Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers quit today in protest of the Criminal Court’s alleged refusal to provide sufficient time to mount a defence on terrorism charges.

Lawyers Hisaan Hussein, Abdulla Shaairu, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef and Ibrahim Riffath said they are unable to dispense legal advise and counsel to President Nasheed and represent him on a fair and just basis.

Nasheed is charged with ordering the abduction of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

The Criminal Court has dismissed the lawyer’s repeated requests for additional time, arguing case documents had been provided three years ago when charges of ordering Judge Abdulla’s “arbitrary detention” were filed against Nasheed.

However, lawyers noted Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin had withdrawn the initial lesser charges and pressed newer and harsher terrorism charges.

“Even though we had the case documents for three years, we were reviewing and researching those documents and evidence to mount a defence for the intial charges,” the lawyers said in a statement today.

“We have to start work all over again in order to build a defence for the new terror charges. This is why we keep reiterating requests for additional time in the ongoing hearings.”

The basis of defence arguments are different, lawyers argued, stating it was “impossible” to provide Nasheed with proper legal counsel without sufficient time.

“Our consciences do not allow us to continue when we are unable to carry out our duties according to the oaths we swore as lawyers,” they added.

The defence team’s resignation comes after they staged a no-show last night over the court’s alleged failure to provide important documentary evidence on time.

In Sunday evening’s hearing, the legal team was supposed to evaluate the prosecution’s audio and video evidence, but the CDs of this evidence were either un-labeled, dysfunctional or left blank, lawyers alleged.

The Criminal Court last night warned Nasheed’s legal team against protesting the court’s rulings, and warned Nasheed they would continue tonight’s hearing without legal representation if he is unable to appoint new lawyers.

Nasheed was arrested on February 22 on Muhsin’s claim he may abscond from a hearing scheduled for the next day. At the time of his arrest, Nasheed was not aware of Muhsin’s decision to press new charges.

The former president has expressed concern over the Criminal Court’s decision to expedite hearings, especially as he continues to be held in police custody.

Meanwhile, the High Court today threw out an appeal filed by Nasheed in which he claimed the Prosecutor General was not authorised to withdraw charges and re-prosecute on new charges.

The appellate court claimed the appeal required interpreting the Constitution and said it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

Nasheed had also appealed the Criminal Court’s decision to keep him under custody until the trial ended. Lawyer Hisaan said the High Court rejected the appeal by classifying the Criminal Court’s bail denial ruling as a court summons.

Lawyers have also appealed the first warrant to arrest Nasheed, and the Criminal Court’s refusal to recuse Judges Abdulla Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf despite the pair having provided witness statements to a 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

Over 70 lawyers submitted a petition to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) yesterday urging the commission to investigate unlawful acts committed by courts within the criminal justice system.

The petition outlined seven issues, including court’s denying the accused their right to legal representation and right to adequate time to prepare defence, as well as obstructions in appealing court rulings.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Raajje TV barred from Criminal Court, accused of threatening judge

The Criminal Court has accused opposition-aligned Raajje TV of threatening Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf and has barred the station’s journalists from attending court hearings.

A Raajje TV journalist and cameraman were briefly detained last night around midnight after they videotaped an alleged meeting between Judge Bari and Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin at Café Layaali in Malé.

“Raaje TV has been barred from attending hearings because they are spreading lies about judges, meddling in judges personal affairs and engaging in actions that may harm judges,” a Criminal Court official told local newspaper Haveeru today.

Judge Yoosuf sits on a three-judge panel overseeing a series of high profile cases, including terrorism trials against former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, and an illegal weapons trial against former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim.

Raajje TV has declined to comment on the matter, stating they have not yet received official communication of the Criminal Court’s decision.

Nasheed’s lawyers had previously asked Judge Bari and Muhsin, also a former Criminal Court judge, to excuse themselves from the case, arguing the pair had a conflict of interest as they had provided witness statements during a 2012 investigation into their colleague’s arrest.

Judge Abdulla had called Judge Bari on receiving news of his impending arrest, while Muhsin had been at Judge Abdulla’s home during the arrest, witness statements reveal.

