Month: July 2012

Comment: Burial of the truth

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

Last Sunday night Lance Corporal Adam Haleem was stabbed to death on the island of Kaashidhoo. He was en route to duty and in full uniform. He died from multiple stab wounds just after midnight. He was 26 years old, and the father of a son not yet a year old.

Before the young policeman’s body was cold, his death had become a political opportunity for many. Politicisation of life and death is not a new phenomenon in the Maldives. It was on the rise before the change of government on 7 February. But the extent to which the current ‘Unity Government’ of Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik is going, to squeeze every drop of political juice from the death of Lance Corporal Hameed, is a revolting spectacle to behold.

It was Dr Waheed himself who set the ball rolling.

What was this about hate-mongering? What did he mean? Was the policeman’s murder linked to the current political unrest? That was certainly the inference, as he reiterated shortly after:

One of the first political figures to put into words what Waheed insinuated was MP for Kaashidhoo area Abdulla Jabir. He told the Sun within an hour of the news breaking:

[I] condemn this murder in strictest words. It is sad that such incidents are increasing. The reason for this is the continued actions by MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party] to spread lies about the police and create anger against them among the people.

Sun also reported that ‘Private MP’ Ahmed Mahloof (PPM), less than two hours after the news broke, said:

What we have seen tonight is the democracy that MDP talks about. The democracy we have seen is the one which calls to attack the police. I condemn this. Nasheed and MDP must take responsibility for this.

Several others were jostling for space on the bandwagon. Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed said this:

Here are some significant others.

Human Rights Commissioner Mariyam Azra, too, appeared convinced that what the Unity Government and its supporters were saying was indeed true. Within the hour she had this to say:

Very sad that a policeman has been killed like this. Nobody should speak in ways that incite hatred against another.

Politics of death

The death of a policeman—especially when hostilities between anti-government protesters and the security forces are at an all time high—is a potent event, laden with political consequences. For the Unity Government it became the ‘evidence’ with which to prove a ‘truth’ they have been peddling from the beginning: MDP is a violent political group determined to regain power at any cost.

This strategy for criminalising dissent and constructing all supporters of MDP as ‘terrorists’ who are also the cause of all the social unrest of today, has been at the forefront of this government’s efforts to legitimise itself since day one.

The government was helped in its campaign to exploit the young policeman’s death by the police themselves. Lance Corporal Haleem died at around quarter past midnight on Sunday night. Between then and mid-afternoon Monday—despite being in possession of all facts surrounding the murder—the police did not make public any details surrounding it. The only thing said was ‘a policeman has been murdered,’ and where.

This left a long Speculation Window in which the Unity Government could air as fact its message that Lance Corporal Haleem had been murdered by an MDP thug, driven to it by calls for violence against the police by MDP leaders.

During the midnight hours, knowing that most people stay up late during Ramadan, key figures in the Unity Government saturated the media with the message. Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim appeared on his Villa TV with Kaashidhoo MP Jabir and JP’s President Dr Didi to discuss ‘the problem of MDP’s continuous incitment of violence against the police.’

They intertwined news of the policeman’s death with the narrative of ‘MDP violence against the police’ so often and with such conviction that by the time the police finally revealed more facts, most people—except the accused—were convinced MDP was behind the policeman’s murder. Here’s a tweet that encapsulates the sentiments of government supporters the following day.

Dissemination of the message did not stop at the country’s borders. In fact, when spread to the international community, the Unity Government didn’t bother with the insinuations. It just came straight out and pointed the figure at MDP. Before Monday morning, the President’s Office Spokesperson, Masood Imad, had told the AFP in Colombo:

The MDP instigated the attack on policemen at Kaashidoo and one was stabbed to death.

Here’s how a Sri Lankan newspaper ran the story the next morning:

Whither the truth?

The truth of the matter, when details began to come out on Monday, was very different. Lance Corporal Haleem was killed by a criminal he had investigated for about a year, and was about to arrest.

