Category: Politics

UN war crimes report on Sri Lanka foreign policy challenge for Maldives

The Sri Lankan government is grappling with the political fallout of a leaked UN report accusing it – and the Liberation  Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rebels – of potential crimes against humanity in the closing days of the civil war.

The report on the final stage of the war between LTTE and the Sri Lankan authorities was leaked to the media, containing allegations, among others, that the army shelled hospitals, UN facilities and aid workers with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The report further alleges that the government intimidated and in some cases silenced the media, even abducting journalists in “white vans”.

Meanwhile, UK television network Channel 4 last week said it will air what it claims is “probably the most horrific” footage the station has ever shown, after obtaining “trophy” videos of what it claims are Sri Lankan war crimes.

According to the network, footage obtained by the station includes “extrajudicial executions filmed by Sri Lankan soldiers as war trophies on their phones; the aftermath of shelling in civilian camps and hospitals alleged to have been deliberately targeted by Sri Lankan government forces; dead female Tamil fighters who appear to have been systematically raped; and pictures which document Tamil fighters alive in the custody of Sri Lankan government forces and then later dead, apparently having been executed.”

The director of ITN productions, Callum Macrae, told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that the filmmakers had “trawled through hours of devastating imagery shot by Tamils under attack and Sri Lankan soldiers as war trophies. The claims made by eyewitnesses in the film appear to be illustrated in each case by video footage or still images.”

The Sri Lankan government has reportedly complained to the UK’s media regulator Ofcom regarding the station’s intention to air the footage.

Channel 4’s announcement comes a week after a UN report on the closing days of the war between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan authorities was leaked to the media, containing allegations, among others, that the army shelled hospitals, UN facilities and aid workers with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The report further alleges that the government intimidated and in some cases silenced the media, even abducting journalists in “white vans”.

“The government says it pursued a ‘humanitarian rescue operation’ with a policy of ‘zero civilian casualties’. In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity,” the report reads.

“Despite grave danger in the conflict zone, the LTTE refused civilians permission to leave, using them as hostages, at times even using their presence as a strategic human buffer between themselves and the advancing Sri Lanka Army. It implemented a policy of forced recruitment throughout the war, but in the final stages greatly intensified its recruitment of people of all ages, including children as young as fourteen. The LTTE forced civilians to dig trenches for its own defenses, thereby contributing to blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians and exposing civilians to additional harm. All of this was done in a quest to pursue a war that was clearly lost; many civilians were sacrificed on the altar of the LTTE cause and its efforts to preserve its senior leadership.

A former UN spokesperson for the UN in Sri Lanka was reported in the UK’s Independent newspaper as saying that the report “damns the government of Sri Lanka’s so-called war on terror, which incidentally killed many thousands of civilians. The Tamil Tigers were equally rotten in their disdain for life.”

Sri Lankan media has meanwhile been busily criticising the veracity of the report, the UN panel involved, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself.

Yesterday, Ki-moon announced that he would welcome a mandate from the UN Human Rights Council, Security Council or General Assembly to launch an international war crimes investigation into the final two years of Sri Lanka’s civil war, as per the recommendation of the UN report.

Such a mandate would require consent from the Sri Lankan government – unlikely, given that it has labelled the report as “fundamentally flawed and patently biased” – or through a decision by the UN’s 192 member states.

The US Embassy in Sri Lanka has also privately expressed concerns about the Sri Lankan government’s actions during the closing days of the war.

In a leaked US Embassy cable sent on January 15 2010, Ambassador Patricia Butenis remarked there was a clear “lack of attention to accountability” following the mass killings of Tamils in the final days of the war, a situation she described as “regrettable” but unsurprising.

“There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power,” Butenis said in the cable.

“In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and [then] opposition candidate General Fonseka.”

The UN report and subsequent international furore likely to be generated in the wake of the Channel 4 program places the Maldives in a difficult position, between its stated (and much promoted) human rights agenda, and its national and economic interest.

Sri Lanka is one of the Maldives’ key economic and regional partners, and a major transit hub for both trade and tourists visiting the country. President Mahindra Rajapaksa extended the Maldives a US$200 million credit line in November, and even travelled to the Maldives to mediate a dispute between the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party and opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) in July last year. President Mohamed Nasheed subsequently attended Rajapaksa’s swearing in ceremony.

At the same time the Maldives is a vocal member of the UN Human Rights Council and an avid proponent of human rights, with the Foreign Ministry only recently declaring that it was severing diplomatic ties with the Libyan government due of “clear evidence that the Gaddafi regime is guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

It is not inconceivable that were the UN’s case to gather momentum and international public opinion, the matter could go to vote and the Maldives could be compelled to publicly defend its neighbour from the international community.

President Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair emphasised that the Maldives saw the end of both the terrorist attacks and the civil war in Sri Lanka as “a very positive development.”

“The government has very close ties with [Sri Lankan President] Rajapaksa,” Zuhair said. “Our position is that the Maldives has very good relations with neighbouring countries, and has hundreds if not thousands of years of trade and bilateral relationships with Sri Lanka.”

The post-war situation, he suggested, was “fluid”.

“I’m concerned the UN report is a bit belated. Why say it now? Why not when the war was going on? My point is that this report only appeared after the war was over. We support the Sri Lankan government’s desire for peace and harmony, and any government that brought about that peace should be held in high honour.”

If an investigation was to take place, Zuhair suggested, “it should happen in an independent manner, with reconciliation on both sides.”

The Maldives’ Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem is currently in the UK and was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police clash with protesters in crowded street injures “dozens”

A large crowd of mostly young people last night held a protest in Male’ against the rising cost of living, following a spike in import costs brought on by the government’s managed float of the rufiya – a decision which has led to a cost increase for dollar commodities of up to 20 percent.

Although the protest was led by opposition leaders, Minivan News observed many unfamiliar faces not identified as members of either major party.

The protest’s leadership consisted mostly of those from the ‘Z-DRP’ faction of the opposition loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, including MPs Ahmed Mahlouf, Ilham Ahmed and dismissed Deputy Leader Umar Naseer, Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed, Jumhoory Party (JP) MP Ibrahim Muthalib and other opposition allies were also present at the protest.

The group gathered near the artificial beach last night around 9:00pm and marched towards the tourist street of Chandhanee Magu, occupying the intersection with the main road of Majeedhee Magu. Minivan News observed many protesters sitting or lying down in the intersection, some having coffee.

Riot police initially blocked off vehicle access to the area, and waited without taking any action.

However at around 3:30am early on Sunday morning, police advised protesters to leave the area or otherwise they would use force to disperse the crowd.

The protesters declined to leave the area and continued protesting, whereupon police issued several warnings before throwing tear gas canisters into the crowd camped in the narrow and congested intersection, and moving in with shields and batons.

Male and female protesters were injured in the incident after being attacked with batons, while police claimed officers were injured in the effort after bricks were thrown. Protesters also pelted police with empty water bottles, empty cans and other such materials.

“One female officer was hit in the chest with a pavement stone, she is still hospitalised,’’ said Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam.

While police were attempting to disperse the crowd, a motorbike in the area was destroyed by fire and the glass window of a nearby shop was broken.

After the violent attacks, police failed to completely disperse the crowd as the protesters continued to return to the area and gathering.

Local media SunFM and Haveeru News also reported that police used excessive force on their journalists taking coverage of the area.

Haveeru, which described the incident as a “deadly clash”, reported that its journalists were arrested after they refused to leave the area were told by a police spokesperson that even journalists wearing press identification could not stay in the area.

The protest lasted until 9:00am this morning, lasting a total of 12 hours.

Residents living in the densely-populated urban area surrounding the intersection have complained of women and children being affected by tear gas used by police used to control the riot.

News agency Associated Press reported Gayoom’s spokesperson, Mohamed Hussain ‘Mundhu’ Shareef, as saying that dozens were hospitalised in the demonstration consisting of 5000 people rallying against “economic hardship, alleged government mismanagement and wasteful spending”, but was unable to raise a response from the Maldivian government. News of the incident quickly went international, appearing on the Washington Post and other major newspapers.

This afternoon the President’s Office released a statement condemning the violent protest as orchestrated by supporters of the former President.

“Scores of people were injured and shops and private property were damaged when protesters hurled bricks and other projectiles at the police. The police responded to the unprovoked assault with tear gas and made several arrests,” the statement said.

“The protest was orchestrated by the Z-DRP, a faction of the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party, which is under the control of former President Gayoom.”

President Mohamed Nasheed’s spokesperson, Mohamed Zuhair, added that “peaceful political activity, such as the right to protest, is legal – and indeed welcome – in the Maldives’ new democracy. But there can be no excuse for needlessly causing violence in the streets. We have numerous peaceful political rallies, protests, petitions and other forms of legitimate democratic activity throughout the year, which is a healthy part of our democracy. However, whenever Mr Gayoom’s supporters take to the streets, it always seems to end in violence and bloodshed,” Zuhair added.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom told Minivan News that he believed the protests, which he described as a “youth movement” rather than an opposition political gathering, had been building for some time amidst concerns regarding the government’s commitment to democracy and increased living costs.

“We feel the protests are overdue, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is not championing democracy like it promised,” he said.