The defence team has now called Muhsin to the witness stand. Meanwhile, Judge Bari has refused to step down from the bench, claiming judges could choose between adjudicating or testifying.

According to a Raajje TV editorial staff who wished to remain anonymous, Muhsin and Yoosuf were sitting at the same table smoking shisha last night. The alleged meeting took place hours after the seventh hearing of Nasheed’s terrorism trial.

“Our staff only videotaped the meeting. Muhsin walked away the second they started asking questions,” he said.

Mushin, however, has denied meeting Bari, and said he would resign from the prosecutor general’s post if the meeting could be proven. He said the judge was already at the café when he went there for a private meal with his family members.

“Most of the cafés are crowded with politicians these days. Layaali is one of the few places you could go and enjoy a cup of coffee in peace. That’s why I went there, but I wasn’t with Bari,” Muhsin told Minivan News today.

The TV crew had not even recognised him as they were solely focused on videotaping Judge Bari, the PG added.

“The crew were right next to me. But I don’t even think they recognised me. Because they didn’t videotape me, they were taping Bari who was sitting at another table. I don’t know why they would accuse me of such a thing. Anyone there would clearly see that I was sitting with a separate group of people and Judge Bari was sitting at another table,” he said.

According to the Raajje TV staff, when Muhsin left the café, Bari demanded to know who the crew members were. Café staff then ordered the crew to erase footage.

“Bari also ordered the crew to confiscate the camera but our crew resisted,” he said.

Ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Assad arrived at the café shortly afterwards with a group of young men and forced the cameramen to delete the footage, he said.

The crew “got away unharmed” because of their security guards, he said. Specialist Operations (SO) police officers then arrested the crew escorted them to the police HQ.

The police conducted body searches and took statements from the crew. They were released afterwards.

A police spokesperson insisted Raajje TV crew members had not been arrested, but detained briefly for videotaping in Café Layaali without the owner’s permission.

In 2013, the watchdog Judicial Service Commission suspended Judge Bari for over a year pending the outcome of a complaint lodged against him for alleged misconduct.

Although the commission did not reveal any details of the complaint, local media reported that a female attorney from the Prosecutor General’s Office had alleged that Bari had sexually assaulted her.

Bari was cleared of the allegations and resumed duty at Criminal Court on July 24, 2014.


Related to this story

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

JSC clears Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yousuf of ethical misconduct

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government to submit gender equality bill to parliament

The government will submit legislation on gender equality during the ongoing first session of the People’s Majlis for 2015, Attorney General (AG) Mohamed Anil has said.

Speaking at a function held at the Islamic Centre yesterday to mark International Women’s Day, AG Anil – who also heads the Ministry of Law and Gender – said the bill would protect women’s rights, empower women socially and economically, and ensure equal rights.

Anil said the government has undertaken significant efforts to promote women’s rights and “eliminate obstacles” faced by Maldivian women.

“Of the total 926 members of the Ministry of Economic Development’s Sabah project, I note happily that 91 percent are female members,” he said.

He added that 60 percent of the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture’s commercial loan scheme would be earmarked for women and youth.

The government has also formulated and enacted rules for operating daycare centres to assist working mothers, Anil said, adding that an amendment would be submitted to tax laws to exempt the centres from GST.

Efforts were currently underway to establish safe houses in each atoll for victims of domestic violence, he added.

Safe houses or temporary shelter have so far been set up at the Family and Children Service Centres  in Haa Dhaal Kulhudhufushi, Shaviyani Fonadhoo, Thaa Veymandoo, and Gaaf Dhaal Thinadhoo, Anil noted.

Anil said there was no discrimination between boys and girls in the education sector, noting that 70 percent of graduates from the National University in March 2014 were female.

In its concluding observations released last Friday (March 6) on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the Maldives, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women welcomed legislative reforms such as the Sexual Harassment and Abuse Prevention Act of 2014, the Sexual Offences Act of 2014, the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act of 2013, and the Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 2012.

The Maldives acceded to the UN Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in July 1993

The committee also noted the establishment of the Family Protection Authority in 2012 and welcomed “forthcoming amendments to the Family Act to regulate the distribution of matrimonial assets upon divorce.”

