Category: Politics

President offers clemency to Himandhoo protesters

Senior members of the Maldivian government yesterday met with 16 people arrested and sentenced for a violent protest against police at Himandhoo in North Ari Atoll in 2007, to discuss a reduction in their sentences under new clemency laws.

The inmates, currently imprisoned at Maafushi on sentences ranging from nine to 11 years, donned red motorcycle helmets and armed themselves with batons and knives to defend the Dhar al Khuir mosque on 6 October 2007. Police and soldiers were searching for suspects in the Maldives’ first Islamic terror investigation following a bomb blast in Sultan Park that injured 12 tourists.

The president’s Political Advisor Hassan Afeef, together with Special Envoy Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, Legal Affairs Secretary Hisaan Hussain and State Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Saeed Ali Shaheem travelled to Maafushi jail to meet with the inmates to inform them that the president had made the decision to lessen their sentences.

Afeef said the government was unconvinced the group had received a fair trial under the former government, “and we don’t want anyone to undergo punishment for which they are not deserving.”

A still from the video found on an Al Qaeda forum that contained footage of inside the Dhar-al-khuir mosque of Himandhoo moments before it was raided by police.
A still from the video found on an Al Qaeda forum that contained footage of inside the Dhar-al-khuir mosque of Himandhoo moments before it was raided by police.

“The president wanted the inmates to know that people were going to criticise him over the decision, and for them to understand that their behaviour must be in line with the views of society when they are released,” Afeef said.

The conditions of their release had yet to be set, Afeef added. “That will come when the president gives the order,” he said, emphasising that “the government doesn’t take these decisions blindly. It studies the information and consults intelligence services, police and security forces.”

The president’s press secretary Mohamed Zuhair said the main reason leading to the stand off with police was not the terrorism investigation but the fact “they had started praying in their own mosque and their own homes”, an action not in line with the former government’s “single state Islam”.

“This government is against all froms of extremism religous or otherwise,” he said, claiming that the government’s “pluralist” approach and tolerance of other factions and preachers had led to better insight into the institutions operating in the Maldives.

“The president has always said that the way to avoid fundamentalism is more democracy,” Zuhair said, noting that “people join groups with good intentions.”

Pakistan dead

Earlier this week the government repatriated the remaining four of nine Maldivian nationals detained in Pakistan for alleged militant activities on the Pakistan border. The detainees were returned to their families as the Pakistan government placed no conditions on their release, although Foreign Minister Ahmed Shaheed announced yesterday the men would be kept under surveillance and their activities abroad investigated.

Zuhair also revealed that three other Maldivians, believed to have been part of the group, were killed while they were being transferred between facilities several weeks after their arrest following the Mumbai attacks in 2008.

“I believe they were being transferred from a facility when their convoy came under attack and the vehicle they were in hit a landmine,” Zuhair said.

“We had unconfirmed reports that they were the leaders of the Maldivian group, which may have been linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) currently waging war in Kashmir.”

Zuhair emphasised that the nine men who had returned had not been charged and were “innocent until proven guilty.”

“The political culture in the Maldives has changed,” he said. “Whereas before if the government was suspicious about someone they would be arrested and questioned, now people are innocent until proven guilty.

“I believe the government is keeping a close watch on these people,” he added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

CSC wins civil court case over ‘responsible officers’ at atoll and island offices

The Civil Court has overruled the home ministry’s decision to cut allowances for ‘responsible officers’ at atoll and island offices.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) took the home ministry to court over the matter after it rescinded the allowances of the CSC-appointed responsible officers, the highest-ranking civil servant in the island and atoll offices tasked with overseeing organisational tasks and liaising with the commission.

The court ruled that the CSC’s responsibility under the Civil Service Act was to set the “tasks, responsibilities, rights and powers of civil servants, free of outside influence,” and that there was no legal obstacle to appointing responsible officers or giving them an allowance for additional work as the appointments were made “within the bounds of the law”.

The court ordered that the directive from the home ministry to the province offices “not to carry out the duties of the civil servants appointed as responsible officers, and give them allowances, shall be invalidated.”

CSC spokesperson Mohamed Fahmy Hassan said while the president-appointed island councillor’s role was to oversee the atoll and island offices, the responsible officers’ role of selecting and promoting civil servants was not conducted by political appointees.

“The government misunderstands and distrusts [the CSC] and is unable to accept what [worked] before [it was in power],” Fahmy said.

