Category: Society & Culture

Global trade union rubbishes Maldives port operator’s claims on rights abuse resolution

The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has rubbished claims by the state-owned Maldives Ports Limited (MPL) that the company has allayed the organisation’s concerns over the alleged infringement of employee rights.

The ITF, a global trade union representing 4.5 million transport workers across 154 countries, said it continued to share concerns raised by the Maldives Ports Workers Union (MPWU) over alleged rights abuses by MPL management.  As a result the ITF has begun calls for international solidarity action by its worldwide members after a perceived failure by the MPL and the government to address the alleged rights issues.

Earlier this year, the MPWU, which represents staff employed at the MPL, accused the state-owned company of violating employee rights over, alleging amongst other concerns, that it had unfairly dismissed four employees due to their political activism.

Disputes between the MPWU and the MPL later escalated to a point where the trade union back in September accused the state corporation of forming a “paper union” to shove aside the alleged violations of employee rights.

MPL has denied all the accusations, claiming that the staff members in question were disciplined on the basis of “disobedience” and “punctuality” in line with national employment regulations.

MPL CEO Mahdi Imad told Minivan News on Wednesday (November 7) that the state-owned company had also responded to the ITF, which it said later “apologised” over having raised the issue without checking facts.

However, the ITF has rubbished the claims, maintaining that it had so far had no reply from the MPL regarding the concerns. The global trade union said therefore it dismissed the state-owned company’s assumption it had “won us over”.

“That’s rubbish. There has been no attempt by MPL and the government to address what’s happening to dockers in the Maldives, and in fact what’s happening in the country at large,” an ITF spokesperson told Minivan News.  The trade union group said it would now be stepping up pressure on the MPL and the Maldives government should negotiations with the MPWU not be forthcoming.

After having sent two letters to President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, the ITF announced Thursday (November 9) that it was now calling on the government to intervene over “union intimidation” or “face embarrassment wrought by widespread international solidarity action”.

ITF General Secretary David Cockroft said the organisation was calling for a real “dialogue and conciliation process with MPWU” that can lead to a negotiation settlement with the union’s members.

“Members of the union have been fighting off victimisation by the MPL in a campaign to prevent them from participating in union activities; union leaders have also been dismissed,” the ITF has claimed “These actions run counter to the government’s own employment legislation and constitution as well as International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions.”

MPWU representatives, alongside a delegation from the national union centre, were said to have held a meeting with President Waheed last Monday (November 5), though the ITF added that the ports union had failed to receive any “adequate assurances”.

“As a result the MPWU, with support from the ITF, has vowed to step up its campaign,” a statement on the trade union’s website read.

President’s Office spokesperson Masood Imad told Minivan News today that as the MPL was a public company, the government “don’t look into issues like this”.

“These companies are totally independent, we appoint a managing director and the CEOs, but it is the board that makes decision,” he added, referring enquiries on the matter to the MPL.

Workplace disruption

Despite the stance being take by the ITF, MPL CEO Mahdi stressed that workers alleging to have been dismissed on political grounds were actually punished for creating “disruption” in the workplace.

He contended that the workers behind the allegations still had the options of taking their cases to the country’s employment tribunal to resolve any grievances that the company would then have to abide by.

Mahdi claimed that workers dismissed under previous MPL management in 2009 and 2010 had under similar circumstances been reinstated under his stewardship, as well as receiving compensation.

“These people who have been disciplined, they know a tribunal would not come out in their favour,” he said.

Mahdi also vehemently denied that he operated the MPL in a politically motivated manner, adding that the company was run in a “very technical” manner that respected due process.

“I will challenge anybody who says we are politically motivated, I believe no one has a bigger right than anyone else,” he added.

Mahdi alleged that one of the dismissed workers who had gone onto make accusations about political motivation had come into his own office and shouted at him, adding that billions of companies allowed the world would discipline such actions by staff of a senior representative.

“This is work disruption, no one is allowed to break work regulations like this. Belittling and scolding me when I’m on the street in public is ok. But here in the work place they must show me respect,” he said. “I can understand that because of the lower education of some of these people that they don’t understand this.”

Mahdi said that in the present time, the entire country had become deeply politicised even seemingly down to a person’s choice of branded bottled water.

However, he rejected accusations the MPL management were politically motivated in their roles.

Mahdi accepted that with the change of government in February, top positions within state owned companies had changed, though this was the nature of political positions under each successive government and would continue to remain so.

“These are not dismissals,” he said.

Madhi said that despite sending several letters to the President’s Office, all concerns raised by the ITF had been resolved and were solely the result of the efforts of a handful of dismissed staff to try and

“There are no issues with ITF, these have been resolved, it is just two guys going to [Minivan News] and you coming to us,” he said.

“Fabricate the truth”

Earlier this year, sacked MPL employee and President of the MPWU, Ibrahim Khaleel, alleged that the MPL was trying to “fabricate the truth” about the violations of worker rights.

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

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

“They send people with cameras to MDP protests to check which MPL employees take part in the protests,” Khaleel said.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Broadcasting Commission condemns barring of Raajje TV crew from government press room

The Maldives Broadcasting Commission has condemned an incident on Thursday where a crew from private broadcaster Raajje TV was forced out of a press conference by Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed.

The commission said it has written to both the President’s Office and Islamic Ministry seeking clarification “at the earliest possible opportunity”, following media reports that the station’s crew was forced out from the Velaanage press room on orders from the President’s Office.