Mausoom claimed that the prime areas where he believed the government had failed to bring about democratic reforms – a key policy area for the governing MDP party – were in freedom of expression and allowing protesters to demonstrate peacefully.

Although opposition parties like the DRP and the recently formed spin-off faction the Z-DRP were present at the protest, Mausoom said that they had been invited by local young people to support their concerns.

“This has been organised by young people [of the Maldives]. Opposition parties joined in support only after being invited. This was not a political movement, but a youth movement,” he claimed. “The protests were in themselves largely peaceful and we feel the police response was inappropriate.”

Mausoom added that he believed that the protesters should have been given the right to air their concerns and called on the government to address areas such as spending on political advertising and cutting living costs.

The opposition DRP has recently been split by infighting and violence between supporters of Gayoom and those of the party’s leader, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, triggered by the expulsion last year of Deputy Leader Umar Naseer from the party for organising protests without sanction from the DRP Council.

Both sides claimed the animosity within the party was cause it to “disintegrate“, and there was speculation that Gayoom’s supporters would form a spin-off opposition party. However last Thursday, two days before the protest, Gayoom’s faction officially announced that it was “commencing work” as the Zaeem-DRP (Z-DRP), a separate branch of the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The Zaeem-DRP (Z-DRP) faction today announced that it has officially commenced its work as a separate branch of the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

An earlier protest on April 12 against the government’s currency decision ended peacefully, with both factions conducting separate rallies around Male’.

A currency in crisis

The government has struggled to cope with an exacerbating dollar shortage brought on by a high budget deficit – triggered by a spiralling public sector expenditure – in comparison with the foreign currency flowing into the country. Civil service expenditure has increased in real terms by 400 percent since 2002.

Banks subsequently demonstrated reluctance to sell dollars at the pegged rate of Rf 12.85, and high demand for travel, commodities and overseas medical treatment forced most institutions to ration their supply or turn to the flourishing blackmarket.

After a short-lived attempt to crack down on the illegal exchange of dollars, the government floated the rufiya within a 20 percent band, effectively allowing it to be sold at up to Rf 15.42 to the dollar.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has been critical of the government’s growing expenditure despite a large budget deficit, praised the decision as a step towards a mature and sustainable economy.

“Today’s bold step by the authorities represents an important move toward restoring external sustainability,” the IMF said in a statement. “IMF staff support this decision made by the authorities. We remain in close contact and are ready to offer any technical assistance that they may request.”

However many companies dealing in dollar commodities immediately raised their exchange rates to Rf 15.42, along with the Bank of Maldives.

The government’s move, while broadly unpopular, acknowledges the devaluation of the rufiya in the wake of increased expenditure and its own inability to overcome the political obstacles inherent in reducing spending on the country’s bloated civil service.

Yet as Maldives relies almost entirely on imported goods and fuel, and many ordinary citizens have found themselves harshly affected by short-term spike in prices of up to 20 percent as the rufiya settles.

“We do not really know, based on the breadth of the domestic economy, what the value of the Maldivian rufiyaa is right now,” Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razee admitted at a recent press conference.

The government has said it hopes the rufiya will stabilise within three months.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Alhan wins MDP Vice Presidency while Dr Ibrahim Didi in line for top post

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has announced the preliminary results of the party’s elections for its President and Vice President.

The results currently show that former Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi has won the presidency of the party with 6909 votes, in close competition with the President’s Special Envoy Ibrahim Zak (6554 votes).

Meanwhile former Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MP Alhan Fahmy has beaten Hussein Adam and Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam for the MDP Vice-Presidency with 7709 votes. Aslam received 5421 votes while Adam received 71 votes.

Fahmy changed sides to the ruling party in early 2010 after he was brought before the DRP’s disciplinary committee for voting against its party line on a motion to dismiss then-Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed for opening relations with Israel.

Housing Minister Aslam has congratulated Alhan for his victory, following the release of the preliminary results. 121 ballot boxes of 218 have been counted so far, with official results to be announced in three days.

Aslam has also congratulated MDP Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi on running a successful election.

Alhan did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Proposed crime prevention legislation may sideline human rights

MPs voted yesterday 71 to 2 in favour of convening a special sitting of parliament during its recess in May, to vote on crime prevention legislation amended to include provisions from delayed bills on criminal justice procedure, evidence law and jails and parole.

On the proposal to convene parliament next Monday during the recess, Speaker Abdulla Shahid explained that as the crime bill was completed by committee only yesterday, there was not enough time to table it in today’s agenda and vote on amendments before breaking for recess.

“And since the report sent by the Public Accounts Committee after evaluating the President’s nominee for Auditor General was received today, in order to complete the matter of these two reports that will be sent to MPs today, I ask the honourable MPs to vote as see fit on whether to hold a sitting outside the normal session under section 33(c) of the Majlis rules of procedure,” said Shahid, putting the proposal to a vote.

