October 2012 – Page 20 – Minivan News

MDP submits no-confidence motion against President

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has submitted a no-confidence motion in parliament against President Dr Waheed Hassan Manik.

According to MDP, the no-confidence motion was submitted to the parliament in response to orders from by Waheed to attack citizens and MDP MPs, and to carry out acts of inhumanity on February 8 which were executed by the army and police.

The MDP alleged that President Waheed had destroyed the sensitive economy of the nation and that his handling of the economy has destroyed foreign investor confidence in the Maldives.

The MDP also noted that Dr Waheed’s government had not taken appropriate measures to curb gang violence in the country.

The party also raised the government’s recent loan of MVR 300 million (US$19.5 million) from the Bank of Maldives (BML) without the consent of the parliament as legally required.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that he was “very confident all PPM MPs are with Dr Waheed and this no-confidence motion vote will fail in parliament.”

Nihan said the MDP’s objective was to obstruct parliament from conducting its work, to waste parliament’s time, and to disturb President Waheed.

‘’MDP also have it on their agenda to split the coalition parties,’’ he added. ‘’They are doing this just to pressure the parliamentarians at a time when the people of the nation are in need of the parliament.’’

Nihan reiterated that many of the important bills submitted to the parliament by MPs have been sitting in parliament for ages without being passed.

He also criticised the MDP for saying that Dr Waheed had destroyed the economy of the state, and said that MDP was responsible for ‘’bringing [Indian airport developer] GMR to the Maldives, and selling Dhiraagu shares to Cable and Wireless.’’

Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoon said the party had not discussed the matter, but said the DRP would not follow the MDP.

“Although we haven’t officially decided on the matter our view on it is already known. We will not support any irresponsible issues created by MDP,’’ Dr Mausoom said. “All the DRP MPs that have already met me have joked about this. We will not dance to the beat of the MDP,’’ he said.

He also said he believed the MDP was trying to drive media attention away from former President Mohamed Nasheed’s ongoing trial.

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Alhan Fahmy recently said that he would submit a no-confidence motion against President Dr Waheed Hassan and said he was receiving cooperation from MDP and other parties in parliament.

Later his party’s leadership dismissed the comments he made and said the party was in support of Dr Waheed.

Parliament figures show that MDP has 30 MPs, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) has 13 MPs, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has 17 MPs, Jumhoree Party (JP) has 5 MPs, Dhivehi Qaumy Party (DQP) has one MP, People’s Alliance Party (PA) has 3 MPs, while 7 MPs remain independent.

It takes a two-thirds majority to win a no-confidence motion against the President or Vice President.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Waheed government submits bill to facilitate death penalty

The government has announced its intention to introduce a bill to the People’s Majlis in order to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country.

“It is currently a punishment passed by the judiciary and a form of punishment available within the penal system of the Maldives,” said Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

“But for full guidance and matters governing the matter, legislation is required,” he added.

A meeting of the cabinet yesterday strongly condemned last week’s murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali and urged President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan to start taking immediate measures to ensure safety and security in the country.

President’s Office spokesman Masood Imad said that the government had received a large number of calls for implementing the death penalty.

“We are having enormous pressure since these high profile murders,” he said. “We have indications – the talk around the town – that there will be more murders.”

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has this week proposed a no-confidence motion against the home minister, citing the unprecedented instances of murder and assault in the country since he assumed office in February.

Afrasheem’s murder was the 10th in the small country this year, sparking much debate on the death penalty.

Following the murder of high profile lawyer Ahmed Najeeb on July 1, two people were sentenced to death after Najeeb’s heirs opted for qisas (equal retaliation) rather than blood money.

Public outcry over Najeeb’s murder prompted Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz to declare that full enforcement of the courts’ rulings is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the judiciary.

A case was submitted to the High Court in August, requesting that it annul the President’s ability to commute death sentences to 25 years imprisonment, provided in the Clemency Act.

