Day: January 29, 2011

Dutch Docklands unveils floating development plans

Floating properties are to be developed on Five lagoons within the Kaafu Atoll that will include a convention centre and an 18-hole golf course as part of a joint venture agreement between the government and Netherlands-based developer, Dutch Docklands.

As part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with the government last year, the developer has now established a joint venture company known as Dutch Docklands Maldives that will hope to gather additional investment of about US$500m into the country, Haveeru has reported.

The Maldives government will hold a five percent share in the joint venture, which is expected to begin work on the five floating developments this year with a projected completion date of 2015, the report added.

During a signing ceremony held at the Ministry of Toruism, Arts and Culture on Thursday, Dutch Docklands claimed that the five developments would require the adoption of a number of new technologies such as renewable energy projects in the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police urge peaceful rhetoric from MPs amidst local election violence

Police are urging caution within the rhetoric used by the country’s politicians amidst concerns that numerous “small” clashes between followers of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) in recent days could escalate into major violence.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said that a number of violent clashes between apparent supporters of the MDP and DRP had been brought under control by police recently, including confrontations on Kaandehdhoo in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll yesterday following the arrival of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Gayoom, who is also the honorary leader of the DRP, was said to not have been caught up in the confrontations, according to party representatives.

However, the attacks have led to claims from prominent DRP MPs such as Ahmed Mahloof that a small number of their counterparts within the MDP deliberately incited their own supporters to injure opposition party members. Mahloof claimed that there was also video evidence to prove support his claims, although the MDP has denied any of its members were involved in encouraging the violence.

Sub-Inspector Shiyam said that no arrests had been made following the clashes on Kaandehdhoo, which lasted “a few hours”, and that injuries recorded as a result of the confrontations were not thought to have been serious, however he said that similar violence in recent days had affected power supplies on some islands.

Shiyam said that the police service was not blaming any individual political party for the apparent outbursts, but conceded there had been a number of cases of violent confrontations, particularly between MDP and DRP supporters of late ahead of next month’s local council elections.

“We would call on the leaders of political parties to ensure they have control of their people,” he said. “They have to be aware that small clashes can turn into big confrontations.”

Upon arriving on Kaandehdhoo yesterday along with Gayoom and former DRP Deputy Leader Umar Naseer, Mahloof claimed that around 200 MDP supporters had shown up to protest alongside supporters of the opposition party.

“We understand that MDP supporters want to come out and raise their voices, but we cannot accept violence,” he said. “They [MDP supporters] attacked Umar Naseer and I have two broken fingers.”

Mahloof claimed that the trouble started when Gayoom had arrived on the island as part of his campaign strategy for the upcoming local council elections, before MDP supporters began to move towards where the former president was staying.

This movement was thought to have led to confrontations between rival supporters, sparking the violence that followed.

“Mr Gayoom himself didn’t see anything,” he said.

Mahloof alleged that MDP MPs Mohamed Qasam and Mohamed Nazim were involved in directly inciting the violence that took place on the island and that he had video proof to support his claims and would be consulting police over the issue.

“We are saddened to say that the MPs arrived with a group of thugs,” he claimed. “These are people who should try and do things in a democratic way.”

Ultimately, Mahloof said that although clashes between supporters had begun before Gayoom’s arrival on the island, the DRP were not a violent party and he himself did not want to encourage any further attacks from its supporters in the run up to the local council elections and beyond.

However, he suggested that there was only so much some supporters may be willing to take.

“We hope that the MDP leaders and the president will discourage supporters from again planning to attack us,” Mahloof claimed. “There are so many people who would be willing to die for Mr Gayoom.”

Allegations that MDP MPs were directly involved in the violent confrontations were strongly denied by party spokesperson Ahmed Haleem, who claimed that he was certain that Gasam and Nazim would not have supported attacking opposition members.

“They are going to talk with supporters and try to encourage non-violence within the party,” he said. “They are responsible MPs.”

Haleem claimed that the DRP was itself always trying to “put the finger of blame” on the MDP to try and insinuate there was violence within the party.

However, the MDP spokesperson alleged that it was the development of factions within the DRP between supporters of current leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and former head Gayoom that was leading to a number of violent confrontations during the election campaign.

“The DRP have been responsible for violent acts against Thasmeen from within Gayoom’s faction of the party,” he claimed. “The MDP is not a party of violence.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter on Addu City

It makes me sick to the stomach that, aside from the prevailing Male’-Supremacist attitude of most residents in the capital, people take the “case” of Addu’s possibility of gaining a ‘city’ status to score political points [http://www.meedhoolive.com/?p=8763] in an otherwise non-issue.

Sure, our Constitution and laws are problematic, not least thanks to the “opposition” Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party and its shady allies which formulated them. Now, no thanks to Maumoon’s feudal system, we have inherited a “labyrinth of bureaucracy” which is hindering efficient governance and making sure Maumoon’s ominous 30-year agenda — of keeping ordinary Maldivians poor and ignorant so that his cronies can siphon away our riches — is alive and continuing, much to the horror of ordinary Maldivians.