“The commission believes that regardless of whomever it is committed by, such acts hinder the fundamental principles of democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and [the commission] condemns it,” reads the letter from the commission.

“The commission also believes that all state institutions must provide equal opportunity for media in a free and democratic environment.”

Article 28 of the constitution states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press, and other means of communication, including the right to espouse, disseminate and publish news, information, views and ideas. No person shall be compelled to disclose the source of any information that is espoused, disseminated or published by that person.”

Moreover, article 29 states, “Everyone has the freedom to acquire and impart knowledge, information and learning.”

The letter from the Broadcasting Commission noted that the President’s Office had previously assured that it was “the government’s policy to continually provide all information that it is legally obliged to provide to all parties”.

The statement was made in a reply to the commission on August 28 after it had written to the President’s Office regarding media reports claiming that the government was refusing to provide information to Raajje TV.

Government Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza was not responding to Minivan News at the time of press.

Riza however told newspaper Haveeru on Thursday that Raajje TV crew had repeatedly breached codes of conduct inside the President’s Office.

The spokesperson said that the President’s Office would not allow to “do as it pleases.”

The local daily reported that during his press conference Islamic Minister Shaheem had asked a President’s Office employee at the press room if the Raajje TV crew had been expelled.

When the staff confirmed that it was done on orders from the President’s Office, Shaheem reportedly told the employee not to refuse entry to any media crew to an Islamic Ministry press conference without his approval.

“The Islamic Ministry does not have any problems with any TV [station] in the country. I am asking because I’m the one who has to answer for this. I just got an SMS asking me why I forced them out. I didn’t. I thought they left because it was our office,” Shaheem reportedly said after his exchange with the President’s Office staff.

Invitations only

Deputy CEO of Raajje TV Abdulla Yamin told Minivan News that Raajje TV has not faced any “obstruction” from the Islamic Ministry.

“But the press room at Velaanage is managed by staff from the President’s Office,” he explained. “When our crew went to the press conference, [the President’s Office staff] said Raajje TV was not invited and told them to get out.”

Media officials from the President’s Office also refused entry to a Raajje TV crew to a press conference later in the day by the Maldives Ports Limited (MPL), Yamin said.

“But MPL senior officials said they would provide us any information and invite us to their press conferences and events,” he said. “So this issue is between Raajje TV and the President’s Office media staff.”

Yamin added that he was told by President’s Advisor on Political Affairs Ahmed Thaufeeq ‘Topy’ that he was unaware of the apparent non-cooperation policy, suggesting a “difference of opinion within the President’s Office concerning Raajje TV.”

Attempts to contact President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza were unsuccessful, Yamin said.

In September, Raajje TV sued the President’s Office at the Civil Court for effectively boycotting the station from press conferences and official functions.

Yamin told Minivan News at the time that “the whole issue began with the government’s Media Secretary Masood Imad excluding RaajjeTV in all invitations to media to cover their press events.”

“Initially, Abbas Adil Riza held a different opinion. But then it became a norm for the government to block us from events, even refusing access and turning us away when we took the initiative to find out about events and attempt to cover them with or without invitation.”

The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) released a statement at the time stating that it would neither encourage nor accept the boycotting of any media outlet by either state institutions or political parties

Raajje TV had also filed a lawsuit against the Maldives Police Service (MPS) at the Civil Court, following their decision to not to cooperate with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned TV station.

The station had earlier accused police of targeting, assaulting and harrasing its reporters during MDP’s protests.

The lawsuit followed an announcement by the police claiming that the opposition-aligned TV station was broadcasting false and slanderous content about police, which had undermined their credibility and public confidence.

Yamin said today that the cases were ongoing at the Civil Court.

In previous hearings, Yamin said, the government argued that it was within its rights or discretion not to invite certain media to press conferences and events.

“But what we are saying is that it is a constitutional right of media to gather information and we are ready to fight for that right,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldivian faith to Maldivians

This article first appeared on DhivehiSitee. Republished with permission.

Political prostitutes who pose as religious scholars and sell their Islamic learning to the highest bidder have become some of the biggest contributors to the current socio-political and economic turmoil in the Maldives.

Chief among them is Sheikh Imran Abdulla, current president of Adhaalath Party – an organisation which uses the religion of Islam as its chief recruitment and fundraising tool, and proudly exploits people’s faith for political purposes.

Sheikh Imran Abdulla was one of the chief choreographers of the Islamists’ role in the downfall of the Maldivian democracy. On 2 February 2012, he issued an ultimatum to the then President Mohamed Nasheed: resign within five days or be forced out of office.

Nasheed was forced to resign on 7 February.

Yesterday, Sheikh Imran, now a chief mover and shaker in the current ‘Coalition Government’ issued another ultimatum. This time to the government he helped put in place: get out of the 25-year contract with India’s GMR Group for upgrading and running the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport within six days (by 15 November), or else.

He issued the ultimatum at a public rally widely believed to be funded by rich tourism tycoons, currently openly fighting over the country’s airports, and who have vested interests in getting GMR out.

The rally was a colourful affair, aimed chiefly at rousing the masses into a fervour by making the GMR issue into a religious one. The aim, it appears, is to incite enough public discontent to pressure the government into reneging on its agreement with GMR.