The murder was straightforward, and Mohamed Samah, the 22-year-old culprit from the same island, was arrested at the scene. There was an eye-witness and several people, including the police, were on the scene within seconds.

The subsequent scramble to pinpoint the political party to which the accused belonged was ugly. And it was a malaise that affected not just the Unity Government but the general population in its majority. It was as if the violent death of a young man would only begin to matter once the murderer’s political affiliation was established.

His connections with various key figures in different political parties were discussed; his identity card number was keyed into the Elections Commissions website; his membership of one party thus established without doubt—only for that party to come out and say: “There are many MDP members who signed up to other parties by mistake.” Seriously. In a ‘functioning democracy’, as Dr Waheed describes the Maldives, the facts of Lance Corporal Haleem’s death would have required a formal retraction. And, at the very least, it would have elicited an apology to the MDP for very serious wrongful accusations made against it.

But that is not what happened, for it was not Lance Corporal Haleem’s death that was important but the concurrent narrative of MDP’s violence that it was used to construct. Under the circumstances, truth was irrelevant. Thus the political abuse of Lance Corporal Haleem’s body continued apace.

After the condemnations came the heavily publicised State funeral. Of course, the fallen must be honoured. Policemen put their lives at risk protecting society, and we should appreciate that, especially so when they die on duty.

But was the public spectacle put on by the Unity Government and Maldives Police Service really necessary? It is not part of Maldivian culture to hold ostentatious, loud, photographed and televised funerals.

We are humble and simple in our bereavement. But, pictures of Lance Corporal Haleem’s coffin being carried to Islamic Centre on the shoulders of sombre looking policeman were splashed across the media. As were pictures of various key Unity Government figures consoling the family, looking appropriately grieved, and even praying. Faith, like death, reduced to a photo opportunity.

In a slight digression: I could not help but notice Lance Corporal Haleem’s distraught mother photographed at the burial ground paying her respects. I know several mothers, wives, daughters and sisters (myself included) who have desperately wanted it to be otherwise. But it has always been maintained that a woman cannot partake in the burial. What was it about this occasion that allowed the bending of a seemingly inflexible Islamic rule?

Retaliation against the wrongfully accused

As the day passed, the rhetoric of MDP’s violence against the police was only ratcheted up, not lowered. Now the Unity Government’s efforts were on making people forget the truth.

It seems as if the fact of Lance Corporal Haleem’s death has been buried with him. What remained of concern was the accompanying narrative – MDP is deliberately inciting violence against the police and must be stopped.

Thus the Maldives Police Service began ‘retaliation’ against MDP for a crime it had nothing to do with. Chief among several actions taken to avenge Lance Corporal Haleem’s murder was the ’leaking’ of a telephone conversation between Nasheed and MDP Mariya Didi, one of his closest allies and friends. In the March 29 conversation, Mariya is heard updating Nasheed about police violence and use of pepper-spray against protesters resisting their dismantling of Usfasgan’du [MDP’s protest camp] that day. She asks for Nasheed’s advice, and he replies:

There’s not much we can do. I don’t know. What is there to do? I think [we] need to get people out to fight if we can get them. If we can get people to fight, get them out. It’s very clear to me, I think we need to fight back. If we can get people to fight. Find kids from Male to fight the police.

Mariya laughs. Not the response one would expect from a person who thinks she has just been assigned the task of recruiting a gang of thugs to take on the national security forces. Regardless, the police thought it prudent to release the audio clip. For what purpose? It was certainly not aimed at calming tensions or to make real the rhetoric of reconciliation.

Nasheed’s supporters are unlikely to accept the private conversation between him and Mariya as evidence of his alleged brutality. For them, his commitment to non-violence was proven beyond doubt when not just the MDP-affiliated Coup Report but also the so-called CONI Timeline documented Nasheed’s unequivocal refusal to use weapons against the mutinying police, or anyone else, on 7 February.