Similarly, in April Ahmed Mahloof – parliamentary group member from the government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) – proposed an amendment to the Clemency Act to ensure that the enforcement of the death penalty be mandatory in the event it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

In a comment piece written for Haveeru following Najeeb’s murder, however, Special Advisor to the President Dr Hassan Saeed warned that implementing the death penalty could be both arbitrary and prohibitively expensive.

Judiciary and human rights

The last execution in the Maldives came in 1953 when Hakim Didi was charged with attempting to assassinate President Ameen using black magic.

Since that time, the Maldives has retained the practice of the death penalty for murder although Islamic Shariah tenets also give the courts the power to pronounce capital punishment for offences such as sodomy, fornication, apostasy and other crimes against the community.

Statistics show that from January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by Maldivian courts.

Jameel said that there was to be no re-consideration of the Clemency Act but that “necessary reform to legislation governing the criminal justice system will be undertaken by the government.”

Concerns over the judiciary were confirmed in the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report which investigated the events surrounding the resignation of former President Mohamed Nasheed in February.

The final report recommended that immediate steps be taken to improve the performance of the judiciary.

“The judiciary must enjoy public confidence and where there are allegations about judges’ conduct, the Judicial Services Commission must act in a timely and definitive way and report,” read the report.

Aishath Velezinee, formerly Nasheed’s appointee to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), has said that corruption and an unreformed judiciary were the primary causes of crime in the country.

“Islam upholds justice, and not only has death penalty; it has very clear qualifications for judges too. Neither MP Mahloof, nor any of the Sheikhs, has expressed alarm that the judges are far below standard and some of them are convicted criminals themselves. This is pure politics and abuse of Islam,” she told Minivan News in a previous interview.

In July, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) said it was “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives,” as well as calling for the abolition of the death penalty, in order to ensure the Maldives’ compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

After speaking with a Maldivian delegation headed by Jameel, the council released a statement saying that the state had acknowledged both that the independence of the judiciary was severely compromised and that the death penalty did not deter crime.

Today marks World Day Against the Death Penalty – organised by an alliance of more than 135 NGOs, bar associations, local authorities and unions seeking the universal abolition of capital punishment.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

UK, EU express “concern” over arrest of Nasheed

The UK and the EU have issued statements expressing concern over the arrest of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“Along with our international partners, we call on the Maldivian authorities to ensure any trial is fair and transparent,” said UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt.

“These latest developments underline the need for all parties to resume dialogue and work together to implement the democratic reforms identified by the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) in August. We look forward to peaceful, free and fair elections next year, in which all political parties are able to participate fully,” Burt added.

Meanwhile in Europe, “it is with great concern that the High Representative [of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton] learned about the arrest of former President Nasheed of the Maldives.”

Ashton “recalls the assurances given by the Government of the Maldives as regards the personal safety of Mr Nasheed and his right to a fair trial,” her office stated.

“In view of the importance of the next presidential elections, the High Representative reiterates the need for credible and transparent elections allowing for the full participation of party candidates.”

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been released from custody following the first hearing of a trial in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court concerning his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed was temporarily held at Dhoonidhoo detention facility on Monday (8 October) ahead of yesterday’s hearing after he broke a travel ban imposed on him by the court.

The former president and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have maintained that the charges of detaining Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed are a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the 2013 election.

“The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure I cannot contest next elections,” said Nasheed, at a rally on Tuesday night following his release from court.

“What is the specific moment during the orchestration of the coup that all political actors were noting as most important? The moment when Abdulla Ghazi (Judge Abdulla Mohamed) was released. The coup d’etat that was brought in this country was made possible because our criminal justice system has failed.”

The US Embassy in Colombo earlier issued a statement urging “all parties to find a way forward that respects Maldivian democratic institutions, the rule of law and the Maldivian constitution, as well as protects human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

“We urge all sides to remain calm, reject the use of violence and to avoid rhetoric that could increase tensions. It is our expectation that former President Nasheed be given every due process that the law allows,” the embassy stated.

“In response to statements that somehow the United States was involved in the detention of former President Nasheed, the Embassy strongly denies that claim,” it added.