Ahead of the rally, held at the Artificial Beach in Male’, leaflets were distributed all over the island, encouraging people to attend the rally in the name of Islam, to save the Maldivian airport from foreign ‘economic invaders’ of ‘other religions’.

Songs were played on loudspeakers attached to pick-up trucks that went round and round the island, stopping at mosques after Friday prayers for maximum effect.

One of the songs has the title—Maldivians’ Prayer: Maldivian airport to Maldivians. Another is called simply Maldivian Airport to Maldivians. The latter raises the volume on nationalism and the former suggests ending the agreement with GMR is a religious duty of Maldivians.

Here’s some of the lyrics from Maldivians’ Prayer:

You get the picture.

The rally was not as big as the Mother of All Rallies, or the so-called Mahaasinthaa, held on 23 December 2011 to ‘Defend Islam’ by removing President Nasheed from office and endorsing his then Vice President Dr Waheed as his replacement.

But there was still a sizeable crowd of hundreds gathered around the nationalistic/religious banners.

Sheikh Imran told them it was their religious duty to deliver the airport from India’s GMR. Men and women (strange this, given that Imran has repeatedly stated that women should stay home and breed instead of joining political rallies) stayed listening to Sheikh Imran and his fellow Islam-sellers long after midnight and in the pouring rain.

Before ending the rally for the night, another ‘scholar’ led a prayer calling on Allah to bring his wrath upon GMR and cause it great destruction.

Such rhetoric not only fools a lot of people into accepting this economic/political issue as a religious matter, it also helps increase the intolerance and xenophobia which have become defining characteristics of the Maldivian society today, thanks mainly to the religion-political-tourism industry complex that now reigns supreme over Maldivian affairs.

Moreover, as former Maldivian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Farah Faizal quickly highlighted, turning the issue into a religious one also has the potential to make life very difficult for the tens of thousands of Maldivian immigrants in India by creating tensions between them and the largely Hindu majority Indian population.

The rising radicalisation of Maldivians has been a cause for concern in India for several years, and it is well-known that a Maldivian was involved in the Mumbai attacks of 2008, as is the fact that the terrorist organisation Lashkar e Taiba has beenoperating and recruiting in the Maldives.

Young disaffected Maldivians are many, and most are highly vulnerable to ideological indoctrination by individuals who propagate extremist ideologies.

Sadly, many do not see beyond ‘The Scholar’ façade behind which these individuals operate. Tens of thousands remain incapable of looking further than the carefully cultivated beards, or the Pashtun garb—no more Islamic or Maldivian than GMR itself.

Hundreds everyday accept these individuals as devout religious scholars and remain blind to how they turn Islamic teachings into a commodity that can be bought and sold to equally unscrupulous businessmen/politicians.

It is these individuals, worked into a frenzy by individuals like Sheikh Imran, who have travelled abroad to kill themselves and others in the name of Islam.

Several government officials were at yesterday’s rally, including the President’s Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza. Riza loudly accused Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives D.M. Mullay—a key figure behind India’s quick acceptance of Dr Waheed’s government as legitimate—of taking bribes to ensure GMR was awarded the Maldives airport contract.

Here’s Dr Waheed’s spokesperson Abbas Riza at the rally:

But, as is now coming to be expected, the government has stayed wholly silent on the rampant exploitation of religion for political purposes, further reinforcing the perception that it is complicit in this phenomenon and condone it as a valid political strategy.

It is still silent, for instance, on the Salafists’ call last week to have Maldivian girls declared women at puberty. A children’s Afternoon with Ali Rameez remains scheduled to go ahead on 15 November as planned, despite the fact that Ali Rameez is the man leading the call to end girl-childhood at puberty.

And, as we shall see on 15 November (also the date of the GMR ultimatum), there will be many parents who would take their children to this pop-singer turned ultra-religious conservative without pausing to think about what they are doing.

These people will represent the thousands of Maldivians who have already bought into the dogma, among others, that it is their religious duty to have their girl-children married off at puberty to men old enough to be their grandfathers.

The official silence over ‘religious scholars’ and their exploitation of Islam to suit various socio-political and economic purposes must end. Such voices must be strongly countered and condemned.

The long term consequences of their actions will not be seen only in the political economy, but in the Maldivian identity itself which has already changed so drastically in the last decade as to be unrecognisable.

From a laid-back island community of moderate and tolerant Muslims whose relationship with God was their personal affair, Maldives has become a highly radical and tense society in which a large percentage of the population is bigoted, intolerant and xenophobic.

Among them will be the few who will join the violent militants.

What is of equally great concern are the tens of thousands of Maldivians who fail to see these political prostitutes for what they are, and willingly give up their own human rights and dignity and deny others theirs in the name of Islam.

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)

Nasheed’s trial and Maldives’ human rights record debated in Westminster

The ongoing trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed was again the subject of debate in London this week, as well as the current human rights situation in the country.

On Tuesday night, the Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission convened to discuss the Maldives, inviting speakers from the government, the opposition, and civil society to participate in the event titled “Human rights and Democracy in the Maldives: Where do we go from here?”

The following day, a private members debate was secured by Karen Lumley MP in the House of Commons to discuss the role of the UK government and the Commonwealth in ensuring a fair trial for Nasheed, whose case was postponed on Sunday following a high court injunction.

