Day: January 17, 2011

JSC deciding on candidates for High Court bench

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) will decide January 18 the candidates for the High Court bench, to be appointed the following week January 23.

The JSC has interviewed a total of 18 candidates – four women and 14 men – after disqualifying three applicants for failing to meet one or more of the standards required. One candidate withdrew his application after JSCs integrity was publicly questioned, advising JSC members to act responsibly.

The High Court appointments – which would confirm the bench for the next 30 to 40 years, given the average age of applicants – has been question following allegations that the JSC has failed to uphold the standards required of a judge under the 2008 Constitution.

Article 149(a) of the 2008 Constitution requires judges to be of ‘high moral character’ in addition to meeting educational qualifications and other competencies. Article 149 (b) 3 requires that appointments must not be convicted for any hadd offence, criminal breach of trust or bribery.

The Judges Act, legislation passed by the Majlis on 10 August 2010 to implement the Constitutional stipulations, however limited the length of time for which a judicial candidate can be held responsible for criminal offences.

It also set a low threshold for what could be considered as evidence of ‘high moral character’ in a judicial candidate.

As provided for by the Act, for example, convicted felons – even those found guilty of “sexual offences or terrorism” – may be appointed to the bench and deemed as meeting the Constitutional requirement of ‘high moral character’, provided the sentence had been fully served seven years prior to their judicial appointment.

The only other measurement for deciding whether or not a judicial candidate is of high moral character, as stipulated in the Act, is that any debt valid debt owed by the candidate has been, or is being, properly paid back.

The provisions of the Act demand far lower standards of ethical and moral conduct from the judiciary than is required by the Judicial Code of Conduct as passed by the JSC itself on 30 December 2009, and by accepted democratic international norms.

The Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) of UK, for example, is likely to immediately disqualify any judicial candidate with a previous sentence for imprisonment.

A criminal conviction without a prison sentence is also likely to disqualify the candidate even though “minor convictions maybe disregarded”.

The JAC’s “Good Character Guidance” further states that “depending on their seriousness” other offences can also be disregarded after twenty years, provided there had been no repeat offending.

The JAC stipulations that any prison sentence whether minor or major is likely to disqualify any judicial candidate, and that even after twenty years a previous criminal conviction can only be disregarded after considering the seriousness of the crime, are in sharp contrast to the Judicial Act’s provision that however serious a judge’s crime, it can be disregarded after six years.

The JSC’s own Principles for Judicial Conduct is an almost verbatim translation of the Bangalore Principles 2002, which sets the international principles for judicial conduct.

JSC’s adaptation of the Principles, however, excludes the proclamations that a judge’s propriety is essential for performing all activities of a judge; and that a judge should willingly and freely accept more personal restrictions than expected of an ordinary citizen.

In interviewing potential High Court appointees, the JSC adopted the narrower definitions of the Judges Act instead of the broader interpretations allowed for by the Constitution and its own published principles of conduct.

The only dissenting opinion expressed publicly has been that of JSC Member Aishath Velezinee, who boycotted the interview panel on Sunday, on grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Velezinee, who has also filed treason charges against three members of the Commission, and who also lobbied the High Court candidates to stand against the unconstitutionality of the interview procedures, was violently stabbed earlier this month in what several international NGOs have condemned as potentially a politically motivated attack.

The JSC, which is also currently being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission over allegations of embezzlement, was set up by the 2008 Constitution to oversee the ethical standards of the judiciary.

Until the last week, the JSC was also being sued for neglecting its Constitutional duties by Treasure Island Limited, which alleged that the JSC had arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed its complaints against two judges whom it accuses of misconduct.

Presiding Civil Court Judge Mariyam Nihayath dismissed the case last week when the appellant, Treasure Island Limited’s Ali Hussein Manik, arrived half an hour later for the hearing, Sun FM reported.

During one of the many hearings of the case held over three months, JSC Legal Representative Abdul Faththah complained to Judge Nihayath that her habitual lateness was causing problems with his work schedule. On many occasions the case had started over half an hour late due to her late arrival.

