Day: October 19, 2010

Court refuses whistleblower’s evidence in JSC professional negligence case

The Civil Court has refused to hear additional evidence offered by a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who alleges that the JSC is withholding information in the ongoing professional negligence case against it.

The Civil Court decision was based on the grounds that any information obtained by a member of the JSC in their official capacity cannot be used for any other purpose than that of executing their official duties.

JSC member Aishath Velezinee applied for leave to enter the proceedings as a third party, saying that the JSC had not made full disclosure in its submissions to the court on the professional negligence case brought against it by Treasure Island Limited earlier this month.

“Aishath Velezinee applied to enter the proceedings in her capacity as a member of the JSC and the additional information she has offered was also obtained as a member of the JSC”, Judge Nihayath said.

Referring to the JSC Code of Conduct, Judge Nihayath said, this meant Velezinee could not share the additional information with the court.

To do so would be to breach the JSC code of conduct, Judge Nihayath said, as it would mean that Velezinee was revealing the information for a purpose other than the execution of her official duties.

In reply, Velezinee said that by sharing the information with the court she would be executing her responsibilities to the nation and to the State. The duty of the JSC, she said, is to serve the people.

Judge Nihayath granted Velezinee the right to appeal, were she dissatisfied with the ruling.

Treasure Island Limited is suing the JSC for failing to execute its responsibilities by neglecting to investigate three complaints it made to the JSC in 2009, alleging professional misconduct by two judges – Judge Ali Naseer and former Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy.

At the time Treasure Island made the complaints to the JSC, Justice Fahmy was the Commission’s deputy chair. He later went on to become its Commissioner before being replaced by Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla in early September this year.

The cases in which Treasure Island alleges misconduct by the judges involve some prominent figures of the tourism industry, including the Ministry of Tourism, and a sum of money amounting to over a million US dollars.

The JSC denied the allegations of professional negligence at the first hearing on 7 October 2010, saying that the complaints made by Treasure Island Limited against the two judges were outside of its constitutional mandate.

The JSC is an independent institution with the Constitutional mandate to oversee the judiciary, investigate complaints against it, and taking disciplinary action if required.

The JSC also told Judge Nihayath at the hearing that it had the power, granted by the Constitution, to ignore any complaints that it deemed were neither valid nor genuine. The complaints made by Treasure Island Limited fell into this category, it said.

The JSC has not investigated any of the 118 complaints submitted to it this year, and the commission’s complaints committee has not met for five months.

Treasure Island refused the offer of an out of court settlement by the JSC at the hearing, saying it would prefer the court itself to make a decision on the matter.

The hearing is now scheduled for 26 October next.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Deadlock deepens as Supreme Court grants government injunction over ministerial reappointments

Parliament has deadlocked after the Supreme Court granted the government a temporary injunction last night, blocking the endorsing of cabinet ministers until a ruling on the process can be issued.

The injunction derailed parliament on Tuesday morning, after opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs raised points of order claiming that the sittings could not continue until the cabinet appointments were resolved.

The sitting was called off this morning by Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

In June this year, the entire cabinet of the Maldives resigned in protest against “scorched earth politics” of the opposition-majority parliament, leaving only President Mohamed Nasheed and Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in charge of the country.

The cabinet ministers complained that parliament was blocking them from performing their constitutional duties, leading to protests and deadlock.

Nasheed reappointed the ministers several weeks later, however parliament has yet to formally endorse their appointments due to a disagreement between the government and the opposition and over whether ministers will be endorsed individually or collectively.

Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair said that endorsing ministers individually would amount to a series of no-confidence motions.

Last week there were unconfirmed reports that the DRP has a list of six members of the 14 member cabinet that it does not intend to approve.

“There is already a process in place for a no-confidence motion when a minister is deemed untrustworthy,” Zuhair said, arguing that individual appointments would bypass this procedure and allow the opposition to use its “brute-force parliamentary majority” to pick off ministers who had displeased it.

Parliament’s endorsement of cabinet was intended “to be ceremonial”, he stated.

“There is precedent. When the laws were being enacted by the Special Majlis drafting the current constitution, if you look at the debate, [former] Attorney General Husnu Suood proposes two ways of approving ministers, both of which are defeated in favour of asking for approval collectively.”

Writing in his personal blog, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, former legal reform minister, characterised the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court as “very harsh” and “pointless”.

The Attorney General’s (AG’s) office has contested the constitutionality of article 171(i) of the parliamentary rules of procedure, which states that presidential nominees must be questioned by a parliamentary committee to determine qualification, educational background and competence.