The only purposes the audio clip served was to harden government supporters’ dislike and mistrust of Nasheed, and to fortify government’s efforts to construct Nasheed as the cruel leader of the violent political organisation that is said to be MDP. To support their claim that MDP leaders are all characterised by political extremists prone to violence, they have also unearthed statements made by key MDP figures encouraging—wrongly so—retaliation against the police for their brutal violence against them during the events surrounding the transfer of government.

Whether or not their words bear any relation to the murder of the policeman, once again, is of the least consequence. What it did beautifully was fit the government narrative. What use to make of the audio clip, which the police has been in possession of since March, was decided shortly after Lance Corporal Haleem’s murder and long before facts of his killing were made public. Home Minister Jameel hinted at it on the night of the murder itself:

The ‘evidence’, with the allegation, is continuing to play across the media—mainstream and social–since then.

Before they brought foreigners and shot them dead, now getting Maldivians to stab them…Bravo to the democracy Anni is bringing.

The poster with the last Tweet from President’s Spokesperson Abbas Riza reads:

6 February Massacre

Main reasons why a massacre was desired:

—to declare a state of emergency

—to abolish the JSC and give MDP the power to appoint judges

—to arrest the leaders who stepped up to defend Islam and the Constitution

—to hand MPL (Maldives Ports Limited) to a company of which India’s GMR is a shareholder

These are not the words and actions of members of a government eager to calm the political and social turmoil afflicting Maldives today. On the contrary, they are intended to cause the opposite effect.

If the Unity Government were serious about reconciliation in the five long months gone, it would have taken due action against members of the police who mutinied. It would not have given them promotions instead.

It would not have appointed as leaders of the security forces men like Mohamed Nazim, Abdulla Riyaz and Mohamed Fayaz, men who the whole country saw playing a key role in the change of government on 7 February. The seeds of public mistrust of the police were planted on that day, and on 8 February. And they grow and mushroom with every day that passes without this government’s acknowledgement of the these facts.

There can be no reconciliation without the truth.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government demands GMR “temporarily halt” construction of new terminal

The Maldives government has called for a cessation of work on the new airport terminal by Indian infrastructure group GMR, over allegations the company has “violated rules and regulations” regarding the construction.

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza confirmed to Minivan News that the cabinet, acting on information provided by the Transport Ministry, had requested that building work on the new terminal at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) be halted.

“When the government decides that a project be stopped, we will make sure this happens,” he said. “GMR have not discussed the construction with relevant authorities.”

Abbas did not clarify if the alleged violation of rules and regulations by the company was related to previous reports that construction on the project commenced last month without obtaining  construction permits from the country’s Civil Aviation Authority.

Transport and Communications Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed was not responding to calls at the time of press.

A GMR spokesperson said today that the company itself had received no letter or communications calling for a halt to work.

However, local media has reported that the cabinet opted on Tuesday (July 24) to call for a “temporarily halt” on work on the terminal, over claims GMR had not acquired necessary authorisation and permit approval from the country’s Civil Aviation Authority.

GMR told Haveeru earlier earlier this month that terminal construction had been approved in an existing master-plan agreed with the government. The company has pledged that it will open by July 2014, “irrespective” of outside issues.

Addressing the matter of GMR’s construction work earlier this month, the government at the time claimed that the permit was “not a huge issue” and was believed to have resulted from an error by contractors presently working on the airport’s construction.

Development plans

The development of the airport – expected by the company to total US$511m in costs – is the largest foreign investment project undertaken in the Maldives’ history and includes commitments to renovate INIA’s existing terminal by September both in terms of operational efficiency and customer services, according to GMR.

With contractors already having begun work on the new structure in June, the administration of President Dr Mohamed Waheed has previously stressed that it would not seek to interfere or “disturb” the project that officially commenced back in November 2010 under the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

However, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas previously claimed that the long-term prospects of the construction ultimately depended on GMR validating the legality of their contract – a document that was overseen by the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The IFC is a member of the World Bank group and the largest global institution focused on private sector in developing countries.