In his presidential address at the opening of parliament earlier this month, President Yameen said the legislation would protect women’s rights in divorce cases as pledged during the presidential campaign.

The CEDAW committee meanwhile noted “that the principle of equality between women and men is not yet explicitly enshrined in legislation” and called on the state to ensure that the gender equality bill includes a definition of discrimination on the basis of sex.

The committee also expressed concern about “the delay in conducting a gender impact analysis of some of its existing laws, including family law provisions which continue to indirectly discriminate against women, and in adopting regulations necessary for the full implementation of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act.”

Insufficient progress

Meanwhile, in a press release yesterday, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) said the Maldives has not achieved or made adequate progress under the Millennium Development Goal of ensuring equal rights for women.

Referring to its shadow report to the CEDAW committee last year, the commission said it had noted the underrepresentation of women in decision-making as well as the minor role of women in economic development.

The report noted that some police officers believe violence against women was caused by women failing to fulfil their duty as submissive wives.

The HRCM also contended that women were not receiving full protection under the new domestic violence, sexual offences, and sexual harassment laws, noting that regulations required under the domestic violence law have yet to be enacted two years after it was passed.

“Despite domestic violence cases being reported, we note that that relevant state institutions are not taking action in accordance with the obligatory rules for such cases,” the HRCM press release stated.

The commission also stressed the importance of expediting the passage of the gender equality bill and appealed to the executive to allocate sufficient funds and resources for institutions responsible for protecting women’s rights.

“Awareness also needs to be raised among girls regarding their physical and reproductive health,” the press release continued.

“To achieve this, we appeal for both further widening the role of state institutions and civil society organisations and instilling the spirt of working together.”

The slogan for this year’s International Women’s Day is ‘Empowering Women – Empowering Humanity: Picture it!’


Related to this story

CEDAW committee welcomes progress on women’s rights, expresses concern with child marriages, flogging and gender stereotypes

Some police officers believe women to blame for domestic violence, says HRCM

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

33 protesters barred from protests for 60 days

The Criminal Court has conditioned the release of 33 opposition protesters arrested last week on their staying home from further protests for 60 days.

Human Rights NGO Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) has described the move as unconstitutional, arguing the condition violated the right to freedom of assembly and expression.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Fayyaz Ismail was remanded for additional 15 days when he refused the Criminal Court’s condition on Saturday.

Supporters have commended Fayyaz’s “bravery,” and called on protesters to follow his example.

MDN Executive Director Shahindha Ismail said a fundamental right could only be limited by a law passed through the People’s Majlis.

“This is not a limitation of rights, but a violation of [the detainee’s] rights to assembly, expression, and free will,” she said.

“The Court can enforce conditions on detainees to ensure a person’s attendance in court. For example, having to obtain a permit from the court when travelling. However, they cannot place a condition asking them to not go to a protest,” she said.

According to the Maldives Police Services, a total of 77 individuals have been arrested from opposition protests since February 27. If individuals released with conditions are seen at protests, the police will take action, a spokesperson said.

The opposition continues to hold nightly protests demanding the release of former President Mohamed Nasheed, imprisoned ahead of a trial on terrorism charges over the military detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The opposition leader has denied ordering the judge’s arrest. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

The MDP in February allied with former ruling coalition partner Jumhooree Party (JP) against what they call President Abdulla Yameen’s repeated breaches of the Constitution.

Nasheed was arrested on Februrary 22 after Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin alleged he may abscond from the unannounced terrorism trial scheduled for the next day.

Police arrested 26 individuals on March 6 alone. In addition to Fayyaz, MDP Vice President Mohamed Shifaz and former MP Ilyas Labeeb were arrested.

Two journalists from Villa TV and CNM were also briefly detained for allegedly obstructing police duties.

Of the 26 arrested, 21 were brought for remand hearings the next day. The Criminal Court released 18 on the condition they do not participate in further protests.

Shahindha, who also served as the President of the Police Integrity Commission from 2009 to 2012, accused police of using disproportionate force in making arrests, using pepper spray at close range and verbal abuse.