However, as ministers refused to appear before committee and the issue has now been proposed to the parliament floor, MP Nasheed argues that the Supreme Court ruling would not have any bearing on the matter.

“At most, wouldn’t the Supreme Court rule that article 171(i) is null and void?” he writes. “The Supreme Court would not instruct Majlis how to proceed with the approval issue. Wouldn’t that be determined by the Majlis?”

Article 98(a) of the constitution requires cabinet ministers to attend proceedings of parliament when requested, answer any questions put to them by parliament, and produce relevant documentation.

However the government has been reluctant to allow ministers to attend committee meetings ever since the head of the national security committee, leader of DRP coalition partner the People’s Alliance MP Abdulla Yameen, was released from detention pending an investigation into charges of treason and bribery.

Upon release, the committee promptly summoned the Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh and Chief of Defence Force Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel for questioning in committee hearing, outraging many MDP MPs.

In August, the cabinet approved new regulations limiting ministers’ interactions with parliament to the chamber itself, and then only with 14 days prior notice.

DRP Deputy Leader and MP Ali Waheed claimed the approved procedures were “against the spirit of the constitution” and would be void.

‘’Actually, parliament has yet to approve a cabinet. When a cabinet is established we will summon them to committee meetings as well – ministers must appear before committees in the interest of the people – the constitution is very clear. Without doubt these new procedures are void – nobody can narrow the summoning of cabinet ministers to parliament.’’

Writing on his website, leader of the opposition DRP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali said that the failure of ministers to attend committee meetings meant that “parliament is unable to effectively provide the checks and balances necessary for the system to work democratically and ensure that the executive branch is accountable for the exercise of its powers.”

On many occasions, “repeated calls from the parliament to these officials have gone unanswered,” Thasmeen said.

“In a democracy, it is through effective oversight that the parliament can ensure a balance of power and assert its role as the defender of the people’s interests. The government’s action is disrupting the functioning of the parliament.”

Zuhair today claimed that the government’s interpretation of the law was that ministers could only be summoned and questioned on the floor of parliament “before all members.”

“Nowhere does it say ministers must attend committee meetings, unless the whole house is a committee,” Zuhair said. “[The opposition] points to another clause that requires any Maldivian citizen to attend summons to respond to questions in committee hearings, but cabinet ministers do not attend in their capacity as private individuals.”

Meanwhile at yesterday’s sitting, DRP MP Mohamed Mujthaz proposed a resolution to seek the Supreme Court’s legal counsel on the refusal of the Chief of Defence Forces and the Commissioner of Police to appear before the national security committee.

Mujthaz proposed the resolution during a debate on a report by the committee, which was presented to the Majlis floor by the committee chair, DRP Deputy Leader Ali Waheed.

The report states that the committee has been unable to conduct any inquiries due to the refusal of the security chiefs to appear before the committee.

Both officials have argued that the committee should summon either the Defence Minister or Home Minister, as the army and police answer to the cabinet.

Hulhu-Henveiru MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, MDP parliamentary group leader, accused opposition MPs of attempting to summon the police and army chiefs for politically-motivated reasons.

He added that the report did not specify which issue of national importance had been left unattended by the committee due to the refusal of the chiefs to appear.

Referring to the practice in the United States, Yameen said that senior pentagon officials were routinely summoned before senate committees.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

BML to block foreign account holders from using debit cards overseas

Expatriates holding local accounts with the Bank of Maldives (BML) will be prevented from spending money overseas using their debit cards, as the dollar shortage worsens.

A statement from the BML, written in Dhivehi, stated that from November 1 foreigners with debit cards will be unable to conduct transactions of any amount from either the ATMs of other banks or point-of-sale machines in shops.

At the same time, the overseas spending limit for Maldivians has risen from US$200 a day to US$600.

The move, blamed by BML on the worsening dollar crisis, will particularly impact the many foreign teachers and other professionals such as doctors working in the country who bank locally, particularly those based outside Male’ who need to send money home.

One such doctor explains on his personal blog that it is common practice for foreign doctors to transfer money home by opening a BML account at a branch in the atoll capital, and then give an international visa debit card to relatives in his/her home country.

“Now no one has any idea about how to send money to their country without visiting Male’,” he writes. “If you keep the money with you, there is no guarantee that you will not be robbed of it.”