Abbas added that should the (now government party controlled) parliament also decide on nationalising the airport in line with the wishes of certain pro-government parties to take back the project from GMR, then the present administration would have to comply with such a decision.

The government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan comprises a coalition of former opposition parties that represent the majority of elected representatives. The now-opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presently has 29 MPs in the Majlis, the largest number of MPs belonging to a single party.

Nationalisation calls

Several pro-government parties – including the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), People’s Alliance (PA) and Jumhoree Party (JP) – advised President Waheed last month that they continued to endorse an agreement signed in June 2010 calling for the airport to be taken back from GMR and nationalised.

The agreement endorsed six main points which included taking legal action to prevent the government’s decision to award the contract to GMR.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nine people to face charges over ‘honeytrap’ nude photo blackmailing scam

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) have sent a case involving nine people to the Prosecutor General (PG), alleging the group was involved in blackmailing people after acquiring nude pictures and videos of them through Facebook.

Last year in February, police arrested 14 persons including a minor for alleged involvement in the blackmailing ring, after the group used a fraudulent Facebook account to acquire videos of politicians, businessman and other members of the public and used the material to blackmail them for money.

In a press briefing held yesterday, police revealed to media the details of the nine persons facing charges, all of them from Hithadhoo in Addu City: Mohamed Mumin (26), Hussain Shah (24), Ahmed Mohamed (26), Mohamed Minsar (24), Azmeen Ishaag (23), Mohamed Ishaag (27), Ibrahim Ishaag (20), Ali Ishaag (26) and Ahmed Athif (21).

Police stated that during the investigation process they retrieved videos of about 60 to 70 people who were blackmailed.

They also said that they have sent cases involving 10 persons to the PG, concerning the content of videos obtained. Police did not reveal the details of those charged.

Speaking at the press briefing, Superintendent of Police Mohamed Riyaz said that police did not reveal the details because the case concerned a lot of people and there remained “certain things” that still needed to be checked before revealing their identities.

Police earlier told Minivan News that they would be revealing the details of those in the videos as the investigation progressed.

Superintendent Riyaz stated that the blackmailers used two Facebook accounts to blackmail the victims and had acquired large sums of money in the process, transferred it using a shop in Male to a shop in Addu City.

Two Facebook profiles identified at the time as being involved in the ring where those belonging to ‘Lyshiaa Limanom’ and ‘Angelic Sharrown’. Both of these profiles show the same picture of a young blonde woman wearing sunglasses, and each profile had between 1200-1300 Facebook ‘friends’ – most of them Maldivian.

Riyaz also said that the blackmailers had also collected money by personally contacting the victims.

“[Before taking money] they first checked the financial capacity of the person. They took large sums of money from some people while collected money from others on a monthly basis for a very long period,” he said.

Riyaz did not reveal the details of exactly how much money that was laundered.

During the investigation, police questioned several officials from the former government including officials of state minister level.

Local newspaper Haveeru reported that the investigation was halted following pressure from the former government, and the investigations resumed following the controversial transfer of power which toppled the government of then President Mohamed Nasheed on February 7, 2012.

Following the arrests made on February last year, police in a statement said they had begun investigations after the issue came to light two months back.

“Police conducted a special operation from February 13-20, 2011 in an effort to stop this crime and present the criminals before the court,” read the statement.

Police at the time said 10 of the 14 alleged perpetrators were arrested in Addu City while four of them, including a 17 year old minor, were caught in Male’. According to police all persons arrested in Addu City were between the ages of 21-26.

Police stated that they discovered “hundreds of nude pictures and videos of Maldivians” in the laptops and external hard drives of those arrested.

“While some of the pictures were taken of people while drunk, other pictures were taken without the consent of the person,” police said.

Police also stated that they had noticed that some people in the videos were performing explicit acts in the presence of minors, and warned that this “could affect the future and discipline of the minors”.

