October 2012 – Page 23 – Minivan News

High court rejects Nasheed’s appeal challenging legitimacy of Hulhumale’ magistrate court

The High Court has rejected former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal challenging the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and its summoning of him in connection to the detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge, Abdulla Mohamed.

The former President’s legal team appealed the court’s summoning order issued to police to summon him to a rescheduled hearing to be held on Sunday at 4:00pm.

Nasheed and his lawyers did not appear at the court hearing, and police made no attempt to arrest the former President.

The trial, which has been described by present Home Minister and former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel on twitter as a “historic criminal trial” has escalated political tensions in the country.

Nasheed’s legal team earlier on Sunday challenged the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, claiming that the court was formed in contradiction to the provisions stated in the Maldivian constitution.

Speaking to local media , member of Nasheed’s legal team and the former Minister of Human Resources Hassan Latheef said the Hulhumale court had “no legal capacity” to issue an order to police to summon Nasheed.

“In the appeal, we also intend to raise the question of legitimacy surrounding Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court. We also hope that the High Court will make a decision on the legality of the formation of this court,” explained Latheef.

The team had filed for a temporary court injunction to halt the trial until the appeal case was concluded.

Former MP and President of MDP Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail echoed similar remarks,raising doubts on the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Writing on his personal blog, Ibra claimed that the constitution had very clearly mentioned that trial courts would be defined and created by a law.

“When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no ‘Hulhumale’ Court’ designated as a Magistrates Court,” he wrote.

“The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, ie, orders which are not derived from law,” he explained.

He also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the JSC’s decision to appoint a panel of judges to look into the case.

“The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of THAT court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to [Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court]. The JSC does not have that authority by Law,” he contended.

“There is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an unlawful panel of judges, sitting in an unlawful court, which had already issued an unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires,” he added.

Nasheed was initially to appear at the Hulhumale Magistrate Court on last Monday but instead decided to depart on his party MDP’s campaign trip ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (‘Journey of Pledges’) to southern atolls, defying a previous court order that he remain in the capital.

On September 26, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court ordered that the former President be confined to Male’, ahead the court case.

The court officials claimed that such a travel ban was the “standard procedure” followed by all courts to “necessitate those accused in a case to obtain permission from the relevant court to leave the country”.

Following Nasheed’s failure to present himself on last Monday’s hearings, Hulhumale Magistrate Court asked the Maldives Police Service to “produce” Nasheed for the rescheduled hearings but was “not to be detained”.

Initially upon reception of the Hulhumale Court’s request, Police Media official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef said the authorities would enforce the “court order” to summon Former President Mohamed Nasheed to the court.

However, police on last Saturday said in a statement that, given the phrasing of the request made by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, Nasheed could only be produced to the court with his consent and the request did not mention to detain him.

The statement by the police stated that “producing someone out of his will” would mean to “limit his freedom” and therefore it amounted to an arrest which was not mentioned in the court’s request.

Hulhumale’ Magistrate court initially rejected the case forwarded by the Prosecutor General against former President, stating that the court did not have the jurisdiction to look into such cases as stated in the Judicature Act.

The state then appealed the decision in High Court and won its case where the Hight Court invalidated the decision.

Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem, dissenting the decision of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court claimed that the court did have the jurisdiction to hear the case of former President.

He contended that should the court maintain its decision against hearing the case, there were few other judicial alternatives in trying to ensure a “fair trial”.

The High Court ruling stated the case was based on the “unlawful detention” of a person, adding that magistrate courts have the jurisdiction to proceed with such cases.

Following the High Court ruling, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court decided to re-accept the case and proceed with the hearings.

On January 16, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was detained by the military, after he had opened the court to order the immediate release of former Justice Minister, current Home Minister and deputy leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The former Home Minister Hassan Afeef said at the time that military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who had “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked international criticism of the Nasheed administration as well three weeks of anti-government protests in January, leading to Nasheed’s controversial resignation on February 7.

Along with Nasheed, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim as well as three other senior military officers are facing charges over the arrest of the judge.

Nasheed has meanwhile vowed to his supporters that his name would appear on the ballot paper of the next presidential election, and that he was “not in the mood to be straitjacketed and put in a dungeon.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Impunity can only be matched with impunity

This article originally appeared on Ibra’s Blog. Republished with permission.

Many of my friends and colleagues, especially my ‘twitter friends’ have been inquiring me of late, about my view of President Nasheed’s decision to disregard a summons by ‘Hulhumale’ Court’.