“This is not humane treatment at all, and should not be allowed. The police are reverting back to old times by being brutal and forceful,” she said.

The former police integrity commissioner also expressed concern at reports of police officers refusing to use any identification at protests.

“The alleged reasoning behind this is to prevent personal attacks against individual officers,” said Shahindha. “But there should be some sort of identity on the individuals so independent commissions will be able to hold them accountable, even if it’s a number code.”

She also claimed police were setting up barricades and closing down streets at random. Barricades had been set up outside of green zones in which protests are prohibited.

The police have banned protests near the Malé City Hall until March 15, claiming businesses in the area had been complaining over protesters allegedly disrupting business.

The PIC and Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) must investigate alleged violations, Shahindha said.


Related to this story

26 arrested in MDP’s all day protests

14 MDP women arrested from “last warning” protest at airport

10,000 protest in Malé, call for President Yameen’s resignation

February 27 a historic success, claims opposition

Hundreds march in support of President Yameen

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers refused to appear in court today in protest of the Criminal Court’s alleged failure to provide adequate time to prepare defense.

Nasheed is accused of terrorism over the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

In a letter to the Criminal Court at 8pm, lawyers Hisaan Hussein, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, Ibrahim Riffath and Abdulla Shaairu excused themselves from the seventh hearing stating they had not had enough time to prepare.

State prosecutors were scheduled to screen audio and video evidence today. The hearing was initially scheduled for 4pm, but was delayed to 8pm.

Speaking to the press outside, Hisaan said the Prosecutor General’s Office had provided defence lawyers with unlabeled CDs this morning. Some were not functioning while others were left blank.

Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman began the hearing an hour late at 9pm. The defense team’s no-show was unacceptable, Didi said.

The Criminal Court had already ruled Nasheed had been afforded enough time, Judge Didi said. If lawyers disagreed with the court’s rulings, they could lodge an appeal at the High Court, but they cannot protest the court’s rulings or obstruct court proceedings, he continued.

The bench would consider penalizing Nasheed’s lawyers under contempt of court regulations, he warned.

Nasheed once again requested the bench for 15 additional days to examine state evidence.

But Didi adjourned tonight’s hearing ordering Nasheed to ensure lawyers turned up tomorrow or appoint new lawyers for tomorrow’s hearing.

After the hearing ended, Nasheed asked court staff to pass on the following message to the bench: “I cannot appoint lawyers by tomorrow. I am under custody in Dhoonidhoo.”

Nasheed was arrested on February 22 on the Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin’s claim the former president may abscond from justice. At the time of his arrest, Nasheed was not aware Muhsin had pressed new terror charges against him.

The first hearing was scheduled for the next day.

The new charges came after Muhsin withdrew previous charges of ordering an arbitrary detention in early February.

Nasheed appeared in court on February 23 with his arm in a makeshift sling after police officers manhandled and dragged him into the courtroom when he attempted to speak with journalists.

The former president was denied legal representation with the Criminal Court claiming lawyers must get appointed two days before a hearing is scheduled.

Nasheed pointed out he did know he would be charged with terrorism two days before. Judges then ruled he be kept in police custody until the end of the trial.

Nasheed’s lawyers have repeatedly requested for more time, claiming they required additional time to prepare for the new charges. But judges said the state had submitted the same documents during the previous arbitrary detention trial, and pointed out lawyers had been provided case documents in 2012.

At yesterday’s hearing, Nasheed said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without sufficient time to prepare his defense.

Nasheed’s lawyers have also pointed to what they call several irregularities in the case, including Judges Didi and Yoosuf having provided witness statements during the 2012 investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

PG Muhsin also had a conflict of interest in the case, they said, as he had been present at Judge Abdulla’s house at the time of his arrest.

The Criminal Court, however, ruled it had no conflict of interest and ordered state prosecutors and defense lawyers not to name them as witnesses.

