Day: November 1, 2011

Maldives delegation forced to return ahead of UNESCO vote for Palestinian membership, says Press Secretary

The Maldives delegation to the 36th UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) General Conference was forced to return without participating in yesterday’s vote to grant full membership to Palestine, Press Secretary to the President Mohamed Zuhair has said.

Zuhair said the delegation, which included Education Minister Mariyam Shifa and Deputy Education Minister Dr Abdulla Nazeer, were unaware of a vote when they attended the bi-annual meeting of the UN cultural agency.

“They were travelling on a UNESCO ticket and they had difficulties in extending their stay, besides Education Minister had to attend a [parliamentary] committee meeting the next day,” Zuhair explained. “Due to those reasons they were forced to return but that does not mean that the Maldives worked against the Palestine resolution. It was co-sponsored by the Maldives and we did a lot of campaigning for it.”

The resolution was adopted with 107 countries voting in favour, 14 voting against and 52 abstaining. The vote signaled a significant symbolic victory for Palestine’s bid for statehood ahead of a similar vote at the UN General Assembly in New York.

Zuhair said the Ambassador to France, Dr Farhanaz Faisal, was in the Maldives at the time and Ambassador to Geneva, Ibthisham Adam, was unable to attend on short notice.

Opposition parties, including Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and religiously conservative Adhaalath Party, has meanwhile condemned the non-participation and dismissed the reasons provided as “unacceptable.”

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Media Coordinator MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that the government’s stated reasons for the non-participation was very irresponsible.

“What they are saying to defend themselves is a big joke to me and does not make much sense,” said Nihan. “The campaign they did and the co-sponsoring the resolution is a big drama the government played.”

The Vili-Maafanu MP claimed the last time he sent a notice to the Education Minister to attend a parliament committee, she appared one and half month later.

“So the cabinet ministers in this government does not give that much attention to attend committee meetings and saying that they returned without taking part in the vote does not make any sense at all,”

He alleged the absence of the Maldives delegation was the result of conversations between former Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Israeli intelligence agency MOSSAD revealed by the Wikileaks US State Department cables

Nihan claimed the current government had “secret relations with Israel” and suggested hidden reasons behind the non-participation.

Press Secretary Zuhair however dismissed the insinuations as attempts by the opposition to “politicise the matter and mislead the public.”

“The Maldives will be one country that worked most to make the Palestine resolution get passed,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament deadlocked for second week

Parliament was disrupted and cancelled less than half an hour into today’s sitting after opposition MPs vociferously objected to the presence of convicted MP Ismail Abdul Hameed, insisting that sittings could not go ahead with the Kaashidhoo MP in attendance.

Hameed was convicted of corruption on August 29 and sentenced to 18 months banishment. He has since appealed the Criminal Court verdict at the High Court, which concluded hearings last week and is due to issue a ruling.

Parliament sittings have been cancelled since last Monday as a result of the dispute over Hameed’s right to participate in sittings and committee meetings pending a High Court decision.

Discussions among parliamentary group leaders to resolve the deadlock have so far been unsuccessful. Some committee meetings, where legislation is reviewed and stakeholders consulted, have however been taking place over the past two weeks.

Responding to points of order raised by opposition MPs today, Speaker Abdulla Shahid said parliament did not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to determine if an MP should be stripped of his or her seat.

Shahid noted that according to article 74 of the constitution, “Any question concerning the qualification or removal, or vacating of seats, of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.”

“The constitution doesn’t say the Majlis Speaker, a Majlis member or any other state institution could do it,” he said, adding that by-elections would be called and conducted by the independent Elections Commission (EC).

The Speaker explained that the EC had sent a letter to parliament requesting that the Supreme Court’s counsel be sought to resolve the dispute.

According to article 95 of the constitution, parliament could “by resolution refer to the Supreme Court for hearing and consideration important questions of law concerning any matter, including the interpretation of the constitution and the constitutional validity of any statute.”

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee has however been unable to reach a decision on seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on the issue.

Shahid noted that the Supreme Court could only offer assistance if parliament passed a resolution.

“Therefore, a solution to this could be found when the Supreme Court considers the issue and makes a decision,” he said. “Today’s sitting was held because as Speaker I believe that until then we should proceed with the work of this Majlis.”

Opposition MPs however continued to raise points of order contending that there was no room for dispute as an MP with a sentence to serve could not attend parliament. After the series of consecutive points of order, Speaker Shahid called off today’s sitting.

A Parliament Watch report, prepared by Transparency Maldives with UNDP support and released in June this year, found that a quarter of all sittings last year were terminated due to disruption.

Following last week’s forced cancellations, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that opposition MPs did not wish to disrupt proceedings but were objecting because article 73(c)(3) of the constitution clearly stated that MPs found guilty of a criminal offence “and sentenced to a term of more than twelve months” would be stripped of their seat.

“What if later at some point the High Court and the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s ruling and declares that his seat is vacant?” he asked. “If that happens, then another issue will be raised – how do we know if the votes he gives now are valid?”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No-confidence motion against Attorney General will not succeed, say MDP Chairperson

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik has said that the no-confidence motion opposition parties were trying to file in the parliament against the Attorney General Abdulla Muiz will fail.

“We will not let the no-confidence motion succeed, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) is attempting to terminate anyone that works for justice,’’ Moosa told MDP Official website.

