreign aid and a crippling budget deficit of 27 percent.

Speaking on the need for a stable environment for the CNI to complete its work, and urging all parties to refrain from jeopardising the commission’s efforts, Sir Donald said: “We have all invested a huge amount of time, energy and resources in reconstituting the Commission of National Inquiry, to establish the truth about the events of 7 February 2012 and help Maldives move forward. The international community has been supportive of these efforts.”

Hence, Sir Donald has called on Maldivian leaders to engage in dialogue, stating that “Ultimately, any resolution of contentious political issues in Maldives can only come about through inclusive political dialogue.”

“I therefore urge the leaders of Maldives to engage in genuine dialogue, with the interest of the people of Maldives in mind,” he added.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Gafoor welcomed the Special Envoy’s statement, but said that MDP protests would continue. “You must remember our protests are non-violent and are aimed at restoring political stability,” he told Minivan News.

Stalemate

Sir Donald’s comments come at a time when renewed attempts at restarting the All-Party talks appear at a stalemate.

The talks were conceived as one of two internationally-backed mechanisms – alongside the CNI – to resolve the political deadlock in the Maldives following the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

The Convenor of the All-Party talks, Ahmed Mujuthaba, on July 12 announced that a series of “high-level” discussions will be held between President Waheed and the leaders of the largest political parties after sixteen previous attempts had resulted in “no breakthrough.”

However, a spokesperson for President Waheed on Tuesday said the president will not hold talks with Nasheed as long as street protests continue, condemning the protests as an “act of terrorism.”

Meanwhile, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – who served as the country’s autocratic leader for 30 years up to 2008 – said he would not negotiate with Nasheed. Gayoom claimed that Nasheed had made baseless comments about him in both the local and the international community, particularly that the former President had masterminded a “coup d’état” on February 7.

Nasheed subsequently released a statement on Monday arguing that his allegations were based on public statements made by Gayoom and those closely affiliated with him politically, including his family members – many of whom now hold senior positions in government. Nasheed then offered to apologize if Gayoom agreed to participate in the all-party talks.

“Given that not for a single moment would I wish for someone unelected by the people of Maldives to entertain himself as leader to them, I believe now is the time for all parties to come forth in support of the best interest of the nation and its citizens, and as such, if President Gayoom indeed was not party to the coup, I have decided to apologise to President Gayyoom for the fact that I said he was behind this coup,” Nasheed said in his statement.

However, Gayoom told local media today that he believed Nasheed’s apology was “insincere” and has asked Nasheed to issue a formal apology on local and international media.

Likes

(3)Dislikes

(0)