Tuesday’s meeting was attended by former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Dr Farahanaz Faizal, former Foreign Minister and current UN Special Rapporteur Dr Ahmed Shaheed, barrister – and current member of Nasheed’s legal team – Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, as well as Amnesty International’s South Asia specialist Abbas Faiz.

Invitations were also extended to the Acting High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Ahmed Shiaan and Minister for Tourism Ahmed Adheeb.

However, after queries from panel members in attendance as to the whereabouts of the government’s representatives, the committee’s Chair Robert Buckland MP informed those present that, despite having initially accepted the invitation, the government representatives had withdrawn.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said that Adheeb had been unable to attend the meeting as it had clashed with a ministerial dinner. He had also been busy with duties related to the 2012 World Travel Market, which had been the primary purpose of his visit to London.

Where do we go from here?

Shaheed was the first to speak at the Conservative’s meeting, urging the government to uphold the commitments made via its international commitments as well as the pledges made this summer at the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC).

Farah was the next to speak, choosing to focus in particular on the issues of gender based violence and rising religious extremism in the country.

She argued that the treatment of female protesters in the aftermath of the February 7 transfer of power had highlighted this endemic abuse.

Farah deviated from her prepared testimony to mention the recent incident of the 11 year old girl who gave birth in Seenu atoll last week.

“The silence of the authorities is disturbing,” she added, before chastising President Mohamed Waheed Hassan for failing to speak out, despite his history of working with UNICEF.

Abbas Faiz spoke next, taking time – after distributing a copy of the recent Amnesty International publication, ‘The other side of paradise’ – to assert the independence of his organisation: “Some still believe we are not. We do not take sides.”

After the release of the report in the summer, Amnesty was accused by Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed of acting with bias towards anti government supporters.

Faiz pointed out that Amnesty also condemned any acts of violence by protesters and stated that it still considered the detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January this year to have been “arbitrary”.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC contended that the “arbitrary” arrest of Abdulla Mohamed was yet to be proven in a court of law.

The member of Nasheed’s current defense team recalled his previous work in the country in 2005, noting the proven gains to be made from garnering global attention on human rights abuses.

He did acknowledge the difficulty of this task, with far greater human rights atrocities occurring elsewhere in the world, and expressed his belief that the Commonwealth was best placed to help solve the country’s current problems.

When taking questions from the floor, Farah expressed her concern that international observers were often sheltered from the real Maldives when visiting the country, arguing that this must change if observers are to assist with free and fair elections.

Buckland, the Chair, concluded the meeting by saying that he would pass on the details of the forum to the Foreign Secretary William Hague as well as the Under Secretary Alistair Burt.

Private members’ debate

Burt was unable to attend the private member’s debate the following day, sending Mark Simmonds to represent the Foreign Office on his behalf.

Lumley described the 2008 election victory as a “political fairy tale”, but argued that Nasheed had been left with a “constitutional time bomb” regarding the unreformed judiciary, which the Commonwealth ought to have offered greater assistance with.

Robert Buckland, also present at this debate, remarked that the “current government is in a supremely ironic situation.”

“They criticised the former president for interfering in the judiciary and now it seems they are using judicial processes to frustrate a free and fair election,” he said.

“Is not the message we need to send to them that the guarantee of a true democracy is an independent judiciary, and that they had better make sure that is so,” he asked.

Both Karen Lumley and John Glen MP both stated their firm belief that the events of February 7 amounted to a coup.

On behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Simmonds said that he disagreed with the assertion that the Commonwealth had “taken its eye off the ball” in the Maldives.

“I do not think that is an entirely accurate reflection of matters,” he said.

He said that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) was concerned about the situation – noting that the recent meeting in New York went on for five hours, despite being scheduled for 45 minutes – and that it had pledged additional support for civil society and judicial reform.

Simmonds was keen to stress that, after the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), “we fully accept the legitimacy of the current president and his government.”

He described the current legal proceeding as a “significant test” which was being “watched closely” by the international community before noting that the government had previously sought and received assurances from President Waheed that the trial would be free from political influence.

“At this stage of proceedings, we have no reason to believe that this will not be the case,” said Simmonds.

“I have no doubt that the Maldives government and judiciary will feel the eyes of the world on them, and that they realise that a fair and impartial trial is most evidently in the national interest,” he added.

The second hearing in Nasheed’s trial had been scheduled for last Sunday but was postponed pending a High Court ruling on the procedural points raised by his legal team.

A High Court decision had been expected on the day after the private members debate, but the Supreme Court was reported to have instructed the lower court to halt its hearings on Wednesday afternoon.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Human Resource Ministry owed more than MVR 350 million in unpaid work permit fees, student loan repayments

The Ministry of Human Resources, Youth and Sports failed to collect MVR 168.4 million (US$10.9 million) in expatriate work permit fees for the past three years and MVR 191 million (US$12.3 million) in repayments for student loans, the ministry’s audit report for 2011 has revealed.

The audit report (Dhivehi) made public on Monday stated that information from the past three years on expatriate work visas showed that the year-on-year increase in foreign workers arriving in the Maldives was “alarming.”

“Records from the Department of Immigration and Emigration show that from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011 the state did not receive MVR 168,414,000 (US$10.9 million) owed as work permit fees,” the audit report revealed.

Records showed that the number of foreign workers living in the Maldives without paying work permit fees in 2009 was 16,934.

The figure increased to 27,793 in 2010 and 39,756 in 2011.