The bill on special measures to prevent crime, originally submitted by ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa in April 2010, proposes restricting the right to remain silent and allowing judges to extend detention periods and protect state witnesses.

Following consultation with the National Crime Prevention Committee last week, parliamentary group leaders agreed to add provisions requested by the authorities to the draft legislation in lieu of submitting a new bill, which would have had to pass through a lengthy legislative process.

The additions to Musthafa’s bill were reportedly drafted by Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South Mohamed Nasheed, who was Legal Reform Minister in the previous government.

Minivan News understands that the amended draft legislation contains a number of provisions that could violate or restrict constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and a mandatory 15 day detention period.

If passed into law, police would be empowered to enter private property without a court order to arrest a person suspected of any of the crimes listed in the legislation or in case evidence is being or hidden.

Moreover, a person accused of any of the crimes in clause four of the bill could meet a lawyer in private only after 96 hours after the arrest, prior to which any such meeting would have to take place in the presence of police officers.

If a suspect is arrested at the scene of a crime with related evidence either on his person or at the place, the court could interpret the silence of the accused as an admission of guilt or association with the crime.

On extension of custody or remand detention, courts must consider the criminal record of the accused along with police intelligence and grant a minimum mandatory period of 15 days of remand detention.

In addition, refusal by the accused to disclose information on finances or assets considered as evidence shall be deemed an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.

The list of offences for which the above provisions shall apply are murder; death by assault; loss of a limb or organ due to assault; seriously injury caused by assault; participation in assault while possessing a dangerous weapon; presence at the crime while possessing a dangerous weapon; use of force or threatening to employ a dangerous weapon at a crime scene; involvement in armed robbery or mugging while possessing a weapon that could be used for murder; group involvement in armed robbery and mugging; robbery by breaking and entering or causing damage to property; armed robbery; crimes specified under Prohibition of Gang Crimes Act; kidnapping and holding a person hostage; blackmail; sexual abuse; trading and possession of more than three grams of illicit drugs; committing any of the above-listed crimes while under influence of alcohol; attempting, assisting or participation in any of the above-listed crimes.

“Special provisions”

The original bill meanwhile had also proposed restricting the right to remain silent in cases of threats of violence against persons or property, violent assault with a weapon, manslaughter and murder; drug trade and trafficking; possession of dangerous weapons in public; sexual assault involving two or more persons; and the crime of terrorism.

Article two clause (b) states that video footage of confessions made during police interrogation shall be admissible as evidence.

While article four enables the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to seek protection for state witnesses either upon request by the witness or by the discretion of prosecutors, judges would be authorised to grant witness protection after studying detailed reasons that has to be put forward by the prosecution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Z-DRP faction officially commences work, denies backing presidential candidate

The Zaeem-DRP (Z-DRP) faction today announced that it has officially commenced its work as a separate branch of the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Formed amidst an ongoing dispute between serving DRP leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and his predecessor and former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the Z-DRP aims to represent the former national leader and his supporters.

DRP MP Ahmed Mahouf told Minivan News today that the Z-DRP faction has now formed a council and a committee to officially organise and coordinate the work of the faction.

“Last night, our first meeting was held and it was chaired by Azima Shukoor,” Mahlouf said. “In the meeting, we decided to set up our own office.”

Mahlouf said that during the meeting, the group’s members raised concerns that DRP Leader Thasmeen had disconnected the phone lines of island-based party offices and that the Z-DRP faction was unable to have contact with them.

DRP MPs, including Thasmeen and Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef, were unavailable for comment about these claims when contacted by Minivan News at the time of going to press.

“The committee we formed consists of Umar Naseer, MP Ilham Ahmed, myself, [Gayoom’s daughter] Yumna Maumoon, Azima Shukoor and Dr Saud” said Mahlouf.

Mahlouf also said that Thasmeen was accusing the Z-DRP faction of promoting the People’s Alliance (PA) party leader and half-brother of the former president, Yamin Abdul Abdul Gayoom as its candidate in the next presidential elections.

‘It’s all false accusations, we have decided to elect a person as presidential candidate only after going to a primary,” he said. “It could be anyone.”

He claimed that out of the 40,000 registered members belonging to the DRP, 30,000 were in support of the Z-DRP faction.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom loses defamation case over NYT “looters” article

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has lost a long-running defamation case against the editor of Miadhu newspaper Abdul ‘Gabey’ Latheef.

Gayoom sued Latheef over an article published on June 13, 2010 which referenced allegations of corruption against the former President made in a New York Times (NYT) report.

That story was based on an audit report of former Presidential palace Theemuge, published by Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem, a damning indictment of the former government’s spending habits.