Police questioning Haveeru journalists

During the investigations, police questioned two journalists from local newspaper Haveeru following an article they published on the blackmailing ring.

Haveeru in the article interviewed a person who claimed to have seen some of the material, who said that MPs belonging to both the opposition and the ruling party had fallen for the scam, as well as prominent businessmen and “national figures”.

Haveeru journalists Ahmed Hamdhoon and Ismail Naseer volunteered to take part in police questioning about an article published by Haveeru on February 22 concerning the content of images acquired through Facebook. The paper maintained that it did not have any of the files that were in question.

Haveeru Editor Moosa Latheef told Minivan News at the time that although police had acted politely and without aggression in requesting the identity of the sources said to have viewed the indecent images – a request he said was denied just as politely – the case could have serious ramifications for the national media in the future.

Latheef stressed particular concern that should police repeat their conduct of looking to question journalists about their sources or stories.

“We are very much enjoying the press freedom in the Maldives right now. But I’m afraid that if the police or other institutions try to interfere with our [press] freedom then they will create an atmosphere where we are unable to fulfill our responsibilities,” he said. “If this repeats then we could have journalists who are afraid to write about issues. No one wants to go to the courts to defend himself or herself [over stories].”

Latheef said that in general, it could become very easy to begin such a case by accusing a journalist – or anyone – of having illegal content such as pornographic images on their computer. Yet on a wider level, the editor was wary about police being able to gain access to the computer files of the country’s journalists and their contents that could include confidential sources vital to break stories.

While the paper’s editor accepted that there were situations such as national security issues that could warrant a court to request the identity of a journalist’s source against commonly held industry ethics, he claimed such requests should remain very rare cases.

Latheef said that the Facebook bribery allegations were a story not about an issue of national security, but one concerning prominent members of the government, parliament and the judiciary, which paled in consequence to some of the stories he said Haveeru has previously published.

Police at the time also obtained a court order to search the computers of some Haveeru staff.

However, police officials later said they ultimately opted not to conduct a search on Haveeru’s premises, but that the questioning of the journalists involved was important to an ongoing investigation.

“Attack on free media”

Following the questioning, Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) condemned the police actions describing the actions as a step to suppress free media in the country.

MJA President Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said at the time that the action taken by police in questioning Haveeru’s Ahmed Hamdhoon and Ismail Naseer was unprecedented under the current constitution.

A media officer for the Maldives Police Service following the events said at the time that they were unable to confirm what sort of questions the journalists were asked and if they may be called in for further questioning at a later date.

However, Zahir at the MJA questioned why the police needed to summon the journalists about a story and images already thought to be in the public domain.

“I don’t think this was simply a case of police asking journalists to help them with an enquiry,” he said. “I personally believe it is an attempt to censor and suppress the Maldives media, which has been free.”

The case became a subject of intense political debate and conspiracy against the former government of President Mohamed Nasheed where then opposition figures accused his government of trying to cover up the blunders of his party, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activists who were unfit for top government posts.

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), an opposition party at the time sent a letter to the President’s Office, calling the President Nasheed to remove government officials involved in the case from their posts “or if you do not remove them from their posts it will be taken as meaning that you are supporting such activities.”

The DQP called on the government to take action against those involved “as soon as possible.”

However, former Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair brushed off the allegations stating that none of the events reportedly depict “would have taken place inside the President’s office.”

“We don’t have Facebook, MSN or any other social networks on any computer of the President’s Office,” Zuhair said. “It is nothing to do with the government or the president,” he responded.

Several blogs at the time speculated on the names of those caught up in the scandal, but police did not confirm the identities of those compromised.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

June arrivals show 6.1 percent increase despite fall in traditional markets

The Maldives has recorded a 6.1 percent overall increase in tourist arrivals for June 2012 compared to the same period last year, according to figures from the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC).

The increase came despite continued drops in key markets across Europe, including the emerging Eastern European market.