While the expatriate workforce in the Maldives as of December 2009 was 57,968 registered workers, the figure had risen to 99,369 by September 2011.

Of the total number of foreign workers, 55 percent or 54,653 expatriates were from Bangladesh and “69 percent of these, or 37,710 people, are working in the country illegally.”

Of the remaining 44,716 from other nations, 18 percent or 8,048 were illegal workers.

“Therefore, records show that the total number of foreigners working in the Maldives illegally is 45,758 (46 percent of foreign workers),” the report revealed.

Student loan repayments

The student loan repayments were meanwhile owed for two loan schemes launched respectively in 2000 and 2005.

As of December 31, 2011, the report found that the ministry failed to collect 154.6 million (US$10 million) as repayments for a long-term student loan programme launched in 2005 from a national higher education fund.

Of MVR 155.6 million (US$10 million) released between 2005 and 2011, the audit discovered that only MVR 904,872.28 (US$58,681) was repaid.

“Students who went for higher education under the scheme have not been repaying the loans because the department of higher education had not sent repayment schedules with details of the total amounts owed,” the report found.

If “adequate efforts” had been undertaken to collect payments, the Auditor General’s Office noted that “a revolving fund could have been established to provide higher education opportunities without additional expenditure from the state budget.”

Meanwhile in 2000, the report explained, the ministry launched a programme with World Bank loan assistance titled the “third education project” and issued MVR 250 million (US$16.2 million) under the scheme, with a specified portion to be paid back to the ministry.

“While it was determined that 15 percent from government employees participating in the scheme and 50 percent from participants from private companies would be collected, we note that repayments have not been sought from anyone,” the report stated.

“And as a result of the ministry not properly maintaining records of how the money was spent on students under the scheme, we note that details of how funds were released for individual students are not available and no one was sent repayment schedules.”

The report observed that MVR 37.5 million (US$2.4 million) estimated as repayments owed under the scheme has not been collected due to the “carelessness, incompetence and negligence of those in charge of the ministry’s relevant department”.

In February 2012, the report noted, the department of higher education and its staff at the Human Resource Ministry were transferred under the Ministry of Education.

Violations of Public Finance Act

The Auditor General’s Office stated that it did not believe expenditure out of the ministry’s budget was “mainly” in accordance with the Public Finance Act and “to the extent specified in the budget, on matters determined in the budget and in ways that would achieve the objectives of the ministry’s budget for 2011.”

In addition to the ministry failing to collect student loan repayments and unpaid work permit fees, the audit report noted a number of instances that were ostensibly in violation of the Public Finance Act and regulations under the law.

The audit discovered that seven political appointees were paid salaries and allowances in 2010 with no records of attendance.

The responsibilities of the seven senior officials who did not sign attendance sheets were unclear, the report noted.

Moreover, the audit found that a state minister was paid MVR 165,897.93 (US$10,758) as salary from February 13, 2012 to May 2012 despite not attending the office during the period.

While the state minister had submitted a written request for a holiday on February 13 before flying abroad, the report noted that the ministry had not made official arrangements for the leave of absence.

On February 7, 2012, former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under controversial circumstances following a police mutiny at the Republic Square.

“[The state minister] was removed from the post by the President’s Office on July 22, 2012,” the report noted.

In another case, the audit discovered that MVR 865,500.70 (US$56,128) was deposited for seven students studying in Malaysia under the office’s staff development scheme, in excess of the official approved stipend.

In place of RM11,760 (Malaysian Ringgits) as six month’s stipend for each student, a sheet sent to the bank from the ministry mistakenly stated US$11,760, the report found.

While the ministry’s staff studying in Malaysia received an additional MVR 123,642.96 (US$8,018) each, the report noted that no attempt had been made to recover the excess amounts.

The audit report blamed the “failure of the employees to carry out their responsibilities” in preparing, checking and authorising the sheet sent to the bank.

The ministry meanwhile incurred MVR 133,938 (US$8,686) as fines for late payment of water and electricity bills in 2011, but no employees were held responsible and the loss to the state was not recovered.

The report also found that a total of MVR 420,000 (US$27,237) was paid as allowances in 2011 – at a rate of MVR 2,500 (US$162) a month – for 15 members of the National Sports Council under the ministry, without official approval from the government.

The report noted that the council held only seven meetings in 2011, each lasting for about an hour and with half the council’s membership in attendance.

Meanwhile, as a result of failing to properly maintain stock inventories, equipment purchased by the ministry was not registered and five laptops and 15 printers were lost.

The audit also discovered that the ministry provided MVR 200,000 (US$12,970) to the Shaviyani Milandhoo island council in June 2011 to set up a net around the island’s football stadium.

The funds were not approved in the 2011 budget but were released based on a pledge by the President to the islanders, the report stated, noting that such expenditure was “in breach of budgetary rules.”

Cancelled beach games

The audit report revealed that the ministry spent MVR 1.28 million (US$84,306) for “a first-ever beach and water sports tournament in South Asia” that never took place.

In February 2011, event organisers told Minivan News that the “Maldives Beach Games 2011” would bring hundreds of athletes from around the world to compete in 10 sporting events.

The international games were launched in February with a laser show and an appearance from renowned Sri Lankan cricketer Sanath Jayasuriya at a ceremony in Male’s Kulhivaru Ekuveni Indoor Hall.