These, according to the NYT article, included an estimated “US$9.5 million spent buying and delivering a luxury yacht from Germany for the president, US$17 million on renovations of the presidential palace and family houses, a saltwater swimming pool, badminton court, gymnasium, 11 speed boats and 55 cars, including the country’s only Mercedes-Benz.”

“And the list goes on, from Loro Piana suits and trousers to watches and hefty bills for medical services in Singapore for ‘important people and their families. There was a US$70,000 trip to Dubai by the first lady in 2007, a US$20,000 bill for a member of the family of the former president to stay a week at the Grand Hyatt in Singapore. On one occasion, diapers were sent to the islands by airfreight from Britain for Mr Gayoom’s grandson.”

Onus of proof

The Civil Court ruled today that as both articles were based on a state audit report, the information made public by the country’s first independent auditor general should be considered valid unless proven otherwise.

The court judgment added that there was no legal basis for individuals or media outlets to be held responsible for proving the truth or falsehood of an official audit report.

Delivering the judgment, Judge Mariyam Nihayath said that while the court believed the articles in question could be damaging to Gayoom’s reputation, information publicised in an audit report must be considered factual unless proven otherwise.

“Regardless of how damaging statements made or information provided is to the plaintiff’s honour or dignity, if the statement or information is true, [defamation law] states that it cannot be considered defamatory,” she said.

Latheef told Minivan News today that the court case was the first case Gayoom had lost in 32 years, and was a landmark case for freedom of the media.

“The media must be able to report on independent authorities such as the Auditor General’s Office or the Anti-Corruption Commission,” he said. “His lawyers said in court four or five times that they wanted to stop the media writing about these things.”

The court’s ruling meant that Gayoom was obliged to sue the source of the allegations, the Auditor General’s office, rather than the media that reported on it, Latheef said.

“[Gayoom] has been saying for three years he would take the Auditor General to court, but he hasn’t because he knows he will lose. But he thinks that, because I’m just an ordinary man, he can sue me,” he said.

Latheef said that one of Gayoom’s lawyers had approached him to settle out of court, but said he had refused as that would not have resolved the issue of media freedom at stake.

“They also approached me indirectly through some of my close friends to say why didn’t I settle and say sorry in court, and then they could support me. I said it was not compensation I needed.”

Latheef said Gayoom’s lawyers had told him after the verdict that they intended to appeal in the High Court.

“I am ready to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Latheef.

Gayoom’s spokesperson Mohamed ‘Mundhu’ Shareef had not responded to Minivan News at time of press.

Head of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir, said he agreed with the ruling and felt that it was a good precedent for the country’s journalists.

“The NYT reported on the audit report and Mr Latheef reported on the NYT story. I agree with the court’s judgement,” Hiriga said, concurring that the media was not under obligation to prove the veracity of official government reports.

“The authenticity of the audit report is a different question, and the accusation is that the Auditor General was biased and that the report was politically motivated. That was the basis of the argument by Gayoom’s lawyer,” Hiriga said.

“Politically motivated”

The opposition have steadfastly maintained that the report was a politically-motivated attempt to sully the then-president’s reputation prior to the election. Naeem was however appointed by Gayoom.

“It is common knowledge that Naeem’s audit reports were both politically-motivated and riddled with inaccuracies. References from such documents are unbecoming of professional journalists, albeit the MDP government utilises them as handbooks to achieve their political objectives,” said the DRP in a statement following publication of the article.

“The MDP government, in an year and a half of searching through its ‘presidential commission’, has failed to find anything that they can pin against President Gayoom to defame his character. The MDP government will continue to fail in their sinister plots,” the DRP statement read.

“The DRP will take all necessary action to alert the international community to the government’s sinister motives behind the allegations against the former president. We condemn the government for its continued attempts to shroud its incompetence in running the country behind cheap propaganda gimmicks.”

Naeem’s tenure following publication of over 30 audit reports, alleging rampant corruption and “organised crime” by the Gayoom administration, was short-lived.

On March 24 last year, Naeem sent a list of current and former government ministers to the Prosecutor General, requesting they be prosecuted for failure to declare their assets.  Naeem cited Article 138 of the Constitution that requires every member of the Cabinet to “annually submit to the Auditor General a statement of all property and monies owned by him, business interests and all assets and liabilities.”

He then held a press conference: “A lot of the government’s money was taken through corrupt [means] and saved in the banks of England, Switzerland, Singapore and Malaysia,” Naeem said, during his first press appearance in eight months.

Five days later he was dismissed by the opposition-majority parliament on allegations of corruption by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), for purportedly using the government’s money to buy a tie and visit Thulhaidhu in Baa Atoll.