“We note that all US law enforcement cooperation [with the Maldives] includes activities that focus on professionalisation and professional development of the police and places special emphasis on the need to adhere to international standards of human rights and the strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Police file case against man for pricking girls with a pin

Police said they have completed an investigation and submitted a case to the Prosecutor General (PG) against a man who had been arrested for allegedly pricking girls with a pin.

According to the statement the case was sent to the PG office on September 30.

The 31 year-old man, Hussain Shareef of G Greenland, was charged with harassing a group of girls from Ahmadhiyya School by pricking them with a pin in various areas of their bodies, multiple times.

The police statement said that Shareef was brought into police custody at approximately 7.44pm on August 28, 2011.

The police declined from confirming whether Shareef was being kept in police custody since his arrest or whether he has been freed.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef had not responded at the time of press.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

“Prosecution’s only objective to ensure I cannot contest next elections”: former President Nasheed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed in a public speech on Tuesday challenged the Prosecutor General (PG) as to why “such a small charge” was being raised against him while he was being accused of “the much larger crime of having hijacked the entire criminal justice system of the Maldives”.

Following Nasheed’s first hearing in the case against him regarding the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, the former president addressed a crowd of over 1500 supporters at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s rally grounds in ‘Usfasgandu’ on Tuesday night.

Speaking at the rally, Nasheed stated that the Prosecutor General had filed a case against him under Article 81 of the Penal Code for the arrest of a judge.

Article 81 of the Penal Code states that it is a criminal offence for any employee of the state to use the constitutional powers to arrest vested on him to deliberately arrest a person who has not committed a crime. The article further details that the maximum penalty for this offence is either a jail sentence or banishment for a period of up to three years, or a fine of up to MVR 2000 (US$130).

“If, as the President of the Maldives, I arrested the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, then it is not as small a crime as is stated in Article 81. The Prosecutor General’s only objective is to ensure that I cannot contest in the next presidential elections. To do so, he has identified an article which would provide just the required period of detention to cancel my candidacy,” Nasheed explained.

“In truth, if I have committed the crime he is accusing me of, then it is far more serious than he is currently saying. If such a crime has been committed, then the charges must be for having dismantled the whole criminal justice system.”

“That the PG is not charging me for that, and instead is sticking to such a small charge shows beyond any doubt that he is looking at the matter from a political perspective,” Nasheed alleged.

Nasheed said he was confident that his legal team would prove in court the challenges that the criminal justice system of the country was facing, the problems that the whole justice system of the Maldives was facing, the ensuing risks to national security, and that the steps taken by the President of the Maldives to solve the issue fell within the legislative framework of the country.

Nasheed also said that government employees in the southern atolls had raised concerns of not having received their monthly salary.

“Hassan Thaajudeen declared a wage system in the 1600s. Since then, the state has never once failed to pay wages, until now. What we are seeing are the effects of the coup,” Nasheed said.

Regarding the actions of the police, Nasheed stated that there were many police officers who worked with the national interest in mind. He said that these officers were following the orders of their “political leaders” with reluctance.

“The Home Minister may have instructed (police) to shoot me in the head and bring me back. Home Minister may have asked them to bring me with my hands cuffed behind my back. The Home Minister may also have asked them to completely destroy Aslam’s house, or destroy Fares-Mathoda and bring me back. We do not at all doubt that the state has the means and manpower to do so. However, these past few days have made it even clearer to me that there are lots of police and soldiers who are aligned with the national spirit,” Nasheed stated.

Nasheed further stated that the MDP’s campaign trip to the southern atolls, the “Journey of Pledges” had been interrupted by the state with the use of force disproportionate to the situation.

“Some days we fall, but then we get back up even faster,” Nasheed said, stating that the campaign trip would resume on Wednesday morning.

After the first hearing of the case on Tuesday, the court has scheduled the next hearing to be held on November 4. Although Nasheed has been freed from police custody after Tuesday’s hearing, he is still effectively under island arrest.

“We have heard the manifesto of our political opponents. They vow only to detain President Nasheed for a long period of time. There is nothing for the benefit of the people,” Nasheed said.