While most Maldivians are OK with turning a blind eye on more grievous problems like child abuse, why can’t for once in this instance, people like Jumhooree (Republican) Party’s Ibrahim Muttalib, who is also a Member of Parliament, keep his mouth shut when we know that making Addu a city is for the benefit of one of our Maldivian communities who have suffered several decades of economic neglect. Addu’s potential itself should suffice it to gain ‘city’ status because that is exactly what it is going to become in the next three years.

When politicians like Muttalib try to make an issue where there is none – just because the Maumoon regime inspired laws allow so many bureaucratic hurdles – I get really pissed off. I have yet to hear Muttalib ever condemn publicly child abuse and domestic violence — when he was so vocal against “alcohol”.

So who cares whether Addu gaining a city status is done through the Maumoon-laid “correct” bureaucratic networks when all Addu people need is to do what needs to be rightfully done (it’s as simple as that) so that they could get on with their lives.

If I was President Nasheed, I would give no concern to these little irritations like Muttalib and just get on with it. If Muttalib is against Maldives’ reform, then go away from public life. What are you doing here in the first place?

Hilath Rasheed, Male’ City

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC seeks to gag Velezinee with new secrecy regulations

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has appointed a special three-member team to decide on the best course of action against JSC member Aishath Velezinee, for removing official documents from the Commission’s premises.

The JSC, which is yet to adopt a Standards of Procedure a year after the 26 January 2010 deadline, earlier this month passed new secrecy regulations that make it an offence for members to reveal any Commission business to the public without prior authorisation.

The regulations were passed at a meeting on 17 January at which Velezinee was not present, and the agenda of which, seen by Minivan News, did not indicate any plans or proposals for new secrecy restrictions.

On 24 January, days after passing the new regulations, the JSC set up a special committee comprising Vice Chair Afraasheem Ali, Member Abdullahi Didi, and Deputy Legal Representative Abdul Faththah to discuss how best to apply the new regulations against Velezinee, who it alleges removed a documents file from the presmises on that day.

It is the first time in the history of the new democratic government that a member of an independent Commission, set up by the 2008 Constitution, is being subjected to an internal investigation.

The unprecedented move by JSC is made all the more surprising by the inclusion among the three special investigators a member of the Commission’s staff.

It is rare, if not unknown, for a junior staff member to be placed in a position of deciding disciplinary action against a state official they have been appointed to serve.

Velezinee, an outspoken critic of the JSC’s refusal to adopt a Standards of Procedure as required by the Constitution, earlier this month accused several fellow members of corruption and treason.

She has published a large cache of JSC documents, including audio recordings of Commission meetings, on her personal website as evidence, she says, to support her accusations.

Velezinee also runs a Facebook page dedicated to Article 285 of the Constitution, which regularly carries electronic copies of various official documents from the Commission.

She maintains that the JSC, unlike other independent Commissions set up by the Constitution, should conduct its business publicly. She has lobbied for media access to JSC meetings, a proposal that has not met with unanimous support from other members.

She has also called for an open inquiry into her allegations against the JSC, and has repeatedly challenged Commission Member Abdulla Shahid to respond to her charges of treason against him.

According to Velezinee, Shahid, also Speaker of the Majlis, while straddling two of the democracy’s three separated powers, is gradually executing plans – through the JSC and the Majlis – to take over the third.

Shahid, who has defended himself in the media against other allegations of corruption such as those related to the privatisation of Male’ International Airport, has remained silent on the charges made by Velezinee.

Speaker Shahid is currently travelling the country on a political campaign with opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, and could not be contacted for comment.

Notably, the JSC’s investigation into Velezinee’s decision to remove Commission documents does not make any reference to her publication of JSC internal documents on the internet.

If the JSC were to refer to Velezinee’s publication of the documents, it would be forced to acknowledge her accusations against Speaker Shahid, and itself.

According to a JSC internal memo, also made public by Velezinee, the three investigators will focus their deliberations on what course of action to take against her for removing the documents.

What an offending member does with the documents is not up for regulation or deliberation, as of yet.

Meanwhile, as the JSC considers disciplinary action against one of its own for retrospective infringement of newly-passed secrecy regulations, the Anti Corruption Commission and the police are investigating the JSC.

It is also currently facing allegations of bias in its recent High Court appointments made by two failed candidates, a Civil Court judge and a Family Court judge.

The case is now at the Supreme Court. JSC Chair Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, who is on the Supreme Court bench, is yet to recuse himself from the case despite the possibility of a conflict of interest.

This is the second time in less than six months that the JSC has had to face allegations of bias in a court of law. Earlier this month, the Civil Court threw out a professional negligence case against the JSC where it stood accused of not performing its Constitutional duty to investigate judiciary misconduct.

Judge Mariyam Nihayath dismissed the case on a technicality – slovenly time keeping by the plaintiff – but not before the JSC admitted it did not have a standard system in place for dealing with complaints of judicial misconduct.

It also became known during the hearings that the JSC received and failed to investigate over 100 complaints received last year.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) visited Male’ on a fact finding mission related to the independence of the country’s judiciary last year. Although the mission was reported as having been completed in September last, its findings are yet to be made public.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)