Nasheed has also objected to police and military officers testifying against him, arguing they may be biased due to their role in his ouster in February 2012.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”


Related to this story

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Defence Minister Jaleel leads “Sentence Nasheed now” motorbike rally

Defence Minister Moosa Ali Jaleel and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb led a motorcycle parade on Saturday calling for a speedy judgment in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s terrorism trial over the 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Jaleel was the chief of defence forces when Judge Abdulla was arrested and faces the same terrorism charges. If convicted, the pair face between 10 and 15 years in jail or banishment.

Senior government officials, ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MPs and hundreds of young men took party in the rally. They carried placards that read:  “Justice for Judge Abdulla,” “Sentence Nasheed now,” “Everyone is equal in front of the law.”

Jaleel has denied involvement in Judge Abdulla’s arrest, claiming the chief of defence forces had been reduced to a “ceremonial” official by then-Defence Minister Tholhath Kaleyfaanu.

Four state witnesses have backed Jaleel’s statement in court, claiming he had not participated in any military meetings prior to Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

Speaking after the rally, Adeeb called on the opposition to stop its nightly protests against Nasheed’s February 22 arrest and terrorism charges.

“Don’t make us take to the streets. These are Malé City’s youth. This is a very strong crowd. If these young men get angry it would not be good. That’s why we are with these young men in their homes. We are people who love peace, so don’t make us come out to the street,” Adeeb warned, according to Sun Online.

“We won’t give him [President Nasheed] anymore chances. You [the opposition] will also have to go home. Then we will also quietly stay home,” he added.

Tension has been high in Malé since Nasheed’s arrest. The former president’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Jumhooree Party (JP) have formed an alliance against what they call President Abdulla Yameen’s repeated constitutional violations and intimidation of political rivals.

The opposition claims Nasheed’s trial is unjust. Former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim who is standing trial for importing and possessing illegal weapons is being framed, they also claimed.

MDP today condemned Adeeb’s speech, accusing him of threatening the opposition with violence.

“MDP is alarmed by the threats of violence against opposition protesters, made by senior members of President Yameen’s administration,” a statement issued by the party today read.

MDP claimed that the bike rally was attended by “well-known gang members”.

“This is a desperate and dangerous escalation of the current crisis by the government. President Yameen’s administration is baring its fangs,” Spokesperson for MDP Hamid Abdul Gafoor said in the statement.

Three of the young men seen in the front-lines of the bike rally – Fazeel Ahmed, Mohamed Asif and Razzan Abduhrahmaan – had previously been charged with murders but were acquitted by the Criminal Court.

Fazeel had been charged with the murder of 15-year-old Ahmed Shaneed in 2008, while Asif and Razzan were charged with the 2012 murder of 33-year-old Ali Shifan.

The opposition has long accused Adeeb of illicit connections with gangsters. The tourism minister has dismissed the allegations.

When President Nasheed resigned in February 7, 2012 in the wake of a police and military mutiny, he accused Jaleel of downplaying the mutiny. Jaleel, who had served in the army for 30 years, retired after the controversial transfer of power.

Jaleel signed for the PPM last year and President Yameen appointed him as the Ambassador for Pakistan. When Nazim was dismissed from his cabinet post in January after the controversial weapons find, Yameen appointed Jaleel as his replacement.


Related to this story

Former chief of defence forces denies involvement in Judge Abdulla arrest

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

CEDAW committee welcomes progress on women’s rights, expresses concern with child marriages, flogging and gender stereotypes

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has welcomed the Maldives’ progress on protecting women’s rights whilst expressing concern with child marriages, flogging and gender stereotypes in society.

In its concluding observations released last Friday (March 6) on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the Maldives – reviewed at meetings on February 27 with a high-level delegation led by Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon – the committee welcomed progress achieved since the last review in 2007, including the adoption of a new penal code that includes a definition of rape.

The committee noted other legislative reforms such as the Sexual Harassment and Abuse Prevention Act of 2014, the Sexual Offences Act of 2014, the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act of 2013, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 2012, the Employment Act of 2008, and the new Constitution in 2008, “which removes provisions barring women from being elected as President and Vice-President.”

The committee also noted the establishment of the Family Protection Authority in 2012 and welcomed “forthcoming amendments to the Family Act to regulate the distribution of matrimonial assets upon divorce.”