“Our party’s and my own first pledge is that my name will be on the ballot paper,” Nasheed declared, prompting loud cheers from his supporters.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Nasheed released from custody, travel ban still in place

Additional reporting by Mohamed Naahii

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been released from custody following the first hearing in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court concerning his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

The trial began around 4:20pm this afternoon. The court was packed with attendees, most of whom were Nasheed supporters. Nasheed’s wife Laila Ali and family members were also present.

At the beginning of the trial, the state read the charges.

Responding, Nasheed stated that the trial reflected the “grave” situation that the democracy of the Maldives is in.

“Honorable judges, this charge against me is a deliberate attempt by the prosecutor general to bar the presidential candidate of the largest opposition political party of this country from contesting the next presidential elections,” Nasheed declared.

“The Maldivian constitution explicitly states that the powers of the state derives only from the people and there is no stronger power than that of the power of the people. That power of the people will only be restored through free and fair elections,” he said.

“Honorable Judges, I sincerely ask of you to consider this fact before you proceed with the trial. My lawyers will continue advocating on behalf or me from now on,” he said.

Former President’s member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and outspoken whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has maintained that Nasheed’s detention of the judge was justified given the failure of both the JSC and parliament to hold the judge accountable for allegations of serious ethical misconduct.

Lawyers take over

On her opportunity to speak, Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain raised procedural irregularities concerning the case that was being heard.

Firstly, she questioned the judges as to whether a magistrate court could hold a trial on an island other than the island on which the magistrate court was established – despite the case been filed in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the hearing was held in the Justice Building in Male’.

Hisaan also asked the court to decide on the claim that the magistrate court was formed in contradiction with the Constitution and the laws of the country, before it proceeded with the hearings. The matter is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Member of Nasheed’s legal team, Abdulla Shair, also raised a point on procedural irregularities citing that the magistrate court’s order to detain Nasheed was unlawful because such orders should legally only come from a court set up in the locality of the defendant’s permanent address. Nasheed is based in his family home in Male’.

Shair challenged that it should be the Criminal Court ordering nasheed’s detention, as Nasheed’s permanent address was located in capital Male’.

The lawyers asked the court to temporarily suspend the hearings until it had resolved the procedural irregularities. However, court rejected the proposition.

Responding to the procedural issues raised, the court rejected all but one of the issues raised without giving any reasoning.

The court however responded to Nasheed’s lawyer Abdulla Shair’s point of procedure, and stated that the court followed a precedent set by the High Court.

Responding, the state challenged that no lawful authority of the country had decided that Hulhumale’ Court was legitimate, and it was within the power of the prosecutor general to file charges in a court with relevant jurisdiction.

The state presented more than 32 pieces of evidences it claimed proved that Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was detained unlawfully, including the judge himself.

Other evidence produced included audio and video of the Judge’s detention, and speeches given by Nasheed.

The State also presented an evidence list of figures from both Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and Maldives Police Services (MPS).

In response to the presented evidences, Nasheed’s lawyers asked the three member panel of Judges to give them a time period of 30 days to study the evidences and prepare a defence.

The judges however gave a period of 25 days. They announced that the next hearing would be held on November 4, 2012.

Supporters of Nasheed cheered when he came out of the hearing. With Nasheed’s detention order expired following his attending of the hearing, Nasheed is technically free.

However, the previously imposed travel ban is still in place and Nasheed is confined to Male’.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Decoding Nasheed: The Hindu

“Eight months after the political upheaval in the Maldives that saw Mohammed Nasheed resign as President, fresh turmoil there has belied hopes that the nation would slowly settle down. Mr. Nasheed, who alleged after resigning that he was ousted in a coup, has been arrested for defying a court order,” writes an anonymous author in The Hindu today.

“Charged with detaining a judge unlawfully on January 16 while he was still in power, and ordered by the court to remain in Male for the period of the trial, the former President opted to break free of his ‘island arrest’, going off to the southern islands in the archipelago to attend political rallies.

He believes that the charges are politically motivated, designed to convict and make him ineligible to contest elections. If that is correct, he is now responsible for handing the courts a far simpler way to achieve the same objective, by convicting him on a possible charge of contempt.

