Day: October 13, 2011

Revised committee composition approved

Parliament yesterday approved the revised composition of standing committees with 71 votes in favour, one vote against and one abstention.

A drawn out dispute over the representation of parties in the committees during the previous session of parliament brought all committee work to a standstill.

Following the reworking in July, the composition of committees had to be revisited at the beginning of the current session after a number of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) left the main opposition party.

While 28 MPs were elected on a DRP ticket in May 2009, only 16 now remain.

Under parliamentary rules of procedure, the 11-member committees should reflect the composition of the Majlis floor. With 45 percent of seats, the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is entitled to five seats in each committee.

Opposition MPs meanwhile retain control of influential oversight committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court to rule in defamation case against self

The Supreme Court has issued a writ of prohibition and taken over a defamation case against it filed in the Civil Court by Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail.

The Supreme Court order issued today states that it had learned that the Civil Court had accepted a defamation suit filed by Ibra. It ordered the lower court not to take “any action regarding the said case” and to send “all the documents in the case file, including all actions taken since the case was filed as well as the minutes” to the court before 3:30pm this afternoon.

The writ of prohibition was signed by Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz.

Ibra, a member of the Constitution Draft Committee of the former Special Majlis, longstanding Male’ MP and founding member of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), had filed the case against the Supreme Court after it reprimanded him for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges”.

In response to Ibra’s calls, the Supreme Court and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) demanded authorities investigate the former MP, claiming that “making such statements in a free, democratic society under lawful governance goes against the principles of civilisation”.

Ibra responded by filing a defamation suit in the Civil Court against the Supreme Court.

But today, “The documents and everything have been handcuffed and taken to the Supreme Court,” Ibra told Minivan News.

“Initially [the Civil Court] was of the opinion that the case was not in their jurisdiction, because it involved the Supreme Court. But I appealed to the registrar, outlined my argument, and the second time they agreed they could and should accept the case,” Ibra said.

“I paid my fees, and was waiting for them to hold the first hearing. Then today I had a call from newspaper Haveeru asking me to comment on the Supreme Court’s taking over the case – I replied that no one had told me about it and I was not in a position to comment. Later my lawyer called and said the Supreme Court had published the writ on their website.”

As a result, Ibra said, “I now have to go before the Supreme Court and say to them ‘You have defamed me, now please decide in my favour.’”

Ibra has previously observed that the act of an appellate court taking over the jurisdiction of a trial court was unprecedented “in any democratic country, anywhere in the world.”

“Even in cases of a mistrial, the instruction is to retry the case. Appellate courts don’t sit on trials. And they are systematically doing it – at least three cases so far. What they are effectively doing is influencing the independence of the trial court. The significance of that is that if trial court judges cannot be independent of the higher court, there is no room for appeals. Because the decision is going to be the Supreme Court decision,” Ibra told Minivan News.

“I don’t see how they can sit in judgement on themselves,” Ibra said today. “Every single defamation case until now has been tried in the Civil Court. Just because the Supreme Court is involved doesn’t mean the Civil Court should not hear the case – the Supreme Court is obstructing the process of justice.”

The fact that the decision to take over the case from the Civil Court implied that a majority of the seven Supreme Court judges had elected to do so, Ibra said.

“This means the majority of the Supreme Court judges are not cognisant of the principles of natural justice, and are clearly trying to obstruct the provision of judge to a citizen claiming his fundamental right as guaranteed in black and white in the Constitution.

“This is not about Ibra. If they can do this to Ibra they are setting a precedent to do it to just about anyone.”

He suggested that the Supreme Court’s action today “establishes what I originally claimed. We as citizens – the public – have to do something. We can’t let seven idiots hijack the justice system of the entire country.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament rejects proposed company law

Parliament yesterday rejected at the preliminary stage a bill proposed by the government to modernise the existing Companies Act as part of its 18-bill economic reform package.

The bill was narrowly rejected 37-36 in a vote to send the draft legislation to committee for further review.

Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim – who voted with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in August to pass the Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation, the first of the 18 economic reform bills to be passed – cast the swing vote against the proposed company law.

According to the government, the purpose of the bill was to modernise bureaucratic procedures for formation and registration of companies and facilitate ease of doing business.

Among the main changes proposed to the existing law were enabling formation of companies with a single shareholder or a single director (the law currently requires at least two); abolishing the annual companies fee; specifying procedures for seeking authorisation from government agencies along with registration procedures for foreign investment companies; enabling the registration of branches of foreign or multi-national companies in the Maldives; outlining criteria for company directors and managing directors; specifying procedures for public disclosure; streamlining the process for dissolving registered companies; and delegating the tasks of the companies registrar to local councils.

During the preliminary debate stage, opposition MPs however contended that as a Companies Act was enacted in 1996, the government could not propose a bill under the same name.

MP Abdulla Yameen, who served as Trade Minister and chairman of the State Trading Organisation (STO) under the previous government, objected to a provision stipulating that the minimum capital required to register a company would be Rf2,000.

With the country’s level of development and an annual budget in excess of Rf12 billion, said Yameen, the figure was too low especially if directors’ and shareholders’ liability would be limited.

“The bill also proposes the creation of companies for a particular project. For a particular period,” he continued. “Private companies or limited liability companies are not formed for certain periods. They exist for perpetuity […] Therefore you cannot create a company to reclaim land in Gulhifalhu or a company for a three-year project.”

Moreover, Yameen added, the proposed law would give legal discretion to the registrar of companies or an official appointed by the President to deny requests for company registration if it is believed to pose a threat to national security.

“However, under the existing laws in the Maldives, a court of law shall determine that national security is endangered,” he said. “It is not something a registrar, a single person, could decide.”