The German market, which was one of the few large market segments to show a double figure increase over the last few months, declined 9.4 percent in June 2012, compared to the same period last year.

The decline in the longstanding staple UK market – the country’s largest prior to the sudden influx of Chinese visitors in 2010 – slowed slightly, recording a drop of 3 percent to 6146.

Russia, a lucrative and generally consistent emerging market for the Maldives, fell 12.3 percent in June 2012 compared to the previous year.

Italian arrivals continued to plummet, falling 32.8 percent.

Chinese arrivals continued to show strong growth in terms of volume, increasing to 17,809 in June 2012 – growth of 15.6 percent, on the back of strong charter performance. The MMPRC’s figures suggest that in terms of volume, Chinese arrivals are three times greater than the country’s second largest market.

The Middle East region continued to show strong growth, with arrivals increasing almost 110 percent to 2533. The vast majority of arrivals were from Saudi Arabia, which recorded a 152 percent increase in June 2012 on the same period last year.

Total arrivals for the first half of 2012 are up 2.3 percent on the same period in 2011 to 458,068, implying that the country still has a chance at breaking its target of one million visitors despite the ongoing political and economic turmoil.

Head of the MMPRC Mohamed Maleeh Jamal was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The spirit of Orange Day

Orange has always known to be a powerful color: it stimulates enthusiasm, creativity and symbolises vitality with endurance. It is also said be one of the healing colors.

So what other better color than Orange to show peoples’ solidarity in the fight to end all forms of violence, abuse and discrimination inflicted on millions of women and young girls worldwide in pandemic proportions.

Available country data reveals that up to 70 per cent of women experience physical or sexual violence from men in their lifetime – the majority by husbands, intimate partners or someone they know.

Among women aged between 15 and 44, acts of violence cause more death and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined.  It is one the most pervasive human rights violation that is devastating millions  lives, fractures communities, and stalls development.
The violence takes many forms and occurs in almost all places – domestic violence at  home, sexual abuse of girls in schools, sexual harassment at work, rape by husbands or strangers, in refugee camps or as a tactic of war.

The Global Unite Youth Network, a group of over 40 young activists from around the world working to end gender inequality and violence against women and girls, launched its first action on Wednesday, 25 July: UNiTE Orange Day, under the UN Secretary-General’s campaign UNiTE to End Violence against Women.

The young activists, including myself, decided to raise awareness about the issue of violence against women and girls and bring this pandemic to people’s atention, not only once a year on 25 November (International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women), but every month.

The goal was simple: Generate interest and conversations about the issue, and encourage people to start thinking and talking about how to end violence against women and girls.

On the same day, the UNiTE campaign also launched the new UNiTE Ribbon as symbol for preventing and ending violence against women and girls. The mission is to make this symbol universal.

Therefore, through social media campaigns,the Global Unite Youth Network members, including myself, asked men, women, boys and girls, young and old in our countries to wear something orange on 25 July and wear the orange ribbon, together creating a historical global movement.

Orange Warriors from across the world

Following just almost a week of campaigning, on Wednesday, we witnessed the rise of several hundreds of “Orange Warriors” from beyond borders, nationalities and cultures, ready to stand up to violence committed against women and girls.

From Bosnia to Bangladesh, France to Sri Lanka, Thailand to Phillipines, US to Russia, Georgia to India – both young and old alike – joined the campaign, uploading their pictures shining with multiple shades of orange to social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.

From the Maldives a small butspirited group of individuals also joined the campaign, including my family and close friends, colleagues at Minivan News and staff of UN agencies.

The island nation of 350,000 people gripped by widespread gender-based violence including domestic abuse, harassment and discrimination with every 1 in 3 woman reported to be victim of violence.

UN Staff marks Orange Day

UN Women Representative in Maldives Michiyo Yamada said violence affects not only women and girls themselves but everyone in a community and society. We all need to understand the gravity of the issue and show a commitment individually.