Evidently, Mr. Nasheed thinks brinkmanship serves better his political objectives, especially after the Commission of National Inquiry — constituted to go into political events from January 14 to February 8 — destroyed some of his political planning by concluding there had been no coup in the Maldives.

It said the change of President was legal and constitutional, and that what happened was a ‘reaction’ to Mr. Nasheed’s own actions as President. Though he has refused to accept the conclusions of the report, he can hardly accuse the Commission of bias.

It was at his bidding that its mandate was rewritten; additionally, a Maldivian member of his choice, plus an international co-chair and two other international observers, were added to it.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP proposes no confidence motion against Home Minister

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has confirmed that a no confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has been sent to the secretariat of the People’s Majlis.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor speaking from the island of Thinadhoo confirmed to Minivan News that an estimated 26 signatures had been secured by the party to support the no confidence motion.

However, Ghafoor said he was not able at time of press to confirm the exact numbers of MPs expected to support the motion, or if the People’s Majlis had approved or set a date for a no confidence vote to take place.

Parliament’s Counsel General Fathmath Filza could also not be reached for comment today by Minivan News.

To have a no confidence motion heard within the People’s Majlis, officials regulations require signatures from 25 serving MPs. Support from a majority of the full membership of parliament during the vote is then needed to remove the Home Minister from his post.

As well as serving under the present coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, Dr Jameel served as Justice Minister with oversight of the judiciary during the autocratic rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as well as being an active member of the former opposition party, the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

The case is the second no confidence motion to be proposed this month after MP Alhan Fahmy of the government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) said he had held discussions over taking a no confidence vote against both President Waheed and Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen.

Addressing the motion proposed against Dr Jameel, MDP MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy claimed in local newspaper Haveeru that the action had been taken over concerns concerning what the party called an “unprecedented” increase in murders and assault in the Maldives since the transfer of power.

Inthi also criticised the Jameel for what he called a failure to probe human rights abuses allegedly conducted by police on February 8 this year.

Police Integrity Commission findings

In a Police Integrity Commission (PIC) report released earlier this month into allegations of police brutality in the breaking up of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstrations held on February 8 provided two contradicting accounts of the events.

The report contended amongst it findings that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of the law and its own regulations, acting in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 6(8) of the Police Act and as protection from any danger that may ensue from the MDP demonstrations.

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she saw certain acts carried out by police on February 8 to have been against the law, claiming that there no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Dr Jameel’s detention

During his time in opposition before February’s controversial transfer of power, Dr Jameel was an outspoken critic of Nasheed’s religious policies, authoring a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’ and attacking his “business dealings with Jews”.

Under the former government, Dr Jameel was controversially detained by police on charges of slandering the government as a result of the publication, which authorities alleged at the time was a “pamphlet of hatred”.

Both Dr Jameel and DQP Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) were not responding to calls by Minivan News at the time of press in regards to the no confidence motion.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Former President Nasheed presented to court hearing, protesters gathered outside

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been presented to a court hearing under police custody, following his arrest on Monday on an order issued by Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Hundreds of protesters are gathered in the area surrounding the court. Protesters claim that the Hulhumale’ court is unlawful and are calling for Nasheed to be freed.

The arrest of Nasheed on the island of Fares-Mathoda by the police followed a decision by Nasheed’s party to ignore two previous summons and a travel ban issued by the court, which the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) contend has no legitimacy under the 2008 Constitution. The matter is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Excessive force used in arrest: Amnesty

International human rights NGO Amnesty International has stated that the Maldives Police Services (MPS) used “excessive force” during the arrest of Nasheed.

The statement noted eyewitness accounts of the police vandalising the house of former Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam, where Nasheed was staying at the time of arrest. It also highlighted accounts of attacks against supporters outside the residence who were exercising their right to protest peacefully.

Regarding the case against Nasheed, the statement further says that although it is “positive” that the Maldivian authorities are investigating the case, the organisation is concerned that the human rights violations during the 30 year presidency of Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom and those that have occurred since Mohamed Waheed Hassan assumed office in February 2012 were being ignored.