The motion to dismiss Naeem was put forward by the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), chaired by Deputy Speaker and member of opposition-allied People’s Alliance (PA), Ahmed Nazim, who the previous week had pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the former Ministry of Atolls Development while he was Managing Director of Namira Engineering and Trading Pvt Ltd.

Nazim was today dismissing claims from opposition MPs that he has dodged Criminal Court summons regarding the matter eight times to date.

The parliament has meanwhile yet to approve a replacement auditor general, with the finance committee refusing to endorse any of the candidates put forward so far by President Mohamed Nasheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldives on path to Right to Information Act

Three years after conducting elections, the Maldives is on a path to participatory democracy by trying to finalise the Right to Information Bill, with the Bill under review by the Majlis Committee on Social Affairs. The Bill was drafted with inputs from civil society.

It’s a challenge for Maldives to implement Right to Information as a part of functional and participatory democracy. In general, both politicians and bureaucrats in Maldives accept that despite experiencing higher levels of human development compared to its neighbors in the South Asia region, the Maldives wasn’t an open society under 30-year long President Mamoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration. In a paradigm shift, the current President Mohamed Nasheed after being elected in the October 2008 general elections acknowledged that the previous administration was characterised by several examples of corruption and human rights abuses. Furthermore, the Maldives media was completely under the control of the government with little freedom for free and unbiased reporting until 2003. The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the then Constitution wasn’t in practice.

Earlier, the exercise of democratic reform initiated by Gayoom’s regime in its final years had given some meaning to the idea of freedom of expression. Censorship of the media was reduced considerably by the year 2006 which can be attributed to pressure from civil society and the opposition parties. However information from government bodies was disseminated by their public relations officers on a need to know basis only. The old Constitution did not contain any reference to the people’s right to information.

As part of the process of initiating democratic reform in 2007, the then Minister for Information and Legal Reforms drafted a Bill on the right to information. This Bill was closely modeled on the access laws of the Common Wealth countries such as United Kingdom and Canada. Article XIX an international resource organization on freedom of expression and access to information assisted the Government with drafting this Bill. The Bill could not pass muster in the People’s Majlis as it fell short of majority support by one vote.

Despite this debacle the Minister for Information and Legal Reforms took the initiative of converting the Bill into a set of regulations applicable to the executive only. The regulations were notified by Presidential decree on 03 May 2008 on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day. The objectives of the regulations were to: provide Maldivians with the right to access information held by government administrative specify the situations and conditions under which information shall not be disclosed.

The Government gave itself a lead time of eight months to prepare for the implementation of the regulations which were to become fully operational in January 2009. Under the regulations there was a provision to appoint an Information Commissioner to guide its implementation and adjudicate over access disputes. However by May 2008 the Civil Service Commission was created in order to shoulder the responsibility of recruiting and overseeing the civil service. The erstwhile Presidential function of recruiting people to the civil service was transferred to this Commission. The then Government took this step bowing to pressure from the opposition parties ahead of the Presidential elections. It is said that these procedural difficulties came in the way of the appointment of the Information Commissioner forthwith.

The new Constitution enacted in 2008 after the October 2008 elections guarantees not only the right to freedom of speech and expression but also the freedom to seek receive and impart information. Subsequently in November 2009 the Attorney General of Maldives tabled the Right to Information Bill 2009 in the People’s Majlis. This Bill is closely modeled on the existing RTI Regulations.

Challenges to Implementing RTI in the Maldives

Legislature challenge: As Maldives is presently undergoing a process of democratic consolidation the legislative agenda of the People’s Majlis is heavy and the law makers they will serve their purpose well if they acquaint with law-making and drafting legislatures. The RTI Bill is one of the important pieces of legislation waiting the approval of the Majlis.

Executive challenge: A large majority of the members of the bureaucracy continue to be unaware of the RTI Regulations. Further, the systematic challenges are compounded by the fact that government is going through a process of large scale restructuring, ministries and departments are being abolished and their duties and responsibilities reassigned to others. Instances of loss or misplacement of documents of the abolished offices during this transitional process are not rare. The existing departments will have difficulties when people start asking for information about the activities of the abolished offices. The communications system within executive is an obstacle in the infantry stages of the implementation of the RTI law.

The Maldives is currently engaged in the process of democratic consolidation and restructuring of government. Despite this onerous task the Government has placed transparency high on its agenda. The introduction of the RTI Bill in the People’s Majlis is the first step in fulfilling the MDP alliance’s electoral promise of transparency in the administration. Still the bill needs several major changes for it to be matched up to international standards. The bureaucracy also needs to be more efficient to provide people with access to information in real time. Mass awareness raising programmes must be initiated to educate Maldivian about their right to information and its responsible use. In this way, advocacy in the Maldives can be both top-down and down-top.