Moosa said that the no-confidence motion was planned to save Gassan Maumoon, son of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who is currently being investigated for allegedly hitting a 17 year-old boy with a wooden plank.

Recently, interim council member of PPM Mohamed ‘Mundhu’ Shareef told the local newspaper that he was concerned about the revision of prosecution guidelines, insisting that it might force Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz to press criminal charges against Gassan Maumoon.

“His decision to revise prosecution guidelines concerning a single individual proves that he hasn’t been carrying out his responsibilities,” he told newspaper Haveeru, adding that Muiz had violated the Supreme Court ruling issued in September 2009 in Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) President Hassan Luthfy’s case that the AG cannot appeal verdicts delivered by lower courts.

Shareef told the media that he will submit a resolution to PPM Parliamentary Group to forward a no-confidence motion against AG Muiz.

Meanwhile, the government has said that it will forward a no-confidence motion against Prosecutor General after he allegedly forced a police senior officer’s team to leave his office when they went to see the PG for advice on Gassan’s arrest and the Criminal Court’s ruling.

When police arrested Gassan for investigation of the case where a 17 year-old boy was injured, the Criminal Court ruled that police have violated the criminal justice procedure in arresting Gassan and that he cannot be held in detention.

Later the police said most of the criminals arrested in the past were arrested in the same way as Gassan and that if Gassan’s arrest was unlawful so will be all the arrests made in the past.

PPM Spokesperson Ahmed Mahlouf and Media Coordinator Ahmed Nihan did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives welcomes Burmese reforms

The Maldives has said it supports recent political reforms in Burma, which has freed hundreds of political prisoners over the past several weeks.

The Burmese government has also begun direct talks with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

“The Maldives welcomed the release of the 200 political prisoners on 11 October. We would like to see all remaining political prisoners in Burma freed,” said President’s Office Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair.

“The ongoing talks between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi have the potential to lead to meaningful democratic reforms,” he added.

According to a statement issued by the President’s Office, the international community expects the Burmese government to make significant progress on issues of democracy and human rights.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police question Ibra over “unclear” offence

Police summoned President’s Advisor Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail for questioning last night after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) requested the former Male’ MP be investigated for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges” at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally on September 2.

Speaking to press outside police headquarters, Ibra’s lawyer Ahmed Abdulla Afeef said “it was unclear” what offence or crime Ibra was suspected or accused of committing.

“Police said it was to clarify information after a letter was sent from the Judicial Service Commission,” he explained, adding that the alleged offence, or under which specific penal provision the investigation was to be conducted, was not clearly stated.

The letter from the JSC referred to an article on newspaper Haveeru reporting Ibra’s remarks at the September 2 MDP rally at Kaafu Thulusdhoo, Afeef said, stressing that neither police nor the JSC letter referred to any violation of laws.

“Judges are issuing verdicts any way they please. The effort we have to make against this is not inconsiderable. It was citizens who came out and ousted Maumoon from power. The matter of judges too can only be sorted out by citizens rising up,” Ibra, who was also the first elected president of MDP, was quoted as saying in newspaper Haveeru.

Ibra said last night he had “complete assurance” that criminal charges could not be pressed against him “because I have not committed a crime specified in the law.”

The former chair of the Special Majlis’ constitution drafting committee urged police to conduct a full investigation.

Ibra added that he was “very happy” that “today we have police who brings the law to bear on people in high posts of the government.”

“I won’t [exercise the right to] remain silent to evade the law, I won’t obstruct police investigations and court trials through various means to evade the law,” he asserted.

“Runaway judiciary”

The JSC is constitutionally mandated to investigate complaints of misconduct by judges, take disciplinary action and recommend dismissal of judges by parliament (through a two-thirds majority). Last year, 143 complaints were filed at the commission; by its own statistics none were tabled and only five were ever replied to.

Outspoken whistle-blower and then-President’s member on the JSC, Aishath Velezine, was meanwhile stabbed in the street in January this year.

In late 2010, Velezinee launched an emotive appeal against “a runaway judiciary” and the constitutionally-mandated reappointment of judges after vetting by the JSC, despite a quarter of sitting judges possessing criminal records and many having only finished seventh grade.

The majority of the current bench was appointed by former President Maumoom Abdul Gayoom, who was “the highest authority on administering justice” under the old constitution, with powers to appoint and dismiss judges as well as grant pardons and amnesties.

In an interview with Minivan News in September, Ibra argued that the JSC had been “compromised” and “the Supreme Court and key elements within the judiciary are still controlled by Gayoom – directly or indirectly.”

Ibra’s criticism of the judiciary at a ruling party rally in September prompted the JSC to conduct an “emergency meeting” where it decided to ask the “relevant authorities” to carry out an official investigation.

The Supreme Court meanwhile issued a press statement contending that Ibra’s remarks encouraged “the illegal curtailment of the tasks of the judiciary” and could lead to “the loss of peace and security of the Maldivian state and plunge the nation into unrest.”

Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla is also the chair of the JSC, which has three judges from three tiers of the judiciary, one lawyer elected by licensed lawyers, one member of the public, the Speaker of parliament, an MP elected by parliament, a member of the President, the Attorney General and the chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Ibra meanwhile sued the Supreme Court last month for defamation in light of its statement. Shortly after the case registered, the apex court issued a writ of prohibition and took over the defamation case against itself from the Civil Court.

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

He suggested that the Supreme Court’s reaction “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)