Granting such discretion to a single state official, including the power to dissolve companies if it is believed to be in the public interest, was “how things are done in uncivilised countries,” he said.

MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former chairwoman of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), meanwhile argued that the concept of limited liability was “the means that advanced nations used to reach modern development.”

“Because we are unfamiliar with this concept what happens is that people are reluctant to invest their money in a business,” she explained, adding that the law would ensure that shareholders would be liable to the company’s debt only to the extent of their shareholding.

“Nothing positive”

Speaking to Minivan News today, MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom, deputy parliamentary group leader of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), said that the bill was framed to “give extra powers to the executive” and “open up the country to foreign businesses.”

Mausoom noted that there was an existing law that governed company formation and registration.

The DRP also objected to the government’s proposed amendments to the Immigration Act to grant resident visas to skilled expatriates as well as a bill to abolish existing foreign investment laws, Mausoom said.

“We voted against [the proposed company law] because we didn’t see anything positive in the bill,” he said.

Economic Development Minister Mahmoud Razi told Minivan News that the proposed company law was important to “level the playing field” and streamline business registration procedures to “make them simpler and more cohesive.”

As parliament had rejected the bill at the preliminary stage, said Razi, the government could not submit the bill again during the ongoing session.

“But we will consult with the legal people and stakeholders to propose the bill as amendments to the existing Company Act for the next session,” he said.

While it would have been “ideal” to pass all the component bills of the reform package on schedule, Razi continued, yesterday’s vote did not constitute a serious setback to the reform programme.

“It will have an impact, yes, but it will not be a very negative impact,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition MPs to vote against reappointment of Islamic Minister Dr Bari

Opposition MPs have declared that they will vote against giving parliamentary consent to the reappointment of Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari as Minister of Islamic Affairs, who resigned “out of respect” for the Adhaalath Party’s decision to sever its coalition agreement with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Dr Bari was however reappointed less than a week after his resignation. The head of the Adhaalath Party’s religious scholars council told press that he accepted the post in his “individual capacity” after “98 percent” of the people he consulted with – including religious scholars, businessmen and members of the general public – had advised him to do so.

Following his reappointment, the nomination was sent to parliament for approval this week.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahlouf told Minivan News today that the parliamentary group of the party has not yet reached a decision on the vote to confirm the appointment.

“We have not decided about it yet, but I think most of the MPs will not give consent to him considering the events that took place recently,” said Mahlouf, adding that he did not wish to comment further at the present time.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom meanwhile said the party would announce its decision to the media tomorrow.

DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali told press this week that the party’s MPs were not inclined to consent to Bari’s reappointment. Thasmeen cited the Islamic Minister’s role in the publication of controversial religious unity regulations despite the vocal opposition of religious groups.

Dr Bari was initially appointed Islamic Minister under the Adhaalath Party’s agreement with the ruling party. Bari told media last week that he had advocated against leaving the MDP-led coalition and was not present when a resolution to the effect was passed by the party’s consultative council.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP to submit no-confidence motion against Finance Minister Inaz

Main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has decided to submit a no-confidence motion against Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom,  deputy leader of the DRP parliamentary group, argued that the Finance Minister had been irresponsible in fulfilling his duties and constitutional mandate.

“Given that local governance is vital in democracy, the Finance Minister has not been issuing budget for the councils in a timely manner and the councils have had their work stalled because of that,” said Dr Mausoom, outlining the grounds for the no-confidence motion. “Secondly, while the media plays a vital role in democracy and while we are all in need of a state broadcaster, the Finance Minister has not issued the budget for the Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC).”

Moreover, Mausoom continued, Finance Minister Inaz supported the current system of taxation and devaluing Maldivian currency.

“The fisheries subsidies have been withheld as well,” he added.

The DRP will be seeking support from other opposition parties to vote in favour of the motion, he said.

At a press conference held today to announce the decision, Mausoom contended that Inaz’s decision to allegedly withhold funds for certain budget items constituted “actions that are contrary to democracy.”

Finance Minister Inaz however told Minivan News today that the fuel subsidy for fishermen was added to the budget by parliament.

In December 2009, parliament added Rf800 million (US$62 million) to the 2010 state budget prepared by the government, including media subsidies, fuel subsidies for fishermen and the reversal of pay cuts of up to 15 percent for civil servants.

The additions were made at a time when the country was facing a crippling budget deficit and pressure from international financial institutions to reign in government spending.

“The parliament recommended the fisheries subsidy and the ministry was told to deduct the amount required for it from money allocated for other subsidies and did not tell from which subsidies we should take the money for fisheries subsidies,” Inaz explained. “All other subsidized services are also essential services, such as subsidies for student text books, it will end up in the same way if money was deducted from any of the services.”

Inaz observed that diesel was currently subsidised while the government has reduced 50 percent from the price of diesel, which he said was a subsidy mainly targeted for fisherman.

“And the MBC issue is currently in court and I do not have anything to do with matters ongoing at court,” he said.

On the new taxes, Inaz noted that all tax legislation must be approved by parliament and not levied unilaterally by the government.

Inaz insisted that he never claimed that the dollar shortage would be alleviated three months after the decision to float the exchange rate.

“The media has been spinning what I said,” he suggested. “What I said was that within three months we will see the real exchange rate for dollar within the band [of the managed float]. The ministry has no mandate to determine monetary policy, it is within the mandates of Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA). We only try to balance the expenditure and revenue.”

Inaz noted that the current administration had reduced an inherited fiscal deficit of 33 percent to a forecast of 12 percent this year.

“I have always worked for the benefit of the people as that is what I swore an oath to do and I will not change anything in light of this decision made by [the DRP] to forward a no-confidence motion,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)