State Minister for the South Central Province, Ahmed Mujthaba, said the ruling would “really obstruct adminstration and provision of services and is in conflict with the very basis of the civil service.”

“The civil service is subordinate to the government – you can’t have them operating as a parallel government,” he said. “They are saying this is about independence but what they are creating is something very dangerous, by giving civil servants the message that they are subordinate to the CSC and not the government.”

“[Civil servants] will show allegiance and respect and readiness to those with the power to promote and transfer them – that is very basic human resources,” Mujthaba claimed.

“If that is the message, the civil servants cannot be induced to work on government programs. I don’t think this government can implement the programs it has promised with the way the civil service is currently set up.”

Mujthaba said he had observed the problem “first hand” administering his own province office: “The rules are so rigid that we can’t effectively operate a government.”

He added that it was “very unfair” for the CSC to assume the government would politicise the civil service if given a free hand.

“People elected the government because they know it is responsible. If we violate [civil servants] rights then there are people they can call. What the CSC is doing is purposely hindering the government’s development efforts. There are elements in the civil service against the government, and this is something I call on the president to look into.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer claims MDP influencing internal DRP politics

Former president of the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) and candidate for the DRP vice presidency, Umar Naseer, has claimed he is being targeted by an amendment presented to the party insisting candidates seeking elections to senior positions must have been a member for at least six months.

”It must be someone related to MDP who is trying to stop me from becoming the vice president of DRP,” Umar claimed.

He said that the MDP “was afraid that if I become the vice president of the party the government might fall”, and said the ruling party was “planning many things” to stop him from becoming the DRP’s vice president.

DRP MP Ahmed Mausoom said the amendments would only be announced on the 16 and 17 of February, adding that he did not know who had presented the amendment.

DRP MP Ali Waheed, who is also contesting for the party’s vice presidency, said he had not yet gone through the amendments and could not comment on them yet. He said he gave the eight candidates running for the post of vice president his “best wishes”.

Spokesman for MDP Ahmed Haleem said that the MDP “does not consider Umar Naseer a political figure”, and added that the party was looking forward to a time when DRP “strengthens its inner democracy and leadership to become a strong opposition party.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs planning no-confidence motion against finance minister

A group of MPs have announced they intend to put a no-confidence motion against Finance Minister Ali Hashim before parliament.

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed claimed Hashim’s conduct in his role as minister had on several occasions been “against the law.”

”It’s not only the issue of civil servants salary, he has done many things against the law,” he claimed.

Nasheed has previously said he would pursue a no-confidence motion against Hashim after the finance minister failed to appear before a parliamentary committee investigating the ministry’s treatment of the independent commissions.

“He left the country,” noted Nasheed at the time, adding when the committee requested State Finance Minister Ahmed Assad appear in Hashim’s stead, the ministry sent two junior officers.

“If he doesn’t appear, we’ll make a report to parliament questioning his confidence,” Nasheed warned. “He’s being irresponsible and it’s so unnecessary and uncalled for.”

Today, Nasheed said that the group of MPs had almost finished the necessary documentation “and I will be the first to sign the petition.”

He said he did not yet want to reveal the details of what the petition contains.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party DRP MP Ahmed Ilham said he supported the no-confidence motion against the finance minister.

”He bought shares in the Maldives Water and Sewerage Company (MWSC) [without the knowledge of parliament], he is paying salaries to province councillor when they have yet to be approved – these things are against the law,” Ilham claimed.

Former president of Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) Umar Naseer and candidate for the vice-presidency of the DRP said motion was overdue, and accused Hashim “of being unable to read and write.”

MDP MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik said he preferred not comment on the issue before the petition was presented to the parliament.

MDP Spokesman Ahmed Haleem said parliament had failed the last time it tried to press a no-confidence vote (against Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed), “and I do not think they can do it this time either.”

He accused Nasheed of trying to make the no-confidence vote to gain support from DRP.

”At first we hoped Nasheed would be a very beneficial man for the country and would do a lot of good, but now I see he does so many things against democracy,” Haleem said.

Minivan News sought response from the finance ministry on several occasions but received no response at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldivian detainees repatriated from Pakistan

Four Maldivian nationals imprisoned by the Pakistani government for alleged militant activities have been repatriated to the Maldives and released to their families.

They join another five who were returned to the Maldives last week and also released. The government confirmed that one of the men had stood trial in the Maldives after being accused of involvement in the Sultan Park bombing, but noted that the case had been dropped.