The audit report meanwhile noted that the reasons for the eventual cancellation could not be discerned from the official documents.

The expenditure – made through the Maldives Olympic Committee – included over MVR 542,000 (US$35,149) on advertising and MVR 103,450 (US$6,708) on “a mascot and theme song for launching the beach games.”

Equipment, furniture and other items purchased for the cancelled games cost MVR139,545 (US$9,050).

Of the ultimately wasteful expenditure, the report noted that MVR 843,571 (US$54,706) was spent in violation of the Public Finance Act and regulations as estimates were only sought from one party.

A member of the sports council created by the ministry was meanwhile paid MVR50,000 (US$3,242) – without a public bidding process – to transfer sand from a soccer pitch made for the games to the artificial beach, the report found.

The Olympic Committee spent MVR 117,000 (US$7,588) to prepare the soccer pitch in the vacant plot in front of Villa College.

Moreover, a deputy minister and the sports council member travelled to Bangalore at a cost of MVR57,825 (US$3,750) purportedly in relation to the games, but the purpose of the trip was unclear as an official report was not prepared.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court instructs High Court to suspend hearings on former President Nasheed’s appeal

The Supreme Court has instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on an appeal lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The High Court on Sunday granted an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included determining the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

Nasheed’s lawyers were informed by the High Court this morning that a hearing scheduled for 10:15am was cancelled because a judge was “on sick leave.”

An official from the High Court initially told Minivan News that the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on sick leave. However, asked which of the three judges on the panel had taken ill, the official said she would have to clarify.

The High Court official said later that the case had been suspended based on instructions from the Supreme Court. A letter from the Supreme Court was received in the late afternoon yesterday, she said.

“The judge took the sick leave [this morning] after the Supreme Court ordered the case to be halted. It wasn’t cancelled because he took ill,” she claimed.

Nasheed’s lawyers were at first unaware of the Supreme Court order.

Abdulla Shair from Nasheed’s legal team said that the High Court has since informed the lawyers of the Supreme Court’s instruction to halt the case.

However, it was unclear whether the Supreme Court’s order was a writ of prohibition or “just a letter telling the High Court to halt the case until the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court,” he explained.

The High Court official said that the instructions were made in a letter from the apex court.

A media official from the Supreme Court was not responding at the time of press.

However, the official told local media today that the High Court was asked to halt hearings on the appeal because one of the procedural points involved the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court, which the Supreme Court had been asked by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to determine.

The Supreme Court also informed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Wednesday to resume proceedings on other ongoing cases, pending a ruling on the magistrate’s court legitimacy.

Following the High Court’s injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases in light of the questions raised over its legal status.

In an announcement a day after the High Court granted the injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

The Supreme Court media official told newspaper Haveeru today that the decision by the highest court of appeal would not affect the High Court injunction suspending the former President’s trial.

Former President Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Speaking to press after the High Court hearing on Sunday, Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain claimed that the state was unable to offer valid arguments to defend the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which the former President’s legal team contends was formed in violation of the constitution and Judicature Act.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the JSC revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Local media reported on Monday that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

Meanwhile, writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the three-judge panel heard arguments on the procedural issues from both the claimant and the state, represented by the Prosecutor General’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya had said that the judges would try to ensure that the next hearing would be the last before issuing a ruling.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission deputy backs dropping fingerprinting for party membership applications

A decision by Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee to cease requiring fingerprints on political party application forms has been welcomed by Vice President of Elections Commission (EC) Ahmed Fayaz, who downplayed concerns over the potential for future membership fraud.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Fayaz stressed that the EC would not be officially commenting on the parliamentary commission’s decision yesterday until speaking with various party leaders. However, he claimed that he personally believed the Majlis recommendation to discontinue the use of fingerprints would make the system of membership applications more efficient and easier for both the EC and political parties.

Announcing the decision yesterday to recommend an end to fingerprinting, the Independent Institutions Committee members questioned the efficiency of such technology, arguing that no mechanism or database presently existed in the Maldives that could store the required amounts of information.

Nonetheless, local NGO the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) told Minivan News that while it was unsure of the efficiency of the EC’s fingerprint system, fraudulent membership registration for Maldivian political parties remained a significant problem that needed to be addressed. MDN claimed that alternative methods of party member verification should now be sought by parliament and the EC.

Fayaz responded that under regulations adopted in 2005, political parties had not been requested to submit membership forms to the EC. Instead, he said they have been required every three months to produce a list of their members including names and their ID number.

“When these lists are sent, these members should not be registered with other political parties,” he said. “[Parties] must check for themselves that these members are genuine.”

Fayaz said he believed that the present system of checking party membership lists every three months left little room for “fraud” within the system. He claimed therefore that a larger issue facing party membership rather than fraud was the state system of giving payments to parties on the basis of which group had the largest number of followers.

Fayaz accepted that the use of a verification system “like fingerprinting” could help stop possible fraud within party memberships, particularly in the case of people charged with recruiting members for the country’s political parties.

“I think some of the people doing recruiting [for parties] may in cases go beyond the rules,” he said, noting that there had been an improvement in following regulations in recent years.

Upon taking his oath of office along with current EC President Fuad Thaufeeq back in 2009, Fayaz claimed they had discovered “a culture” at the commission where regulations were often not being followed as required under laws outlining political party memberships.