Meanwhile, civil society has also pitched in with effective changes to be made in the Maldives Right to Information Bill for effective implementation of the RTI. The recommendations on the bill made by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative would like to point out the following changes that are applicable at various places throughout the RTI Bill:

Gender sensitive language must be used: It is common practice in both developed and developing countries to use gender-sensitive language in the drafting of legislation.

Replace ‘records’ with ‘information’: The RTI Bill purports to provide access to people to the ‘records’ held by public authorities. However as the title of the Bill suggests it is a law intending to provide for the right to access ‘information’ and not merely ‘records’ which is a sub-category of the former.

In practice, the use of the word ‘record’ is much more limiting than the use of the term ‘information’. Providing access to “information” will mean that applicants will not be restricted to accessing only information that is already in the form of a hard copy record or document. The current formulation excludes access to materials such as scale models; samples of materials used in public works and information that may exist in disaggregate form in multiple records that may require compilation or collation. Replacing the term ‘records’ with the term ‘information’, unless otherwise required by the context is required.

Ensure stricter harm tests in the exemption clauses: Several exemptions clauses listed in the Bill have a lower threshold of harm test than what is considered as international best practice. The term ‘prejudice’ is used to define the harm caused to a protected interest if information is disclosed under specific circumstances [For example S27 (a), 28, 30]. ‘Prejudice’ is a vague term and is amenable to varied interpretation. Instead the phrase ‘serious harm’ is a much better usage as it requires that sound arguments and logic be put forth to refuse disclosure.

Public authorities must have a duty to confirm or deny possession of information: most of the clauses stipulating the circumstances in which information is exempt from disclosure do not place a duty on public authorities to confirm or deny the existence of a record in their possession. For example, S23 relating to personal information, S24 relating to protection of professional privilege, S25 relating to business affairs and trade secrets, S26 relating to health and safety, S28 relating to law enforcement, S29 relating to defence and security, S30 relating to economic interest, S31 relating to administration and formulation of policy and S32 relating to a Cabinet document all empower a public authority to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record in its possession.

This rider is characteristic of the second generation of access laws passed after World War II. The access laws of Canada, Australia passed in the 1980s and more recently the access law in UK contain such provisions. However several access laws belonging to the third generation enacted during the 1990s and later place an obligation on public authorities to confirm or deny the existence of a record. The change in international best practice is most welcome as the absence of an obligation to confirm or deny the existence of a record opens the path to commit a lot of mischief.

In conclusion, the implementation of the RTI in Maldives means that beginning of decentralization and participatory governance and a citizen-friendly orientation to government. This will help Maldives in effective nation-building and empowering citizens.

Venkatesh Nayak is Coordinator, Access to Information Programme and Balaji is Volunteer with Media Unit of 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(0)Dislikes(0)

Fees paid “in full and complete compliance with the concession agreement”: GMR

GMR Male International Airport (GMIAL) today sought to clarify the payment of the airport service charges, fuel re-export royalty and concession fees to the government, following reports in newspaper Haveeru that it was undergoing a tax audit due to “inconsistencies”.

Commissioner General of Taxation Yazeed Mohamed was reported in Haveeru as saying that the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) was conducting an audit of the payments as “we looked into the speculations and found that there are some issues with the amounts paid.”

Yesterday, Haveeru reported the Managing Director of the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) Mohamed Ibrahim as saying that the concession fee GMR had paid was US$2.6 million less than predicted.

“The payment was made in the first week of this month. We have informed the company that the amount does not match our estimations. The Finance Ministry has also informed the company that the actual amount would be more than that,” Ibrahim was reported as saying.

GMIAL issued a statement today claiming that concession fees up until March 31 had been paid “in full and complete compliance with the concession agreement.”

“MACL had certain observations to which GMIAL responded on April 11. MACL has not approached GMIAL with any further comments on the issue,” the statement read.

GMIAL further claimed the airport service charge was collected from airlines on behalf of the government until March 31 and paid to the MIRA on April 24, while the fuel re-export royalty was paid to MIRA on April 24 “as per the terms of the fuel re-export agreement.”

“GMIAL has not received any official communication from MIRA, other than acknowledgement of receipt, in relation to the above,” the statement concluded.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MIRA’s Director of Assessment and Audit Aiman Ibrahim said that the audit was “routine, as conducted for all tax types” and that the only inconsistency was that the airport service charge payment “was lower than our forecast.”

“Our forecast for the first three months, based on arrival and departures and factored into our 2011 budget, was that the airport service charge revenue would be US$4 million. The payment for November 25 to March 31 was US$3.9 million, so either there has been an underpayment or our forecasts were optimistic,” Ibrahim said.