Another hearing, scheduled for 22 December last, was cancelled when Faththah said Judge Nihayath’s lateness had made it impossible for him to continue the case that day.

On 13 January, Judge Nihayath agreed to the JSC’s request to throw the case out when Manik did not arrive for the hearing on time.

Judge Nihayath is among the 18 candidates shortlisted for the High Court bench and was interviewed by the JSC on Sunday.

The deadline for High Court applications closed on 26 October 2010, but the matter was delayed as JSC, embroiled in internal conflict, re-organised the High Court bench twice.

At least three members of JSC have questioned JSC’s integrity and raised concerns of corruption in relation to the High Court appointments, according to information available on Velezinee’s website. The other two members to raise concern are MP Dr.Afraasheem Ali and Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Didi.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police harsh and journalists “unprofessional” in protest coverage, finds MMC

The Maldives Media Council (MMC) has called on journalists to follow their code of ethics when covering events such as the opposition-led protest on October 25 last year, in which police clashed with reporters.

Journalists did not adhere to the standards of discipline required of their position while covering the event, the MMC said.

The MMC issued the statement following the release of an investigation report into incident, in which the Council alleged that the police commander who managed the riot that evening may not have given adequate opportunity for the media to cover the event.

Three journalists from DhiTV, two journalists from VillaTV, one from newspaper Miadhu and a photographer from Haveeru reported they were attacked by the police. The two journalists from VillaTV were also arrested, handcuffed, and released the same evening.

Editor of DhiTV Midhath Hilmy claimed that one of his reporters was hit in the head with a tear gas canister, while another was hit with a police baton.

The MMC stated that police had planned that evening not to let any person enter the area, and did not provided an exemption for the media.

“According to video footage, pictures and audio clips as well as the statements of journalists who covered the riot, the council have noted that police have acted very strictly towards the media.”

Eight journalists from different media organisations were physically injured  during the clash and underwent medical treatment. The MMC confirmed that there was “some truth” to the allegations made by media personnels regarding their harsh treatment at the hand of police, including the use of pepper spray.

Furthermore, the council said, police took strict measures to obstruct journalists from covering the event, undermining the freedom given them by the Constitution.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said that police would respond to the allegations later.

Police have previously stated that the crackdown on the media corp was prompted when several members of the press “began behaving like opposition activists.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President’s Fainu visit the first in 28 years

President Mohamed Nasheed’s visit to Fainu in Raa Atoll was the first time a President has visited the island in 28 years, the President’s Office has claimed.

Speaking to the islanders as part of his campaign prior to the local council elections, Nasheed said it was important for leaders to experience first-hand the difficulties faced by islanders in their daily lives.

Larger islands such as Fainu had a role to play in the development of mid-market tourism in the country, Nasheed said, linking this to the development of the transport network.

The island’s harbour project had been contracted to a third party and was to be finished by the end of the year, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Man arrested for caging six year-old boy

Police have arrested a man for putting a six year-old boy in a cage, reports Manadhoo Live.

Manadhoo reported that the offender accused the boy of stealing a chicken from the cage, and locked him inside the cage as a punishment for the alleged offense. The man was not a relative of the boy, it added.

According to the paper, the man put called the police to report the theft of the chickens after he had caged the boy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

National library donates books to rehab centres

The National Library will donate books to prisons and rehabilitation centres in the Maldives, reports Haveeru.

The Library’s Director General Ibrahim Shiyam told the local newspaper that the library would begin a new series of projects to encourage reading in the Maldives, train more librarians, and fund donations of books and resources to other libraries our of its own budget.

Books and bookshelves will be  donated to  prisons and rehabilitation centres as part of the National Day celebrations, Shiyam said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Party rhetoric heats up as elections approach

President Mohamed Nasheed has claimed that housing programmes and the Veshi Fahi Male’ programme could only be implemented “perfectly” if islanders elected MDP councilors in the local council elections.

Nasheed and the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), including ‘honorary leader’ former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, have been visiting islands across the nation to campaign for the upcoming Local Council Elections, scheduled to be held on February 5.

The Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), led by former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, has meanwhile alleged that the MDP government has failed to fulfill its election pledges, “and it is almost the end of their term.”

”There is not even a drawing of the flats that the President pledged to built within six months following the parliamentary elections,” said the DQP in a statement. ”The talks that he gave in many islands claiming that he would establish airports and sewerage systems also turned out be nothing but dreams.”

DQP claimed that during the recent two years, the government-appointed councilors had worked to promote MDP.

”There are only a few days left of the MDP government’s term, and not one of the 10,000 flats he has pledged have been built so far,” DQP said. ”For two years MDP councilors were in the islands and no pledge was fulfilled – this proves that MDP councilors have failed.”

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz Fahmy meanwhile claimed that a vote given to the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) would be “wasted”.

‘’MDP is a party that makes pledges and fulfills pledges,’’ said Imthiyaz. “As MDP is in administration today, development and progress can only be brought about by electing a person that supports MDP.’’

He said that the “wisest” people would “choose to follow success”.

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom will speak at an opposition rally in Male’ this evening.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President rejects controversial parliamentary privileges bill

President Mohamed Nasheed has declined to ratify the controversial MP Privileges Bill, and has returned it to parliament for amendment.

The President made the decision following legal council from the Attorney General Ahmed Ali Sawad, and consultation with the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM).

The bill, which was submitted by Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed, was passed with 44 to 21 in favour, and 10 abstentions, and would have seen MPs earning thousands of dollars more in salary and allowances than MPs in countries such as France, India and Italy.

The matter has triggered lively demonstrations outside parliament, while a group of “concerned citizens” yesterday petitioned the President claiming that not only was the salary increase excessive, but that elements within it gave MPs extrajudicial and unconstitutional privileges. The Bill was about less about state-building and more about status, they claimed.

“It’s tough for the MPs to justify getting tax-free cars, in the middle of an economic crisis, for an island only two square kilometres in size. It’s not like they have to drive to their constituency offices,” observed a senior source in the President’s Office.

President Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair said the bill was returned to parliament because the President believed that elements in it conflicted with the constitution.

“For example,” he said, “in contains clauses conflicting with the right to freedom of expression – the bill does not clarify what is meant by the phrase ‘derogatory language’.”

Details such as the maligned tax-free status on MPs’ purchases of motor vehicles “I believe come under the broader heading of items against the spirit of the constitution.”

Furthermore, Zuhair said, the decision by the MPs to raise their own salaries at a time when the rest of the country was in financial crisis was inappropriate, “especially when this was passed before the Business Profit Tax – they neglected to pass laws allowing for state income before raising their own.”

MP salaries, he suggested, “should be in line with a broader pay scale and hierarchy. They should not be paying themselves more than ministers.”

The 12 cabinet ministers earn a base salary of Rf 42,500 (US$3300) and an additional Rf 15,000 (US$1170) ‘living allowance’. The 77 MPs earn a base salary of Rf 42,500 (US$3300) and a living allowance of Rf 20,000 (US$1550). The Privileges Bill includes additional financial benefits including health insurance for life, pensions after a single term of five years’ service, and concessions such as freedom from paying duty on imported cars.

The bill does not include benefits derived from the new pay structure formulated by parliament under Article 102, under which MPs would be entitled to up to an additional Rf 20,000 (US$1550) in ‘committee allowances’. This does not require the President to ratify it.

MPs have defended the salary increases as needed given that their incomes serve as a ‘welfare fund’ for their constituents.

Zuhair stated that the government “does not believe that MPs should spend their salary on welfare for their constituents – they are paid principally so they have a dependable source of income and are therefore less susceptible to corruption – but many instances of assistance being provided in this manner are in fact acts of corruption. Some MPs have not grasped that – they are not supposed to be giving charity.”

Despite the President’s concern over elements of the bill, Zuhair said that Nasheed still believed that serving and former MPs “should be entitled to certain privileges and protections, especially as in the 77 year history of the Majlis many MPs have faced incidences of torture and bankruptcy.”

President Nasheed also declined to ratify a bill to control thalassemia and a bill “giving high priority” to the Dhivehi language.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)