“Perhaps under pressure from political parties there was a regulation where membership lists were not being checked every quarter,” he added, claiming that regulations were now being upheld up by the EC.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, MDN Executive Director Humaida Abdul Gafoor said the NGO was extremely concerned at ongoing cases of members being signed up to parties fraudulently.

“Often, people are not aware they have been signed up,” she stated. “It is imperative that it is down to an individual to decide which party they want to belong to and no one else.”

Humaida Abdul Gafoor said it was vital that some form of verification mechanism was in place to ensure party memberships were genuine, adding that a bigger issue facing the committee was in finding alternatives to the fingerprint technology, rather than simply halting it.

“We don’t know if the EC’s adoption of fingerprinting was a move in the right direction in first place,” she added.

System criticism

Explaining the decision to discontinue the EC’s request for fingerprints, Deputy Chairman of the Independent Institutions Committee, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Sameer, said that the Maldives did not presently have a mechanism or system to collect and store such information.

“In regards to issues with the fingerprinting system, the EC, Department of National Registration and the Maldives Police Service all agreed they didn’t have enough records or verification systems available,” he told Minivan News.

One ongoing critic of the EC’s fingerprint system is MP Ahmed Mahloof of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

Back in September, Mahloof alleged via local media that close to 8000 membership forms from his party have been rejected by the Elections Commission (EC) – mainly due to the quality of fingerprints appearing on the forms.

The MP claimed that the fingerprint issue had arisen because the EC did not have sufficiently modern machinery to look at the fingerprints, relying instead on the perception of its staff – drastically limiting memberships numbers for the party.

A spokesperson for the EC told Minivan News at the time that similar complaints had been received from other political parties including the Jumhoree Party (JP), Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

PPM MP Mahloof, DRP chief Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and DQP Leader Dr Hassan Saeed were not responding to phone calls by Minivan News at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Kirsty Brimelow, QC

Kirsty Brimelow QC is one of three UK legal experts on former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team. The new government has pursued criminal charges against Nasheed for his decision to detain Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, charges Nasheed contends are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the 2013 Presidential elections.

Brimelow is an experienced criminal law specialist with expertise in international human rights, and has worked in a number of small island states including Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago.

JJ Robinson: How much background knowledge did you have on the political situation in the Maldives prior to deciding to join Nasheed’s defence team?

Kirsty Brimelow: Very little other than the usual views of the Maldives as beautiful islands for romantic holidays – I had never been here before. I had heard about the climate change aspect of Maldives at the time of the Copenhagen summit – it was something I remember reading about. I thought that it would be terrible if Male’ was under water in 20 years.

JJ: How much had you followed the February 2012 transfer of power?

KB: No I hadn’t followed it. When I was contacted [to join Nasheed’s legal team] I looked it all up. I don’t know if it was reported in English newspapers. I don’t remember reading anything about it. At the time the news was dominated by news of Syria and starvation in the world’s youngest democracy, Sudan. I think they dominated the headlines, and the London Olympics more than anything else that was going on.

JJ: What was behind your decision to join Nasheed’s legal team?

KB: As an international lawyer there is a real interest in how rule of law operates in different jurisdictions. In recent years I’ve done a lot of work in small island states – I am Legal Advisor to the Constitution Commission of Fiji, I worked in Trinidad and Tobago as part of the team defending the chief justice, and was appointed Counsel to a Commmision of Inquiry into a massive international fraud inquiry in Antigua. I have also worked in Jamaica.

I suppose I am interested in the Maldives as a new democracy, and how that struggle is being played out. I am also really interested in the Maldives both as international and human rights lawyer. I have real interest in fairness of procedures and that there are independent and impartial judges. No court system can operate if you have biased judges, or judges who are of a standard such that justice cannot be carried out.

JJ: How much do you know about the Maldivian judiciary and its condition?

KB: I’ve read a couple of reports which have the same conclusion – that the judiciary is not functioning at a level that can deliver justice. But I read these reports as background – I have really been concentrating on this specific case.

JJ: The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have made a case on the basis of challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court where Nasheed is being tried, rather than defending the specific charges against him. Do you think this is a good approach, and can you argue that in court: “I don’t respect your legitimacy, your honour”?

KB: There are different arguments going on at the moment. The high court application [regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court] is a legitimate argument accepted as such by the Attorney General. It is a jurisdictional public law matter now removed from criminal law.

The validity of the jurisdiction of courts is fundamental – people can’t just set up their own courts because they feel like it, and they can’t just put in who they like as judges of that court. It has to be done in a transparent and independent way in order for the courts to have any respect.

JJ: Why should courts care about the respect of the public?

KB: The general public in any democratic society cares about its justice system because that underpins its democratic society. If you think your justice system is corrupt – that whatever evidence you have when you’re in court will be ignored because you have a corrupt system – then that is bad for democracy.

Democracy can’t survive with a corrupt justice system. I think people do care about that. But obviously the select people who want to keep it corrupt, don’t.

JJ: This is the first time there has been foreign legal representation applying to appear in the Criminal Court, as far as I’m aware. Are you allowed in?

KB: At the moment there is apparently a policy that says you have to be Maldivian and/or married to a Maldivian to appear in court. It is very restrictive. It is going to be a matter we are going to challenge.