The president’s press secretary Mohamed Zuhair said the Pakistani government had returned the men, who were picked up during a military raid on several armed groups, with no information on charges against them or conditions on their imprisonment, making them innocent under Maldivian law.

“Our information suggests there were originally 12 [Maldivians] but three died while they were being transported between facilities,” Zuhair said, adding that reports the men had been carrying firearms at the time of their arrest were conflicting.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Shaheed said the nine men had not been formally charged, and stressed that “the types of activities they are alleged to have been involved in, while illegal, do not necessarily fall under terrorism.”

Shaheed said the Maldives Police Service had determined that “the best thing to do was to release them to their families and put them under surveillance”, while their activities abroad were investigated. “There are a lot of stories about the nature of what they were doing. If we release anybody, it is because our laws require them to be released,” he said.

The home minister had travelled to Pakistan to investigate the matter, he said, emphasising that the role of foreign ministry was to “repatriate Maldivians when it is in the national interest to do so” and not “to mix that up with judgements of character”.

Shaheed noted that the Maldives does have an arrangement with Pakistan regarding prisoner exchange, particularly regarding the repatriation of Pakistani nationals currently serving time in the Maldives, but stressed that this arrangement “is unrelated to this case [of the nine Maldivians].”

He took exception to stories published today that the government was “releasing jihadists”, acknowledging that such allegations “will hurt the national brand upon which our economy depends.”

“People should not use the term jiahdist lightly,” he said. “To some it means people who mean harm, to others it means someone pious on the path to Heaven. People need to be careful what they are saying.”

Shaheed also expressed concern that the Maldives was last week described as a “safe haven” by Taliban-linked resistance fighters, who recently visited the Maldives to meet with members of the Afghan government.

“We are a soverign country and if we hear of a government [coming to the Maldives] to be involved in talks we expect them to tell us,” he said, suggesting that the country’s safety and reputation could be undermined by such “political gaming.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Journalist fined for defaming Ghassan

The former editor of weekly magazine Sandhaanu has been ordered to pay Rf5000 (US$389)for defaming Mohamed Ghassan Maumoon, the former president’s son.

Ghassan took Abdulla ‘Fahala’ Saeed to the civil court seeking Rf3.375 million (US$262,600) over an article Fahala had written in the 118th edition of Sandhaanu magazine.

Ghassan claimed he lost support in the parliamentary election because of rumours about him published in an article written by Fahala.

Fahala claimed that the Rf5000 fine was “an injustice” and announced he intended to take the case to high court.

”The judge did not even look at the article I wrote, I was sentenced based on what Ghassan had said,” Fahala claimed.

He insisted that he did not defame Ghassan “but ‘wrote it as it was a rumor spreading.”

”In that article I mentioned that it was a rumour. People were speaking about it everywhere in the Maldives,” he said.

Ghassan is currently in India and did not respond to Minivan News’ request for comment.

However spokesman for the former president, Mohamed Hussain ‘Mundhu’ Shareef, said the judgement was fair and Fahala was free to take the case to the high court.

“[The court] has proved the rumors people spread about former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his family were lies,” Mundhu said.

People who committed “ugly crimes” while working for the government should be “kicked out”, Mundhu said, “if the government does not want to lose respect in front of the people.”

President of the Maldives Journalism Association (MJA) Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said the case would not affect journalism in the Maldives.

”Fining for defamation is a punishment practiced everywhere in the world. Journalists should be careful about it,” Hiriga said.

Journalists had a responsibility “to write true information about people”, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer to take EC to court over decision to retain IDP

Former president of the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) Umar Naseer, who recently joined the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), has announced he intends take the Elections Commission (EC) to court over its decision not to allow the disbanding of the IDP.

Umar left the IDP last month to further his political career, claiming there was “no future” in being president of such a small party. He claimed a “the majority” of the IDP wished to disband the party altogether.

However, Deputy President of the IDP, Mohamed Hassan Manik, said the majority of the members disagreed and believed that the IDP “can still be run as a viable and independent political party.”

Umar’s decision to abandon the party, he suggested, was made “because it will be easier for him to try and become president of the Maldives [in the DRP].”

Meanwhile, the EC ruled that Naseer’s decision to disband the IDP was not valid under the party’s own regulations and that it could continue to exist as a political entity, following an investigation of what the EC’s president Fuad Thaufeeq described as “a big mess.”

“We found that the number of persons in the executive committee required to be present at a meeting to change a rule was not satisfied,” he said. “This is according to their rules.”