“The gynecologist of our hospital was robbed after he got his salary three months back. The next day, someone opened the house with a [spare] key and cut open the suitcase where he kept his money.”

In August an Indian pediatrician working at Kudahuvadhoo Hospital in Dhaal Atoll was stabbed in his home by a group of masked men.

The attack occurred on 10 minutes after the doctor arrived home from the hospital, when the group forced in his door. The doctor was stabbed in the arm and leg when he was unable to give the men any money.

Moreover, after October 15, BML will only allow foreigners to transact overseas from a US dollar account.

“Debit card for rufiya accounts can only be issued to foreigners for ‘local’ use at the the Bank of Maldives ATMs and POS terminals,” the announcement reads.

Several foreign commodity importers based in the Maldives also warned that their businesses were under threat after local banks began refusing to trade freely in rufiya.

“Our overseas suppliers have to be paid in dollars, and local buyers pay us in rufiya. Our bank has now stopped allowing us to transfer this into our US dollar account,” the manager of one enterprise told Minivan News recently. “How are you meant to run a business in this place? Surely they can’t go on like this?”

Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News that the end of the off-peak tourist season had combined with “a concurrence of other factors” to exacerbate the foreign currency crisis.

“There are currently two groups of people who need dollars – the first is the group of pilgrims about to go on the Hajj – the whole exercise usually costs US$30 million. Unfortunately it’s also the school holidays, and many teachers going on holiday will also need the money. That’s why there’s going to be shortages,” he said.

He acknowledged that the dollar situation was affecting investor confidence and making the Maldives a less appealing destination in which to conduct business.

“Foreigners can bank with foreign banks such as the State Bank of India,” he noted. “We also have a commitment from [Indian infrastructure giant] GMR that they will pay their first down payment on Male’ International Airport by the end of November – it was initially the end of December. Income from the donor conference should also reach US$90 million by the end of the year,” he said.

“It’s just unfortunate that the Hajj is slightly ahead of these debts. [Investor] confidence is a big problem, and the government is talking to the Maldives Monetary Authority. But there are no quick fixes.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Decades of corruption and tyranny leave Maldivians narcissistic and power hungry

Over the years I have closely observed an acute realism in the thinking of many of the Maldivians I have come across.

Such realism is a natural response to all of the corruption and tyranny that has been perpetrated by those who are supposed to be grand and noble.

This realism often leads to a profound suspicion about the motives of others. At times, it takes on an Islamic face. In a sigh of despair many proclaim, nothing can be done, it is Allah’s Will.

An observed manifestation of this acute realism in some is extreme narcissistic power hunger and personal corruption. Many reason, well, there is no way to escape corruption, if I am not corrupt I will get done over by the corrupt guy.

Despite this realism, leaders are still worshipped by some Maldivians although everyone knows the rhetoric and the cult nature of Maldivian political life is based on a whole lot of lies.

Leaders with absolute power get high on the power trip of being worshipped, no doubt knowing that it is only out of fear and selfish ambition that the people are worshipping them. To save one’s skin, or to promote one’s own self, one worships the leader publically.

So taking all this into account, the question arises… Why should one pursue justice when one is intelligent enough to know that we human beings are all corrupt and can never be anything but?

Human nature is selfish, self-deceptive and prone to corruption. Justice and goodness are defined by the powerful, surely there is no such thing as a real right and wrong, there is only ‘will to power…’

This was posed by Thrasymachus to Socrates in Plato’s Republic, and has been debated ever since.

There is a reward for pursuing truth, compassion and justice, not in a conventional economic sense, and not in a this worldly sense. The seekers of good in this life are normally tortured, rejected, and suffer for it.

The evidence that there is a reward comes from those who have suffered and/or died struggling for truth, compassion and justice when they knew they would never see it. The death and suffering of all the martyr’s for love and justice in human history proves that what they have, what they feel, is something much, something far deeper than what can be realized in this life. It is evidence that they have something, know something that is worth dying for.

This something is a hope rooted in an experience of a reality deeper than death. It is a profound sense of the sanctity of humanity which cannot possibly or logically come from this world.

It is awakened through both pain and love. It is the reality which this word justice is founded on.

Yes, justice is real, and it is not relative or subjective. It is the reward and punishment due for ones level of respect for the sanctity of humanity.

The need for justice is innate, and it is the greatest proof of the existence of a Supreme Being there is. Justice is frustrated in this world, and yet we still desire it and believe in it though we know we can never get it on this earth. The fact that this need for justice we have survives even though it is obvious that we will never get justice on this earth proves that this need must come from a source deeper and more powerful than what we can see in this world.