I myself have been pondering over it as my initial reaction was that President Nasheed should not have done it. However, when I looked at the issue dispassionately and in the context of many anomalies in the Criminal Justice System of the Maldives, the case does not appear to be so simple. In fact it is rather complex, and adds to the myriad of convoluted issues we are being forced to grapple with.

It is so complex that the 140 meagre characters that twitter gives us is barely enough to expound on this particular problem. At best, it is a unique and delightful academic issue to ponder. What I write below is not meant to be a legal discourse, but more an academic and intellectual approach to analyse a social problem.

It is not helpful to consider President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the court summons just by itself to fully understand the phenomenon. One needs to consider a host of other issues to grasp the enormity of the situation.

On the face of it, anyone who is summoned by the courts should willingly do so, and anyone disobeying an order by the court should rightfully be held in contempt of court and punished for it. This is necessary for the upholding of the rule of law.

However, one needs to also consider the basic assumptions underlying these powers of the courts and the reasons for granting the courts such powers.

Among many, the following assumptions are made in relation to the courts:

The courts will not act outside the jurisdictions granted to them by law, and any ultra vires orders by courts do not constitute a valid order which falls within the concept of contempt of court
The courts will apply same procedures to all, and are bound by law to do so, and will not be selective in the application of law and procedures
The courts shall not display any bias in any way towards or against any person, and most importantly will not be seen or perceived to be biased in any way

There are many other such assumptions, but I limit this discussion to the above three assumptions.

Firstly, on the matter of jurisdictions:

There is huge contention whether Hulhumale’ Court has been granted powers by the law to try any case whatsoever. The Constitution says very clearly that trial courts will be defined and created by Law. When Parliament created courts by the Judicature Act, there was no “Hulhumale’ Court” designated as a Magistrates Court.The Supreme Court itself is still sitting on the case of the validity of the Hulhumale’ Court. It was created by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without authority derived from Law. Therefore the validity of any orders or judgments issued by this court is questionable, and the Constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.
The Judicature Act does make some provision for Superior Courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court only) to appoint a panel of judges for some cases. Such panel has to be decided by the entire bench or Chief Judge of that court. In this case, a panel of judges from other courts was appointed by the JSC to Hulhumale’ Court. JSC does not have that authority by Law.If Hulhumale’ Court is legitimate, and is a Magistrate’s court, it would be the only Magistrate Court in Male’, and per the Judicature Act, would not have any other court to tie up to in order to convene a panel of judges. If it is considered part of Kaafu Atoll, then the panel should be convened from among magistrates assigned to Magistrate Courts operating within Kaafu Atoll, and the Chief Magistrate for Kaafu Atoll should convene the panel. The panel of judges convened now was convened by the JSC, and the panel includes judges from other atolls.
The Hulhumale’ court issued a travel ban order to President Nasheed, without ever summoning him to court, and in his absence, before any charges had been presented before him. No court has the power to issue such an order under any law. The court could have issued such a bail condition after the first hearing, if there was reasonable justification to believe President Nasheed might flee the country or he might present a security risk for the community through further criminal activity.

On the basis of the above, there is more than ample grounds to contend that the summons was issued by an Unlawful Panel of Judges, sitting in an Unlawful Court, which had already issued an Unconstitutional restraining order which was ultra vires

Secondly, on the matter of selective application of procedure:

Deputy Speaker of the Majlis Ahmed Nazim defied 11 summons and only appeared in court for the 12th summons. No action was taken against him.
An order for Abdulla Hameed (Gayyoom’s brother who now resides in Sri Lanka) to be brought to court was issued by the Criminal Court a long time ago. However the Court has not provided an English translation of the Court Order to be submitted to Interpol. Nor have the Police contacted Sri Lankan authorities to repatriate him under the bilateral agreement which allows that. It should be noted that Sandhaan Ahmed Didi was repatriated from Sri Lanka airport under the same agreement, without even a court order, or charges being laid against him.
There are numerous cases of prominent politicians and business tycoons disobeying court summons, and to date no one has been convicted for contempt of court for this offence. This leads to the argument that not appearing before the court on account of a summons is not an offence for which people are prosecuted even though it is a prosecutable offence. By past practice and hence precedent and customary practice, no one has to appear before the court every time a summons is issued.

Based on the above, there is more than ample grounds for President Nasheed to claim that there is no need for him to appear before the Court at the Court’s convenience and his inconvenience. Further, there is a rightful claim that the court has already exercised bias against him and that it is unlikely that he will receive a fair trial. More importantly, the fundamental principal of equal application of law and procedure has been seriously compromised.