“It is very encouraging to see young people taking a lead to advocate to end violence against women and girls, as they are a key agent of change.” Yamada noted.

She added: “We hope everyone will join this campaign and say NO every day to emphasise zero tolerance to VAWG.”

Next Orange Day is scheduled for August 25th. Will you wear orange and Say No?

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The many promises of Mohamed Nasheed: Dr Hassan Saeed

“I have said in the past that many people find it hard to trust Nasheed and recent revelations about his relationship with President Waheed put this into perspective,” writes Dr Hassan Saeed, Special Advisor to President Waheed, in Haveeru.

“At this time of reflection, I want to put on record my own experience.

Shortly after my resignation from President Gayyoom’s cabinet in 2007, I visited London accompanied by two close friends. Through a series interviews with the BBC and the Independent, I and my team launched our 2008 presidential election campaign. We were then known as the New Maldives movement.

Whilst in London we also held a number of meetings. This included some with members of the then opposition UK Conservative Party. One such meeting was with a senior Conservative MP who had been closely working the MDP.  During the meeting in his office, he remarked that the MDP leadership lacked experience and competency and that he would ask the MDP leadership to back the New Maldives team in the 2008 presidential election.

Perhaps he did?

Shortly after we returned from London the MDP held primaries to pick its presidential candidate. A number of senior MDP officials from Addu and elsewhere met me conveying a message from Nasheed. That message was very clear; Nasheed would contest the MDP primaries, but he did not intend to contest the Presidential election. If he were to win the MDP primaries, he would back me.

This was not just local MDP officials making rash promises; Nasheed himself came to visit and told me that I commanded substantial support within the MDP. He asked for my support to win those primaries. He even told me further that his own mother supported me. Almost immediately after our meeting an older woman called me. She said she was Nasheed’s mother and how big a fan of me she was and that she would get fully involved in my election campaign.

Many in Nasheed’s door-to-door campaign teams would call and tell me that he was making it crystal clear to MDP voters that if he won in the primaries he would back me.

Nasheed did win. Initially, I did not hear from him for several days. My colleagues contacted him. A meeting was arranged. Nasheed’s team consisted of Ibrahim Mohamed Salih, Ameen Faisal and Nasheed himself. From our side Dr Jameel, Dr Shaheed and myself attended.

Nasheed agreed to be my running mate with the MDP to get 75 percent of cabinet posts. However if elected President on this ticket I would have had the authority to veto incompetent and corrupt nominations from the MDP.  In view of what seemed a good arrangement for all sides, we agreed this. We even shook hands on it before we finished the meeting.

Nasheed called an MDP Qawumee Majlis (Nations Council) meeting. He then contacted his close aides to mobilize their support for our agreement. The MDP member for the Constitutional Assembly Mr. Adnan Haleem floated the proposal to the MDP National Council. The Council unanimously endorsed the arrangement for Nasheed to be my running mate.

A meeting of senior officials from both sides was arranged to discuss joint campaign funding.

All seemed to be arranged. We would have change in the Maldives and it would have comprised an alliance that the subsequent first round Presidential election results shows could have secured up to 41.58 percent – ahead of Gayyoom’s 40.34 percent.

However what seemed to be solid turned out to be thin air. To my surprise immediately after the meeting a senior official from Adalat Party called me and said that Nasheed had asked MDP backing for his presidential campaign!”

Read More..

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President to mark 47th Independence Day with Republic Square address

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan will deliver an address this evening from Republic Square in Male’ to commemorate 47 years since the country became an independent nation.

According to the President’s Office, Dr Waheed will host a special Independence Day function, organised by the Ministry of Home Affairs, that will include a ceremonial hoisting of the national flag at the square.

Maldivian Independence Day commemorates the nation obtaining the right to self determination on July 26, 1965. The country had previously been a British protectorate since the late 19th century.

As part of Independence Day festivities held in the country this week, President Waheed and First Lady Ilham Hussain also hosted an official reception yesterday evening at the National Museum.