According to Thaufeeq, the decision to dissolve the party was taken at a meeting where less than the required 50 per cent of the executive committee were present.

“We looked at the minutes and percentage attendances at the meetings and found this regulation was not strictly followed, and is why we do not conisder Umar Naseer’s decision to dissolve the party to be valid.”

Thaufeeq said it was Naseer’s right to take the matter to court, and acknowledged that while this would be very expensive for the independent commission, “we don’t have any option.”

“There are two groups within IDP. One is with Umar Naseer, the other is against him,” Thaufeeq said. “I have no clue how this will be resolved without going to court, because regardless of our decision either group will take us to court.”

Naseer had not responded to Minivan News’ request for comment at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Taliban in paradise – what awaits these virgin islands?

The first war of the twenty first century, US President George W Bush said after 11 September 2001, will be “a new kind of war”. It will be “a conflict without battlefields or beachheads”.

Well, almost 10 years on, we can see he was a bit off the mark with the battlefields – Afghanistan is one, Iraq another, Iran is a strong possibility, Yemen cannot be ruled out entirely. Some of us foresaw the prospects for disaster in many a decision made by President Bush before he blundered, swaggered or smirked his way into them. But I bet no one foresaw that he could also be wrong about the beachheads.

There could yet be many a beachhead in the ‘War on Terror’. Hundreds of them. Around nice pristine Maldivian beaches. The Taliban were “smoked out” of the caves in Afghanistan – will they be fished out of our waters, or simply blasted out? And at what cost to our lives? In Afghanistan the civilian death toll was over 2000 in 2008 alone… what fate awaits us?

Safety first

“Taliban feels that the safest place in the world for them right now is the Maldives”. Less than a decade after the world’s strongest military power declares war on not just the ‘terrorists’ – but also on those who “harbour them, feed them, house them, encourage them, and comfort them” – the Maldives offers them a peaceful retreat. With no military power to speak of, being of little or no geo-strategic consequence, not quite the most sophisticated of movers in global realpolitik – we go ahead and provide the Taliban a beautiful sanctuary where they can sit and plan their next move, with nothing to fear except perhaps a wayward coconut.

The government response to the discovery of the Maldives’ novel status as the Taliban’s new BFFL (best friend for life) is to tell us it is a compliment. A compliment, dear citizens. Pluralism personified, the New Maldives – a Taliban sanctuary, where religious extremists are a protected species. Follow the government line of thinking on this, people and you begin to see the advantages. Given the burgeoning numbers of people following their brand of Islam, we might not have to hang up our tourism hat just yet. There is an untapped market with huge potential out there. Think of the ads – “Tired of being vilified? Find unconditional adulation in the Maldives”; “Sick of being loathed? Come and feel the warmth of the Maldivian embrace”. “Sun, sea and blind faith”; “Maldives – no bad news, no bombs”.

Countering terror

A week later, and the same government is about to formalise a counter-terrorism agreement with India. The same government spokesperson that told us to be flattered by Taliban’s friendship, tells us that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to be signed with India is “very important because it gives notice that the Maldives will not allow terrorist operations here.”

I beg to differ. The MoU is to be welcomed, if there is anything the Maldives can do to help shore up the security of the exemplary democracy that is India, we should to it. But, the agreement does not in anyway signal to us Maldivians that “the Maldives will not allow terrorist operations”.

How can that be, when the government is positively preening from the Taliban’s exclusive attentions; and continues to form subversive and inexplicable alliances with political parties and dubious NGOs who are making Maldivians look, speak, behave, eat, have sex, punish and procreate according to the teachings of the Taliban?

What the MoU, coming as it does on foot of the government’s warm embrace of the Taliban, signals to us is that this government does not have a cogent or coherent national security policy. It is being formed on ad hoc basis, according to whatever political interests that needs to be served at a given time. We can sign hundreds of agreements, treaties and conventions. On paper, it makes the Maldives look good. But for the people who are living this enforced politicization of their religious beliefs, and being told to see this sea-change in Maldivian culture and identity as ‘pluralism’, it signals impending disaster, and a government that is unable to see the threat from within.

The Maldivian government was unaware of the Taliban hosting secret talks on our islands or was unable to detect their presence in the country because it can no longer tell the difference between a Maldivian and an Afghan, or any other follower of the Wahhabbi sect for that matter. We cannot tell who is Ibrahim Maniku and who is Abdul-Ibrahim bin Abu Muharram, or whatever other name we are now apparently required to have in order to be Muslims.