“Investigations into past abuses are always welcome. However, accountability must not be selective – all authorities including former presidents should be held accountable for human rights violations. The focus on human rights violations during only Nasheed’s presidency appears politically motivated,” said Amnesty International’s Researcher on Maldives Abbas Faiz.

Arrest was carried out “very professionally”: police

Police have released a statement claiming that police officers acted “very professionally” in bringing Nasheed into police custody.

The statement says that the police had initially requested Nasheed to hand himself over to the police. According to the police, officers broke down the door of the room Nasheed was in and detained him after he failed to respond to the initial commands. The statemen claims that this is the general course of action used by police in similar situations.

The police denied that any officers used offensive language or that any physical or that psychological trauma was caused to anyone during the arrest.

The statement further notes that from the time Nasheed was brought to the Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre last night, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives and the Police Integrity Commission have been provided with the opportunity to observe the proceedings of the operation to arrest Nasheed.

Police have also stated that Nasheed is allowed access to legal counsel and family under the arranged regulations.

“No chance of a fair trial”

The MDP has claimed there is no chance of a fair trial in the Maldives for former President Nasheed, and Nasheed’s legal team have complained about the “extraordinary way” the trial is being conducted.

President Nasheed’s legal team said they had not received official notifications from the court about trial dates., and were instead learning this information from local media reports.

“Moreover, in an unprecedented move, the Judicial Services Commission, which includes President Nasheed’s political rivals (such as resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim), have hand-picked a panel of three magistrates to oversee the case, whose names have been kept secret. This is in breach of normal practice and in violation of the Judicature Act,” the party stated.

“The coup has not been fully completed,” said MDP spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor. “There is no point bringing President Nasheed down in a police mutiny if he then goes on to win presidential elections 18 months later. To ensure its survival, Mr Waheed’s regime needs to remove President Nasheed from the political equation and that is precisely what they intend to do.”

He noted that the UN Human Rights Committee, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, FIDH, and the Commonwealth had all have expressed concern over the independence and competence of the Maldivian judiciary and called for reform.

Police used force despite Nasheed not showing resistance: Aslam

Former Minister of Housing and Environment, who had accompanied Nasheed on the police boat along with MDP MPs Imthiyaz Fahmy and Ilyas Labeeb, told Minivan News on Monday that Nasheed had not shown any resistance to being arrested, but the police had used undue force in the arrest.

Aslam further said that the police had forced themselves into the house, damaging property in the process. He further said that the police had “pushed around” people inside the house.

In addition to riot guns, Aslam also alleged that police had been carrying firearms.

“We also later on knew that they had pistols. I don’t know what sort of pistols they were. But we saw them packing them away after escorting us on to the boat,” Aslam said.

MDP Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik gave a press briefing following a visit to Nasheed in Dhoonidhoo on Tuesday afternoon, stating that the former president was being kept in detention outside of the normal systems and deprived of his freedoms. He said that he condemned the police treating Nasheed “like a convicted criminal”.

No force used after Nasheed was brought to Dhoonidhoo: PIC

Police Integrity Commission (PIC)’s Vice President Abdullah Waheed confirmed Tuesday that a three member team had visited Dhoonidhoo on Monday night following Nasheed’s transfer to the detention centre.

Speaking to Minivan News, Waheed said that observers had not accompanied the police who had travelled to FaresMathoda to arrest Nasheed, but had stayed at Dhoonidhoo from the time he was brought until midnight.

“During their visit to Dhoonidhoo, our team did not see any force being used against Nasheed,” Waheed said.

“We have not received any complaints from anyone alleging anything was done wrong by police during Nasheed’s arrest,” Waheed said, adding that the commission only looked into matters when an official complaint was filed.

Vice President of Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Ahmed Tholal confirmed to Minivan News that himself and the President of HRCM Mariyam Azra had made a visit to Dhoonidhoo last night in relation to Nasheed’s arrest.

He said that more information could be provided following a commission members meeting, but did not respond to calls later.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)