Thirdly, on the matter of bias:

Ample demonstration of bias has been made in the above paragraphs to start with
One of the three judges on the bench has wrongfully authorised detention of President Nasheed before, and can be considered as biased against him
One other judge already has cases of misconduct being investigated against him by the JSC
The third judge is reportedly a classmate of Abdulla Mohamed in the Mauhadh Dhiraasaathul Islamiyya
Thus there is a widely held perception that President Nasheed will not be accorded a fair trial. One of the Principles of Natural Justice is that not only should justice be done, but it must be seen to be done too
When over 2000 cases are waiting to be prosecuted (including murder, rape, child molestation, child abuse and other serious white collar crimes) at the Prosecutor General’s Office, one asks the question why has this case been expedited beyond normal protocol

Thus there are grounds to argue that a panel of judges who issued ultra vires restraining orders on no demonstrated reasonable grounds cannot be expected to give a fair trial or judgment.

Thus, it would appear to be a reasonable decision on the part of President Nasheed that since he is not being summoned by a legitimate court, by legitimate judges through legitimate procedures, he is unlikely to get justice; and that his appearance before the court will simply whitewash a huge injustice to him, and therefore he will not appear before the court and face the consequences and fight it in his own way.

This is just a very summary description of what I think are some relevant issues surrounding the situation.

The legitimacy of courts and their orders and decisions lie in the courts and their actions being within the framework of the law, which is applied equally to all. An ultra vires decision of the court is no different from a decision by an individual to disobey the decision of the court itself.

Hence my tweet : Impunity can only be matched with impunity.

When legal systems break down to the level we are seeing, laws are not worth the paper they are written on. Anarchy rules, which comes from a very primitive instinct within human beings : survive any which way one can.

We enact laws and try to uphold the rule of law to move away from this and live in a civilised fashion. For rule of law to be upheld, all public institutions and officials have to abide by it.

It is extremely fragile. If just one disregards the rule of law and the issue is not rectified quickly, it spreads rapidly like a cancer and destroys the whole system, paving the way for anarchy. I think we are fast approaching that point. The final signs, that of treating human life with impunity on account of difference of opinion is already here. The rest is likely to follow soon.

The outlook is appears to be rather bleak. But from a systems theory perspective, this had to happen. All vestiges which held the faulty system had to break before reformation could take place. There will be chaos. There already is. It may worsen. And then, if we are lucky, out of chaos will emerge order. But what kind of order it will be depends on which paradigm wins. At this point in time, I would tentatively suggest it may be religious extremism.

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail of the former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, responsible for drafting the 2008 constitution

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)

Contradictory findings in PIC’s report on February 8 crackdown

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has released the second of its three pending reports regarding police action around the contentious transfer of power in February.

The PIC states that it initiated the investigation due to allegations of police brutality when breaking up the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s demonstration on February 8, following the controversial resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed the previous day.

The PIC report on the events in Male’ on February 8 states that the investigation was carried out with a committee inclusive of all five members of the commission.

However, the report has two contradicting accounts, with President of the PIC Shahinda Ismail including her own findings in contrast to those of the other commission members.

The report states that the PIC looked into three main areas: whether police used disproportionate force in breaking up the MDP demonstration, whether individual police officers committed inhumane acts and acts of violence against citizens after breaking up the protest, and whether there were any police actions of the day which senior police officers must take responsibility for.

The investigation was carried out based on interviews, phone records, photos and video evidence.

Police acts within the law

PIC report contends that on February 8 , police acted within the boundaries of law and regulations.

It says that police acted 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.

The investigation justified police action by stating that demonstrators had caused damage to property on their way to the MMA area, and that as there were large numbers of demonstrators, it may have led to unrest had the police not broken up the protest when they did.

The report further states that although sufficient warning had not been issued before breaking up the demonstration, police acted in line with Article 24 of the Freedom of Assembly Act as there was a small number of police officers controlling the demonstration which had a large number of participants, and any delays in breaking it up may have led to danger.

The PIC also stated that there were no incidents on February 8 that senior police needed to take responsibility for. It stated as reasons that there had been no prior knowledge of the protest being planned, that the intelligence department was not functioning at its best due to changes in management after February 7, and that after former President Nasheed’s statement in his resignation speech that his continuing to stay in power may cause harm to the citizens, there was no reason for police to expect his party to orchestrate such a demonstration against the new government.