The Maldives acceded to the UN Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in July 1993 with reservations to article 16, which deals with equality in marriage and family relations.

“We strongly believe that equality of women in all walks of life, within the family, and in public life, is indeed a prerequisite for social justice and inclusive development that benefits all segments of society,” said Foreign Minister Dunya in her opening remarks at the treaty reporting session.

She reiterated the government’s commitment to addressing emerging challenges such as stereotypical practices that hinders equal representation of women in society.

Issues of concern

Whilst welcoming legislative initiatives on improving access to justice, the committee expressed concern with “persistent barriers faced by women in accessing justice”.

Of particular concern was the “insufficient independence of the judiciary, bias and gender stereotypes among judges and law enforcement officials, the absence of gender sensitive procedures and the limited capacity of the police to deal with complaints from women about violations of their rights in a gender-sensitive manner.”

Noting “the high number of unregistered marriages in rural and remote areas, including child marriages,” the committee recommended setting an age limit of 16 for exceptional cases of underage marriages.

The committee also recommended the abolition of flogging for fornication “as a matter of urgency,” noting that flogging “disproportionately affect women and girls and deter them from reporting sexual offences.”

Moreover, the committee noted the “existing discriminatory provisions regarding the participation of women as witnesses and delays in amending the stringent evidentiary provisions required for sexual violence offences.”

The committee noted that marital rape was not criminalised in law, the lack of enforcement of the anti-domestic violence law, and the lack of resources for the Family and Child Service Centres and safe houses.

The committee suggested that social stigma attached to women who report abuse as well as the perception that domestic violence cases were private family matters deters reporting.

Traditional stereotypes regarding the role and responsibilities of women in society meanwhile remain deeply entrenched, the committee observed, “which overemphasise the role of women as wives, mothers and caregivers, as well as prevent them from asserting their rights and actively participating in decision-making and other aspects of political and public life.”

The committee also expressed concern at “the growing trend in conservative interpretations of religion which encourage stereotypical patterns which negatively impact women and girls, as acknowledged by the State party during the dialogue. The Committee is further concerned about the emergence of cases of female genital mutilation in the State party, despite legislative prohibitions.”

Stereotypes as well as geographic constraints also limit girls’ access to higher education, the committee observed, noting “de facto restrictions on the re-entry of pregnant adolescent girls and married girls under the age of 18 in the formal educational system.”

Whilst noting the high representation of women in political parties, the committee noted that “social and cultural barriers continue to stigmatise women wishing to participate in political and public life which prevent them from running for public office.”

The committee noted the underrepresentation of women in parliament, the executive, the judiciary and decision-making level posts in the civil service.

“Further, it regrets the limited participation of women in local governance at community level, in particular in atolls, islands and city councils,” it stated.

On anti-trafficking, the committee expressed concern over “delays in establishing shelters for victims of trafficking and the absence of procedures for early victim identification, case management, and victim protection” and noted the “risk of internal trafficking for women and girls from remote islands placed in households in Male to access higher education opportunities.”

On health issues, the committee noted “limited access to obstetric health services, including pre- and post-natal services, for women living in remote areas,” “restricted access, in practice, to sexual and reproductive health services, for unmarried women and girls,” and “the absence of a study and data on the prevalence of unsafe and illegal abortion which is reportedly increasing.”

Reservations

The committee urged the Maldives to honour its commitment to withdraw its reservation to paragraph two of article 16, which states: “The betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory.”

The committee also recommended a review of the reservation to paragraph one of article 16, “with a view to fully withdrawing it, taking into consideration practices of countries with similar religious backgrounds and legal systems which have successfully harmonised their domestic legislation with international human rights obligations”.

Despite its ratification in 1993, the committee noted that the convention “has yet to be incorporated into its domestic legal system and can therefore not be applied by the courts” and expressed concern with the delay in conducting a gender impact analysis of existing laws.

The committee called on the state to pass gender equality legislation with a definition of discrimination in line with the convention.