Foreign dignitaries, former presidents, Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid and serving MPs and cabinet members were said to be among invitees to the function, according to the President’s Office website.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed’s brother protests outside London Ruder Finn office

A small group of protesters gathered outside PR firm Ruder Finn’s London offices to mark Maldives Independence Day, reports PR Week, including President Mohamed Waheed’s brother, Naushad Waheed Hassan.

Naushad previously stepped down the post of Deputy High Commissioner to the UK as of now “because I cannot serve a regime that has brought down the democratically elected government of my country in a coup d’état.”

The protest saw placards bearing slogans ‘Islamophobes and dictators’, ‘Ruder Finn: no client too toxic’ and ‘Gold medallists of spin: Ruder Finn’, reported PR Week.

“The criticism came after Ruder Finn was blasted by British-based pro-democracy group Friends of Maldives for accepting a brief to promote a tourism drive by the Maldives government. This followed claims that president Mohamed Nasheed was removed in a coup d’etat in February.

“Agency boss Nick Leonard had not faced protesters himself as he was on holiday. But he defended the agency’s actions, saying: ‘I believe in freedom of speech and they have the right to voice their opinion.’”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court dismisses ruling of own watchdog body against Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed

The Civil Court today dismissed a decision by its own watchdog body, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to take action against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct.

An investigation into a complaint of ethical misconduct against Judge Abdulla was completed by a JSC special committee which recommended in the final report to the commission that action be taken against the Judge for violating the Judge’s Code of Conduct – specifically, by making a politically biased statement in an interview with DhiTV.

However, during the period given to Judge Abdulla to respond to the report, he instead obtained a Civil Court injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

The JSC appealed the injunction on January 24 of this year, claiming that the Civil Court had disregarded the commission’s constitutional mandate which allowed it to take action against judges, and argued that the court did not have the jurisdiction to overrule a decision of its own watchdog body.

But the appeal was rejected, concluding that the commission had not provided the court “any substantial reason to terminate the injunction and that the High court cannot make a decision on the case while the case is pending at a lower court.

As the final verdict on the case came out today, the Civil Court overruled the the decision stating that Judge Abdulla was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations during the investigation.

According to the decision, providing a chance to submit any complaints after the investigation is completed cannot be deemed as an opportunity for the Judge to present his defence.

Like all other state institutions the JSC must also be held accountable in front of the law, the court noted, addding that party who believes to have suffered damages due to a decision by the commission have the right to litigate  matter to protect his rights.

Furthermore the Civil Court concluded that action cannot be taken against the Abdullah under the Judge’s Code of Conduct, because the said violation predates the regulation.

Charges against the Judge

Apart from the ethical misconduct complaint, the JSC revealed that a total of 11 complaints have been submitted to the commission against Judge Abdulla Mohamed, among which are serious allegations of corruption and abuse of authority.

The first complaints against Abdulla Mohamed were filed in July 2005 by then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now Dr Waheed’s political advisor – and included allegations of misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused.

Among the allegations in Dr Saeed’s letter was one that Judge Abdulla had requested an underage victim of sexual abuse reenact her abuse for the court, in the presence of the perpetrator.

In 2009, those documents were sent to the JSC, which was requested to launch an investigation into the outstanding complaints as well as alleged obstruction of “high-profile corruption investigations”.

The JSC decided not to proceed with the investigation on July 30, 2009.

Former President’s member on the JSC and whistleblower Aishath Velezinee for several years contended that Abdulla Mohamed was a central, controlling “father figure” in the lower courts, answerable to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and a key figure responsible for scuttling the independence of the judiciary under the new constitution.

Central figure in Nasheed’s downfall

Abdulla Mohamed was also a central figure in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, following the military’s detention of the judge after the government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights violations and corruption cases.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests starting in January, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN to reform the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge were unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, but later said he was forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has taken to the streets in recent months calling for an early election.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, after international concern quickly mounted.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)