Individual acts of brutality

The report however went on to say that individuals in the police force had committed acts of violence, inhumane acts, and used verbal abuse against demonstrators on February 8, acting against Article 54 of the Constitution of the Maldives, Article 7(a.11) of the Police Act, Articles 16(a), 16(d.2), 16(d.3), 16(d.5) of the Regulations for handling and use of weapons.

The report highlights 12 specific incidents, including video evidence and interviews proving inhumane acts of police against former President Nasheed, police brutality against MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik and member of parliament Mariya Ahmed Didi and video evidence of police beating 14 individuals with batons.

The commission states here its intention to further investigate these acts, and take legal action against the officers who were involved.

Contradicting viewpoints

President of the PIC, Shahindha Ismail, has however stated in the report that she sees acts of police on February 8 to have been against the law, and that she observed no valid reason for police to have broken up the MDP demonstrations in the manner the police did.

Ismail stated that while demonstrations were permitted in the MMA area, there was no evidence beyond that of statements by police officers to prove that any illegal acts had been committed, or that there was any intention to do so by the demonstrators.

Ismail further stated that the police broke up the protest without prior warning, acting against the orders of the officer in charge in the area, Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, order to ‘hold’ without advancing, and also against the advice of Maldives National Defense Force commanders. She said that the police had acted under orders from Unit Commander Seargant Mohamed Naeem.

Ismail described the acts of brutality noted in the PIC report as “targeted attacks to cause immense harm to certain people”, stating that these acts could not be seen as actions to protect anyone and should be further investigated and taken action against.

Ismail also states that Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh and then Acting Head of Police Specialist Operations Department Ahmed Shameem must be held responsible for not having carried out the responsibilities of their posts in a sufficient manner.

She also notes the accounts given to PIC investigations by Fairoosh, Shameen and Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, stating that providing false statements to the investigation is a criminal offence as noted in Article 62 of Chapter 3 of the Penal Code.

Ismail further states that Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and Head of Police Professional Standards Directorate, Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed, must be held accountable for failing to investigate the acts of police on February 8. She states that this failure is a breach of the constitution and the Police Act.

Recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs

The PIC report presents two recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs.

It calls on the ministry to order the police to investigate undue use of force with batons during February 8.

Noting that many officers during the February 8 had had their faces covered with hoods and helmets, the report additionally calls on the Ministry to establish a system in the police which would facilitate identification of police being investigated under similar situations.

Police Media Official Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that they are in the process of studying the PIC report.

“After studying it, if we find that any steps need to be taken, or any reforms need to be made, then we will work on that,” Haneef said.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Minivan News also tried contacting the Police Integrity Commission, but was unable to get a response at the time of press.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

How the romantic idyll of the Maldives is in danger: The Daily Express

“Away from the warm turquoise waters and sun-bleached beaches, the romantic idyll that has made the Maldives a popular honeymoon retreat is under threat,” writes Stuart Winter for UK-based newspaper, The Daily Express.

“The thousands of newlyweds arriving on the coral islands each year looking for peace and solitude have little notion of the simmering tensions crippling this Indian Ocean paradise’s fragile democracy.

A damning report on the archipelago’s civil rights record, along with an open letter from an eminent group of luminaries calling for free and fair elections, is damaging the lustre of one of the planet’s most tranquil holiday destinations. The murder of an Maldivian MP last week and the machinations surrounding the trial of former president Mohamed Nasheed have only added energy to the political storm gripping the island.

Nasheed, the islands’ first democratically elected leader, claims he was forced to resign at gunpoint earlier this year when mutinying police and military loyal to long-standing former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom staged an effective coup.”

Attack against “moderate” Afrasheem an “attack against Islam”: Gayoom

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has alleged the murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali, whom he claimed was a leading local advocate against Islam being seen as an “extremist religion”, was an attack on the country’s religious identity.

Gayoom, acting head of the PPM, made the claims at a memorial ceremony held for Dr Afrasheem on his birth island of Raa Atoll Ungoofaaru, alleging that the MP’s murder this week was an attempt by unidentified figures to eradicate Islam from the nation, local media has reported.

Under the Maldives Constitution, it is illegal for anyone to openly practice any faith other than Islam in the country, with nationality tied to following the faith.

According to newspaper Haveeru, former President Gayoom was quoted as acknowledging Dr Afrasheem’s efforts to educate the public on “moderate Islam”, while also raising questions over potential “benefits” to the nation in the significant number of local religious scholars being trained abroad.

“The attack on Afrasheem wasn’t just an attack on him. It wasn’t an attack on his family or his island. It’s an attack against Islam. It’s an attack against the nation. It’s an act by some people who doesn’t want to see Islam prevail in this country,” Haveeru reported Gayoom as saying.