Referring to the restructured Ministry of Law and Gender headed by the Attorney General, the committee said the move “weakened [the national machinery’s] institutional capacity to develop coherent and sustainable plans and policies and to ensure effective gender mainstreaming across relevant sectors” and expressed concern about the “the insufficient financial, human and technical resources” available to the ministry.

On the Supreme Court’s suo moto proceedings against members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) concerning its submission to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Period Review last year, the committee said “such actions seriously undermine the independence of the commission.”


Related to this story

Amnesty calls for moratorium on flogging in Maldives

Some police officers believe women to blame for domestic violence, says HRCM

Supreme Court slams HRCM for basing rights assessment on “rejected” UN rapporteur findings

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Global change makers demand a fair trial for Nasheed

Global change makers have demanded a fair trial for former President Mohamed Nasheed, imprisoned ahead of a terrorism trial over the 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

An open letter signed by 31 global activists and film makers, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jose Ramos-Horta, called on the international community to use all resources to “pressure the government to free” Nasheed and “desist in all human rights abuses against him immediately.”

Nasheed was arrested on Februrary 22 after Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin alleged the opposition leader may abscond from an unannounced terrorism trial scheduled for the next day.

Nasheed has denied ordering Judge Abdulla’s arrest. If convicted, he faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

The letter’s prominent signatories include, environmentalist and co-founder of 350.org Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, President of Friends of the Earth Erich Pica, and Oscar nominated documentary film maker Robert Stone.

“We firmly believe that international pressure on the regime can help to end the illegal and politically motivated trial against President Nasheed,” read the letter.

The Commonwealth, UN, EU, Canada, India, UK and Australia have expressed concern over Nasheed’s arrest, denial of legal representation, and mistreatment by the police.

Foreign Minister Dhunya Maumoon has previously condemned international statements of concern, saying: “No foreign power can tell Maldives what to do under President [Abdulla] Yameen.”

“To criticize us in public statements with lies or based with having only heard the opposition’s point of view is not acceptable. The government will not accept these statements and will not pay any attention to them,” Dunya said.

Also amongst the signatories are Director of acclaimed documentary “The Island President” Jon Shenk and Producers Dan Cogan, Richard Berge and Bonni Cohen.

Speaking to Huffington Post, Cogan called the proceedings Nasheed “a kangaroo court set up to convict him and it should be very concerning for anyone who believes in the rule of law and democratic government.”

Meanwhile, Former US Vice-President and climate change advocate Al Gore tweeted that the “eyes of the world” are watching Nasheed’s trial and said he must be given a “fair and just trial.”

The government has however claimed it has no influence over Nasheed’s trial, arguing charges were pressed by an independent Prosecutor General. President Yameen taking a stand on Nasheed’s trial amounted to interfering in the judiciary, the government has said.

“Judicial Assassination”

Addressing the Australian Parliament last week, Senator James McGrath described the trial against Nasheed as a “state planned judicial assassination,” and said President Yameen is becoming the “Robert Mugabe of the Indian Ocean.”

“[Nasheed] has been arrested on trumped-up charges, denied legal representation, assaulted by police and faces an unfair trial that will ultimately end in the denial of his  presidential ambitions,” said McGrath.

Mcgrath warned that President Yameen’s administration has “hastened its slide into tyranny,” with police conducting illegal arrests and searches, allegedly planting evidence and breaching constitutionally guaranteed rights.

He further said that the courts have “abrogated their duties under the democratic constitution of the Maldives,” by breaching the separation of powers, denying rights to legal representation and abusing fundamental judicial processes.

“The real purpose behind these actions by the Maldivian state is abundantly clear: to silence all opposition to Yameen’s government,” McGrath claimed.

The Australian senator for Queensland also alleged that the government is “all but refusing help” in the search to find Minivan News Journalist Ahmed Rilwan, who went missing in August last year in what is believed to be an abduction by radicalized gangs.

Indian Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has also dropped the Maldives from an upcoming tour of Indian Ocean neighbours.

The Maldives Foreign Ministry claimed in a statement on Friday that the Prime Minister’s visit “has been postponed to a later date by mutual agreement,” but President’s Office Minister Mohamed Hussain Shareef ‘Mundhu’ told the Associated Press (AP) the Indian government informed the Maldives the visit was cancelled because the “local environment is not conducive.”