The confusion was complicated, he said, “by an administration failure on behalf of the government. The Ministry of Finance was not aware it was supposed to be receiving the money. There is also conflict in the concession agreement: the agreement itself states that the [airport service charge] is to be paid monthly, but an annex in the agreement says payments are to be made on a quarterly basis. GMR had been keeping the money in a separate bank account.”

MIRA had not formally notified GMIAL that it was being audited, he said, as it was a routine audit and no notification was required unless further documentation from GMIAL was required.

GMR had met with MIRA today, Rasheed added, “and were very cooperative. They were concerned about the negative publicity.”

Indian infrastructure giant GMR, in consortium with Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB), last year won a bid to develop and manage Male’ International Airport under a 25 year concession agreement which includes a spend of almost US$400 million on a new terminal.

Under the agreement the consortium paid the government US$78 million upfront, and will pay one percent of its profits and 15 percent of fuel trade revenue until 2014. From 2015 it will pay the government 10 percent of airport profits and 27 percent of the fuel trade until 2035.

The agreement has been a major point of contention with the political opposition in the Maldives, which opposed it on nationalistic grounds.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mahlouf’s resolution to postpone recess narrowly defeated

A resolution to delay parliament’s upcoming recess at the end of the month, until crucial bills to reform the criminal justice system could be passed, was narrowly defeated today.

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Mahlouf had proposed extending the ongoing session until belated bills on evidence law, criminal justice procedure and special measures to combat crime along with amendments to the gang crimes legislation and Children’s Act, could be enacted into law.

Of the 70 MPs in attendance, 34 voted against the resolution while 30 voted in favour and six abstained.

During yesterday’s debate, MPs of both the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and opposition parties argued that parliament’s perceived failure to pass necessary laws was not to blame for the shortcomings of the criminal justice system, particularly the authorities’ collective failure to secure convictions against “dangerous criminals” and enforce jail sentences.

Home Minister Hassan Afeef revealed on Monday that there were “about 300 people” sentenced in absentia that were yet to be taken to jail.

Closing the debate at the penultimate sitting of this year’s first session of parliament, Mahlouf argued that MPs should hasten to pass the legislation if only because “there will no longer be any person or institution that could point the finger at us and say ‘it’s because the People’s Majlis hasn’t completed [necessary laws].'”

Despite the 17th parliament having passed more legislation than any of its predecessors, Mahlouf urged MPs to “accept the reality” that the public did not believe parliament was doing enough.

“[They say] the number of days we work in the Majlis is low,” he said. “I accept this today. We take a holiday for four months of the year. We work about 12 days a month. For a year, it’s about 96 days. We don’t work for about 260 days of the year.”

The DRP MP for Galolhu South noted that none of the MPs opposed to postponing the recess had claimed there was no urgent need for the criminal justice legislation.

After voting on the resolution ended, Speaker Abdulla Shahid informed MPs that completed legislation on special measures to combat crime has been sent for their perusal.

The bill was amended in consultation with law enforcement authorities to include essential provisions from all three belated bills to serve as a stop-gap measure until parliament returned from recess.

Shahid explained that a proposal for a special sitting to be held during the recess in May would be put forward at tomorrow’s final sitting.

MDP MP “Reeko” Moosa Manik raised a point of order to suggest a sitting to be held tomorrow night to pass the crime legislation, but Shahid replied that a decision would be made after discussion with party leaders.

DRP squabbles

Mahouf – who has sided with “Zaeem DRP” against DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali in the ongoing factional strife within the main opposition party – was attacked yesterday by MPs of the rival opposition faction for taking a holiday after submitting the resolution.

While DRP MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem accused Mahlouf of attempting “to pin a medal on himself and claim to be the best,” DRP MP for Mid-Henveiru Ali Azim claimed Mahlouf had taken the most leaves of absence during the past Majlis session.

Mahlouf hit back at Raheem today, claiming that he saw a form the Maafanu West MP had allegedly signed to defect to the MDP before changing his mind in 24 hours.

Moreover, he added, MPs Rozaina Adam and her husband Mohamed Nashiz were yet to return from an official trip to Panama despite MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, Speaker Shahid and Secretary General Ahmed Mohamed having arrived back in the country three days ago.

After attacking Thasmeen and Football Association Chairman Ali Azim for alleged poor attendance and lack of participation in important committee tasks, Mahlouf also exchanged heated words with DRP MP for Mathiveri Hussein Mohamed, who told him “to shut up and sit down.”

Hussein Mohamed argued that since Mahlouf’s resolution stated that a one month holiday should be granted once the “complex and technical” bills were passed, “what if we are only able to go to recess in November, how do we pass the state budget then?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)