Also speaking during the memorial were PPM MP Ilham Ahmed and the party’s interim Deputy Leader Umar Naseer.

Ilham reportedly told the crowd that he was personally aware of “people” who were discontented with Dr Afrasheem. The MP added that his fellow party member had ultimately not been afraid to “sacrifice himself in the name of Islam.”

Meanwhile, Umar Naseer reiterated Afrasheem’s view that efforts to strengthen the word of religion in the country could only succeed with political authority.

Umar Naseer, Ilham Ahmed and PPM MP and Spokesperson Ahmed Mahlouf were not responding to calls from Minivan News.

Maldives Islamic Affairs Minister, Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, and State Minister for Islamic Affairs Mohamed Didi could also not be reached for comment at the time of press.

Attack

Dr Afrasheem was found murdered near his home on Monday (October 1) after returning from an appearance on the “Islamee Dhiriulhun” (Islamic Life) programme broadcast on state television. He had appeared on the show alongside Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Mohamed Qubad Aboobakuru.

Four suspects are presently being held by police in connection to the murder, with the country’s Criminal Court extending their detention for an additional 15 days from Thursday (October 4) as investigations continue.

Authorities have yet to reveal the identities of the four suspects, however the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has alleged that two of its “front-line activists” are among those being detained.

The MDP additionally expressed concern that the “brutal murder of a respected and elected member of the Parliament” was potentially being used to frame political opponents.

Police have yet to establish a motive for the murder.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP campaign continues despite court summons, sea blockade

The Maldivian Democratic Party’s southern campaigning continues whilst legal sparring continues in the capital Male’.

A request for the delay of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s criminal court trial has been rejected as the MDP reaches the tour’s 10th island.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration Latheefa Qasim confirmed that the Hulhumale’ court had received the request on Friday night, which had given the southern campaign as a reason for the postponement.

“This reason is not included in the regulations so the court cannot act upon it,” said Latheefa, who explained that the trial would go ahead as scheduled – tomorrow at 4:00PM.

After Nasheed’s decision not to attend his first hearing on Monday, instead leaving Male’ in contravention of a travel ban, the police were requested to present the MDP’s presidential candidate in the court for the re-scheduled hearing.

Nasheed stands accused of illegally detaining Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January of this year.

Despite rumours that security forces had been dispatched to return Nasheed to Male’, the flotilla of ships on the MDP’s ‘Journey of Pledges’ have as yet seen no sign of any police of Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) vessels.

Police have today said that it under the current court order, Nasheed could only be brought before the Hulhumale’ court with his consent.

MDP spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor did mention that the MDP had encountered some opposition from locals on Gemanafushi in Gaafu Alif atoll.

A large tree was floated across the entrance to the harbour in order to prevent the flotilla from gaining access to the island, although Ghafoor said that the log was soon moved and a warm welcome was given by many of the islanders.

“We expected trouble,” said Ghafoor. “It was a weak attempt to make news. Eventually, the protesters could not overpower our numbers.”

The MDP also reported that a boat named ‘Orchid 101’ attempted to block the harbour entrance.

Local media reported that the protest was organised by the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), speaking with the Island Council’s President Asim Mohamed.

“The people protested against Nasheed about three issues. One is that he has ignored the fact that the nation is mourning and is continuing with his tour, the second issue is that he disobeyed Court Orders, and the third is the unrest created in the island during his previous visits,” Asim told Sun Online.

Ghafoor also noted that the party had prepared an appeal to the high court regarding Nasheed’s criminal court trial.

“The National Executive Committee (NEC) said we do not accept lower courts. The president will appeal to the high court,” said Ghafoor.

“Democracy has gone wrong – summons to court represents corruption in the courts,” he added, stating that the lower courts were not recognised due to their failure to have adhered to article 285 of the 2008 constitution.

This article required that all judges not having met a level of qualifications outlined in article 149 within two years of the constitution’s ratification, be removed from the bench.

Latheefa said she was not yet aware of any high court appeal regarding the Abdulla Mohamed case.

After the party’s legal team revealed its concerns over the legality of the Hulhumale’ Magistrates Court – assembled to handle the case – its executive council released a statement announcing it would no longer recognise the authority of the judiciary.

Reform of the judiciary is one of the key recommendations made in the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) which, in August ruled that Nasheed had not been removed in a coup.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

India concerned over Maldives’ political instability, investment climate

The Indian government has expressed concern over continuing political instability in the Maldives, following the murder of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Afrasheem Ali this week.