There is an inbuilt, a subconscious homesickness in each one of us for a home we do not know, for perfection and a humanity we have never experienced. This a-priori longing for the unknown is evidence that something outside of that which we perceive has reached down to us and put in our hearts a hunger for that which is existant only in the afterlife. It is the sense of the Divine which is the knowing of the unknown.

Where else would this persistant hunger for justice and perfection come from seems we cannot possibly get it from this world? What would motivate us to struggle for the sanctity of humanity knowing that on this Earth we will never realize it, if the knowledge of this perfection were not somehow built into our unconscious minds as the way the Divine makes us long for the Divine?

Do we crave for a food we have never tasted? So why do we crave for justice when we have never tasted that? Our taste for justice could not possibly have come from this earth, so where does this taste for justice come from if it is not somehow innate, an inbuilt sense of hope which whilst obviously not derived from this earth must only come from beyond it.

It does not help to deny the existence of the Creator in the name of Justice as so many have done. (Marxist’s… just to name the most common group…) Indeed, the existence of a Divine Creator and in an afterlife is the only possible and plausible hope for justice there is.

This is because, whilst some may get justice on this earth, it is painfully apparent that no matter how idealistic and disciplined the seekers of justice or the constitutionally ordained deliverers of justice are, human nature is such that there will always be injustice no matter how hard we work to ensure that this is not the case.

The socialist experiments proved this. I am here in a so called just and civilised society (Australia) and there is still rampant injustice and racism everywhere, even though we had been struggling to eradicate injustice and human rights oppression for over a hundred years.

So if you think Mohammed Anni Nasheed or any other leader can give everybody justice, you will soon be bitterly disappointed. Or if you really believe you can bring justice for everyone, you are either naïve or dangerously deluded.

Indeed, many leaders have held this belief. Due to our human need to feel self important, this belief does not cease in the face of obvious injustice. It does become a delusion. Once a delusion forms, many others form. It leads to schizophrenic paranoia and tyranny. The only way this dangerous delusion can be broken is through humility. Yet sadly, humility is never the thing that propels people into power.

Also, and this is the hard part, this inner hope I speak of is deepened by personal suffering. Suffering without this hope becomes selfishness, bitterness, moral despair, depression or rage. It often brings hunger for blood or hunger for God like status. Yet suffering, if fused with this hope, gives inner strength, compassion, spiritual power, maturity and wisdom.

There is a reward for struggling for humanity, even though it can never be completely realized on this earth. There is also a punishment for exploiting and belittling humanity in the pursuit of personal power.

At the end of all the reward and punishment however, I believe that the source of this hope I speak of is also Merciful beyond what we humans could ever comprehend. We are all as corrupt as each other; we are all hypocrites, all of us human beings. For every good we do we will also do as much bad. It is only through the Mercy of this hope that we have any right to experience the reward for following it because, we all deserve as much punishment as we do reward.

May we strive to awaken this hope in one another through compassion…

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Restaurant cashier banished for using customer’s cash card

A City Garden restaurant cashier has been banished for six months by the Civil Court for taking Rf500 from a customer’s cash card, reports Haveeru.

Customers in the Maldives routinely give their pin number to the waiter along with their card.

The Civil Court ruled that Hassan Azhar should be banished on the basis of confession and documents, after he received the card from a waiter and used it to withdraw Rf500 without the customer’s consent.

This is the first time such a case has been prosecuted, Haveeru noted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP proposes bringing council elections forward

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Mohamed Mujthaz proposed an amendment to the Decentralisation Act yesterday to set December 31, 2010 as the deadline for local council elections.

On Sunday, the Elections Commission (EC) announced that local council elections will take place on February 5, 2010 after taking the upcoming school holidays as well as the Hajj Eid festivities into consideration.

The deadline in the Decentralisation Act had elapsed on October 13 while the complementary Local Council Elections Act, ratified on July 29, gave a 122 period for the elections.

Presenting the bill, Mujthaz said that as administrative constituencies were listed by the government after the amendment was proposed, he was willing to withdraw it at a latter stage.

The amendment bill also proposes considering administrative constituencies as listed in the appendix of the Decentralisation Act.

Meanwhile, an amendment to the Act proposed by the government to set the criteria for city status for populations with 10,000 was narrowly rejected at yesterday’s sitting.

While 34 MPs voted in favour of the proposal, 35 voted against and one abstained.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)