It obviously depends on the particular country, but most small island states have developed a system where foreign lawyers are able to practice within that system on a case by case basis. For example I have appeared [in court] in the Caribbean. The reason is that the smaller the place the smaller the pool of lawyers, and the bigger the case, the more political difficulties and influences that could be brought to bear on people from that society. So if you bring someone in from outside it can bring the balance back.

It is also a good way to increase knowledge and expertise. For example my knowledge is based on international human rights law, whereas if you are practicing in a small state you don’t have that comfort of being able to specialise. International law is not foreign law – it is part of the law of the Maldives, and to develop it you need that knowledge running through [the system]. The way you do that is allow international lawyers.

The Maldivian lawyers I’m working with are keen to make the application so that I could represent President Nasheed in court together with them. It would be their application on my behalf.

JJ: Dhivehi can make the country quite inaccessible to outsiders – to what extent is that a challenge in this case?

KB: Of course it’s a challenge and as to how it would operate [in court], nobody’s ever tried it before. As far as I understand English is widely spoken fluently, and i’m told many Maldivians prefer to speak English. Obviously it would have to be translated in court – but that happens in many jurisdictions with no difficulty. I don’t see it as meaning that the position would be impossible – there would have to be systems in place.

JJ: The judges on the panel hearing Nasheed’s trial were appointed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), and include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents – Jumhoree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim and Speaker of Parliament, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Shahid. In this environment, and given the politicisation of the case, is it reasonable to expect that Nasheed can have a fair trial at all in the Maldives?

KB: I think at present if the trial were to go ahead in the Hulhumale Court, as presently constituted, there are real issues as to whether there is any chance at all as to whether Nasheed will have a fair trial. There are real issues and real concerns.

JJ: What is the approach then? The MDP has challenged the court’s legitimacy, but what about defending Nasheed’s decision to detain the Chief Judge of the Crimnial Court? Would you advise defending these charges or lean towards challenging the court’s legitimacy?

KB: Nasheed at his recent rally said that based on the evidence served against him, he should be acquitted.

The trial has two aspects: there are real issues as to fairness and those aspects fall into two categories, which relate to the court itself, which will be argued further, and the second aspect relates to the ability of President Nasheed to properly defend himself. I can’t go into details because those submissions have not been made to the trial court.

JJ: How similar are the challenges in the Maldives compared to other small island states?

KB: Each place is very different – but a common thread is the real difficulty getting a neutral tribunal to consider the evidence. Most countries have a problem where so much is in the newspapers already that people have formed opinions by the time the matter comes to court. In fact the trial is run in the newspaper, usually against the defendant, who isn’t in a position to present his defence in the newspaper as well, so it becomes one-sided and by the time the case comes to court people have the view that the person is guilty.

That would not happen in a larger jurisdiction where there are all sorts of laws to prevent people coming to court with a closed mind. That’s a problem here.

The Maldives has specific problems, such as those documented issues in relation to the judiciary, and those issues are quite extreme and are not found in many other small island states I’ve worked in. Many of those states such as Jamaica have a strong judiciary.

JJ: What would be some of those concerning issues?

KB: I don’t want to be upsetting the trial. I can quote from the reports though. Things like the statistics of those serving in the judiciary with criminal convictions and so on. It must be a concern to a fair minded observer as to what sort of justice is being dispensed if you are appearing before someone with criminal convictions, for example. That kind of thing is what I mean.

JJ: To what extent do you think the trial of Nasheed could be a catalyst for judicial reform in the Maldives?

KB: I think it is an important trial for the Maldives, and it could be a catalyst for reform in that the issues which are being raised are fundamental to a functioning justice system, and they are serious, so it should at the very least trigger debate in parliament in a democratic country.

There has to be a robust system which will regulate judges objectively, so someone coming to court can have faith in the system. If there is no check on judges in terms of their independence and honesty, as well as ability, then the courts just simply become a means of reaching a preordained result that everyone has already predicted.

Then quite simply it is not a justice system – it is a figleaf. Everything else flows from that – stability, fairness in terms of elections, parliament; if you’ve got a vacuum in your justice system you quite simply don’t have democracy.

You have to have a robust system to deal with complaints [against the judiciary]. In international law and particularly the Convention of Civil and Political Rights it sets out that privileges and immunities for judges can only go so far, and that they are not meant to stretch to afford protection ‘no matter what’.

My interest is in fair trial procedures, and that fair trial rights are upheld. There are real issues in this case, which is why I’m part of the legal team.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police raid Palm Deck Garden restaurant, find machetes, alcohol

Police have raided the Palm Deck Garden restaurant in Male ‘, closing the business following the discovery of alcohol and sharp weapons inside the premises.

The police raided the restaurant last night at about 11:15pm, according to local media. Seven Maldivians and four expat waiters in the restaurant were arrested in the raid.

Police have told media that the restaurant was closed in a special operation that had commenced with the aim of lowering the crime rate in Male’ and make it more peaceful.

Sun Online reported that journalists in the area witnessed police bringing two machetes out from the restaurant.

Police also said a bottle and glasses containing alcohol were discovered inside the premises, and that police were now trying to obtain a warrant from the court to keep the restaurant closed.

In late October, police closed down the Jalapeno Restaurant in Male’ and arrested a number of people caught using alcohol in the premises.

Police reportedly discovered a number of alcohol bottles under the tables on the second floor of the restaurant in addition to packets containing hashish oil and heroin.

Police Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef did not respond to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)