Nasheed’s arrest follows the arrest of former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim on charges of terrorism and treason. Nazim is currently standing trial on charges of importing and possessing illegal weapons after police discovered a pistol and three bullets in his apartment during a midnight raid.

Nazim has accused the police of planting the weapons to frame him. The police have dismissed Nazim’s claims.


Related to this story

Indian Prime Minister Modi cancels Maldives trip

Nasheed prosecution highlights “selective approach to justice,” says Amnesty International

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed’s arrest, terrorism trial

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

Commonwealth, Canada express concern over denial of legal representation for former President Nasheed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers objected last night to the state’s alleged influencing of witnesses in a terrorism trial over the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu admitted state prosecutors had met with witnesses, and shared statements they had provided to two separate 2012 investigations both by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the police in order to “refresh memories. ”

Rabiu stressed the meetings were routine, but Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussein said refreshing a witness’s memory amounted to influencing witnesses.

Two of three police officers who testified in Nasheed’s trial so far and Judge Abdulla’s sister-in-law Sobira said they had met with state prosecutors and reread their statements before testifying.

If convicted, the opposition leader faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

Abducted

Testifying via telephone last night, Judge Abdulla’s wife, Aminath Shareef, and sister-in-law, Sobira, said Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) officers had forcibly taken the judge from his home on January 16.

Despite Judge Abdulla’s mother-in-law’s repeated requests for a court warrant, masked officers pushed the door open and entered the dining room where Judge Abdulla was having dinner.

They took him by the hand, and ordered him to accompany them outside. They refused Judge Abdulla’s request to be allowed inside his room to change clothes, forcing him to change his trousers in the hallway. MNDF officers surrounded him at the time.

Aminath said she refused to let go of her husband’s hand, but an MNDF officer forced them apart.

Sobira said officers did not answer the family’s questions on where Judge Abdulla was being taken.

Despite having said she remembered former Criminal Court Judge and current Prosecutor General Muhthaz Mushin being present during the arrest at their home in her testimony to the HRCM, Sobira last night said she did not remember if he had been present at all.  She said she did not know who Muhsin was at the time.

Nasheed’s lawyers objected to witnesses testifying by telephone, but Judge Abdulla Didi said the procedure was routine.

Hatred

Chief Superintendent of Police Abdul Mannan Yoosuf also testified last night, claiming Nasheed said he would never release Judge Abdulla and would not let the judge within 100 meters of a courtroom during a meeting with the police after the judge’s arrest.

Nasheed objected to Mannan testifying, saying the officer harboured deep animosity towards him.

Judges blocked defence lawyer’s attempts at questioning Mannan on his whereabouts during February 7, when he had received his promotion and whether he had called for Nasheed’s resignation.

Judge Didi said Nasheed should have raised objections before a witness was called to the stand, but lawyers countered stating they had not had adequate time to prepare the former president’s defence.

Lawyers argued Nasheed had first been charged with arbitrary detention, but was now facing new terror charges. They once again requested 30 extra days to prepare for the new charges.

The Criminal Court refused saying the same case documents were used for the new charges and said Nasheed’s lawyers had been provided the documents in 2012.

Judge Didi said witness statements only consisted of one or two pages, suggesting lawyers did not require much preparation before hearings.

Nasheed said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without adequate time for defense. His next hearing has been scheduled for 4pm today. The state is to present documentary evidence against the former president.

Judge Didi assured Nasheed he would be allowed to view or hear documentary evidence along with his lawyers before the hearing.

Nasheed had previously contested the credibility of police and military officers as state witnesses, and contended the role of the police and military officers in his February 2012 ouster and Judge Abdulla’s arrest raised questions over their trustworthiness.

On March 2, the presiding bench waved away the concerns of Nasheed’s lawyers, who objected that two of the presiding judges, and the Prosecutor General, had provided witness testimony during the HRCM investigation.

The judges also warned President Nasheed’s legal team not to speak to journalists in a “manner that might defame the judiciary.”


Related to this story

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)