While the government was busy allying itself with religious parties for political gains and shoring up sandbags to ward off sea-level rise, we have all been turned into sheep in Muslim clothing, following blindly those who have assumed leading roles in remote islands through their preaching and their sermons, filling a leadership vacuum left by the appointment of so-called councilors as a reward for faithful campaigning regardless of their qualifications or lack thereof.

One of the biggest questions asked of the disastrous last government was how and why heroin was allowed to permeate the very core of Maldivian society. How could the authorities not stop the destructive drug being smuggled into this small island nation? Well, Wahhabism is the new heroin. It has got our youth addicted, it has robbed them of their identity and it has taken possession of them to the exclusion of all else. Why is this government allowing this to happen? No amount of posturing on the international stage, or pieces of paper signed promising our co-operation in the ‘War on Terror’ is going to be sufficient to protect Maldivians themselves from being sucked into this ‘endless war’ that has already claimed so many lives in every corner of the world.

Anti-terror agreements signed with one hand while holding the door open for the Taliban with the other are going to be ineffective, otiose. What will a Memorandum of Understanding with a foreign ally, however well-intentioned, do for our own protection when we have yet to understand that the biggest threat we face is within?

Munirah Moosa is a journalism and international relations graduate. She is currently engaged in research into the ‘radicalisation’ of Muslim communities and its impact on international security.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives to strengthen defence links with India amid rising terror concerns

The Maldives will formalise its counter-terrorism agreements with India after renewed fears that Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is trying to establish a base in remote parts of the Maldives.

The LeT was implicated in the terror attacks in Mumbai on 26 November 2008 in which gunmen entered the city by sea and killed at least 173 people and wounded 308. It is considered a terrorist organisation by India, the United States, the UK and Russia.

Covering the story today, Indian newspaper The Economic Times noted that Sultan Park bomber Moosa Inas was linked to the LeT and had travelled to Kerala before the bombings, a popular recruiting ground for the group.

Indian news portal Rediff.com today quoted Indian intelligence bureau sources as saying that the LeT “has nearly 1,000 operatives active in the Maldives”, and that there was no way the group’s operations “can be curbed unless there is very good intelligence sharing with the Maldives.”

The intelligence sources claimed that in the last three months “there has been an increase in LeT activites in the Maldives, and several persons from [the LeT’s] Kerala group have slipped into the country and are busy setting up operations there.”

India could ill-afford a slip in its Maldives policy, given the “extreme aggression” of the LeT group, the sources told Rediff.

The notion of a thousand LeT operatives active in the Maldives “may be an exaggeration”, said the Maldivian president’s press secretary Mohamed Zuhair, “but there may be some truth in it.”

Minister for Home Affairs Mohamed Shihab is currently in India meeting his counterpart P Chidambaram to draw up a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two countries that will be signed in April.

First Secretary at the Indian High Commission to the Maldives, Naryan Swamy, said the agreement would formalise existing arrangements with the Maldives but the details would have to wait until Shihab returned.

Zuhair said the MoU was “very important because it gives notice that the Maldives will not allow terrorist operations here.”

“The Maldives is very important to India’s security – the Mumbai bombers attacked via sea,” Zuhair said. “The sea is India’s vulnerable underbelly because there are so many entry points, and the Maldives can be very helpful with that because every day we have 1,500 fishing vessels sometimes 70-100 kilometres out to sea. If they see any suspicious vessels they can coordinate the information through various centres in the Maldives.”

The system appeared to work, Zuhair said, because after the president’s speeches following the Mumbai bombing several poaching vessels were apprehended based on information from fishing boats.

India was already assisting the Maldives to establish a chain of coastal radars stations across the country’s atolls, he said, which will be networked with India’s own radar network.

Zuhair acknowledged that such defence cooperation might “concern” countries like China, but he noted that “of all our neighbours India is the natural country of choice to assist the Maldives.”

Last week Al Jazeera reported that a group seven fighters linked to the Taliban met in the Maldives with Afghan MPs to discuss an ambitious peace plan whereby Taliban soldiers would be paid to put down their arms. Al Jazeera’s report claimed the fighters chose the Maldives as the venue for the talks because it was “the only place they felt safe.”

Zuhair emphasised that the Maldives “will not allow terrorists to operate in the country and put the Maldives’ and our neighbours’ peace and security at risk.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)