In a statement on Thursday, India’s External Affairs Ministry said it had “consistently emphasised that peace and stability are necessary prerequisites to the firm implantation of democracy, as well as for the economic growth and prosperity of the people of Maldives.”

“We call upon all parties in Maldives to continue to work towards facilitating an early and commonly acceptable internal solution to the political impasse in the country. In this context, India urges the government of Maldives and all political parties to adhere strictly to democratic principles and the rule of law thus paving the way for the holding of free, fair and credible elections. Violence should find no place in democracies,” the Ministry stated.

India also called on the Maldivian government “to ensure a propitious climate for foreign investments, which have a direct bearing on the economic growth and development of Maldives.”

The latter remark comes after parties in the ruling coalition last month stepped up rhetoric calling for nationalisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), currently being developed and managed by Indian firm GMR in the Maldives’ single largest foreign investment.

Following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government has swung between issuing reassurances within diplomatic circles that Indian investments in the country would be protected, while locally stepping up nationalisation rhetoric.

Last week, GMR’s Airports CFO Sidharth Kapur told Indian television channel CNBC that the dispute could affect the country’s investment climate.

“While we have invested both debt and equity into this project, these kind of problems naturally affect the investment climate of any region,” said Kapur.

Discussing the GMR case last week, the Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) assured Minivan News that investor confidence was not being harmed, though the body did describe the investment climate as “challenging”.

India meanwhile recently granted the Maldives a further US$25 million as part of a US$100 million standby credit facility agreed during last November’s official visit from Prime Minister Manmoham Singh.

The deal represents the third instalment of the credit facility, with the previous two instalments having amounted to US$50 million. The previous tranche of US$30 million was released following President Waheed’s first official visit to India in May.

The assistance comes at a time the Maldives is facing a crippling financial position.

Minister of Finance Abdulla Jihad told parliament’s Finance Committee that this year’s budget deficit is set to be double the original estimate of MVR 3 billion (US$195million).

Jihad told Parliament’s Finance Committee that state spending this year, MVR 9 billion (US$590 million), had outstripped earnings by 28 percent.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

GMR tells Indian television of Maldives government’s silence

Sunanda Jayaseelan, reporting for India’s CNBC -TV18, has been told by GMR’s management that it has received no official word from the Maldivian authorities regarding the troubled Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) development.

CEO of the GMR Maldives Andrew Harrison told the station that the company was open for dialogue.

“I don’t really understand how there could be a lack of transparency. Our position is quite clear. We are very transparent and open,” he said.

Sidharth Kapur, Chief Financial Officer of airports at GMR told the station that the investment climate in the country was not good.

“While we have invested both debt and equity into this project, these kind of problems naturally affect the investment climate of any region,” said Kapur.

Discussing the GMR case last week, the Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) assured Minivan News that investor confidence was not being harmed due to the legal wrangling, though he did describe the investment climate as “challenging”.

Government aligned parties have called for the airport to be nationalised while questions concerning the legality of the deal have seen the matter taken up in a Singapore arbitration court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

It’s time to dial down the political rhetoric: Dhiraagu Chairman

“In the specific political context of today, moderateness is a sign of weakness. The best politician is the person who is the most intolerant and whose invective is the most extreme,” writes Dhiraagu Chairman Ibrahim Athif Shakoor in an opinion piece for Haveeru.

“The most polished speakers are those who energise the troops not through rallying them to the cause, but by getting them angry and excited against the opposition.

If you are on a talk show, and there are so many of them, the best speaker is the person who can bundle together the worst polemic. Doesn’t really matter what the topic is or on which side of the political divide the speaker is currently straddling. The trick in being invited again and to be a regular feature of the program is to be intolerant and fanatical.

If you are on the Parliament floor the way to guarantee your words will be repeatedly aired is to use extreme language and be blinkered about the complexity of the issue. If you are a speaker in a political rally make sure that all your statements are extreme. Never use the word ‘moderate”’ or even adopt the concept. It will not be accepted. Your speech will not be appreciated, and for a politician the worst possible thing, it will be ignored.

This is the political reality of today.

Unfortunately there are consequences, dire consequences of such extreme level of rhetoric and oratory. Our children are growing up in an environment of intolerance and narrow mindedness. Society as a whole is totally pervaded by prejudice and partisanship.

But more importantly words have power. Very real power. They impact and change the society. It transforms and energizes the people. It shapes and fashions the environment and defines the conduct of the society.”