Month: November 2012

Human Resource Ministry owed more than MVR 350 million in unpaid work permit fees, student loan repayments

The Ministry of Human Resources, Youth and Sports failed to collect MVR 168.4 million (US$10.9 million) in expatriate work permit fees for the past three years and MVR 191 million (US$12.3 million) in repayments for student loans, the ministry’s audit report for 2011 has revealed.

The audit report (Dhivehi) made public on Monday stated that information from the past three years on expatriate work visas showed that the year-on-year increase in foreign workers arriving in the Maldives was “alarming.”

“Records from the Department of Immigration and Emigration show that from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011 the state did not receive MVR 168,414,000 (US$10.9 million) owed as work permit fees,” the audit report revealed.

Records showed that the number of foreign workers living in the Maldives without paying work permit fees in 2009 was 16,934.

The figure increased to 27,793 in 2010 and 39,756 in 2011.

While the expatriate workforce in the Maldives as of December 2009 was 57,968 registered workers, the figure had risen to 99,369 by September 2011.

Of the total number of foreign workers, 55 percent or 54,653 expatriates were from Bangladesh and “69 percent of these, or 37,710 people, are working in the country illegally.”

Of the remaining 44,716 from other nations, 18 percent or 8,048 were illegal workers.

“Therefore, records show that the total number of foreigners working in the Maldives illegally is 45,758 (46 percent of foreign workers),” the report revealed.

Student loan repayments

The student loan repayments were meanwhile owed for two loan schemes launched respectively in 2000 and 2005.

As of December 31, 2011, the report found that the ministry failed to collect 154.6 million (US$10 million) as repayments for a long-term student loan programme launched in 2005 from a national higher education fund.

Of MVR 155.6 million (US$10 million) released between 2005 and 2011, the audit discovered that only MVR 904,872.28 (US$58,681) was repaid.

“Students who went for higher education under the scheme have not been repaying the loans because the department of higher education had not sent repayment schedules with details of the total amounts owed,” the report found.

If “adequate efforts” had been undertaken to collect payments, the Auditor General’s Office noted that “a revolving fund could have been established to provide higher education opportunities without additional expenditure from the state budget.”

Meanwhile in 2000, the report explained, the ministry launched a programme with World Bank loan assistance titled the “third education project” and issued MVR 250 million (US$16.2 million) under the scheme, with a specified portion to be paid back to the ministry.

“While it was determined that 15 percent from government employees participating in the scheme and 50 percent from participants from private companies would be collected, we note that repayments have not been sought from anyone,” the report stated.

“And as a result of the ministry not properly maintaining records of how the money was spent on students under the scheme, we note that details of how funds were released for individual students are not available and no one was sent repayment schedules.”

The report observed that MVR 37.5 million (US$2.4 million) estimated as repayments owed under the scheme has not been collected due to the “carelessness, incompetence and negligence of those in charge of the ministry’s relevant department”.

In February 2012, the report noted, the department of higher education and its staff at the Human Resource Ministry were transferred under the Ministry of Education.

Violations of Public Finance Act

The Auditor General’s Office stated that it did not believe expenditure out of the ministry’s budget was “mainly” in accordance with the Public Finance Act and “to the extent specified in the budget, on matters determined in the budget and in ways that would achieve the objectives of the ministry’s budget for 2011.”

In addition to the ministry failing to collect student loan repayments and unpaid work permit fees, the audit report noted a number of instances that were ostensibly in violation of the Public Finance Act and regulations under the law.

The audit discovered that seven political appointees were paid salaries and allowances in 2010 with no records of attendance.

The responsibilities of the seven senior officials who did not sign attendance sheets were unclear, the report noted.

Moreover, the audit found that a state minister was paid MVR 165,897.93 (US$10,758) as salary from February 13, 2012 to May 2012 despite not attending the office during the period.

While the state minister had submitted a written request for a holiday on February 13 before flying abroad, the report noted that the ministry had not made official arrangements for the leave of absence.

On February 7, 2012, former President Mohamed Nasheed resigned under controversial circumstances following a police mutiny at the Republic Square.

“[The state minister] was removed from the post by the President’s Office on July 22, 2012,” the report noted.

In another case, the audit discovered that MVR 865,500.70 (US$56,128) was deposited for seven students studying in Malaysia under the office’s staff development scheme, in excess of the official approved stipend.

In place of RM11,760 (Malaysian Ringgits) as six month’s stipend for each student, a sheet sent to the bank from the ministry mistakenly stated US$11,760, the report found.

While the ministry’s staff studying in Malaysia received an additional MVR 123,642.96 (US$8,018) each, the report noted that no attempt had been made to recover the excess amounts.

The audit report blamed the “failure of the employees to carry out their responsibilities” in preparing, checking and authorising the sheet sent to the bank.

The ministry meanwhile incurred MVR 133,938 (US$8,686) as fines for late payment of water and electricity bills in 2011, but no employees were held responsible and the loss to the state was not recovered.

The report also found that a total of MVR 420,000 (US$27,237) was paid as allowances in 2011 – at a rate of MVR 2,500 (US$162) a month – for 15 members of the National Sports Council under the ministry, without official approval from the government.

The report noted that the council held only seven meetings in 2011, each lasting for about an hour and with half the council’s membership in attendance.

Meanwhile, as a result of failing to properly maintain stock inventories, equipment purchased by the ministry was not registered and five laptops and 15 printers were lost.

The audit also discovered that the ministry provided MVR 200,000 (US$12,970) to the Shaviyani Milandhoo island council in June 2011 to set up a net around the island’s football stadium.

The funds were not approved in the 2011 budget but were released based on a pledge by the President to the islanders, the report stated, noting that such expenditure was “in breach of budgetary rules.”

Cancelled beach games

The audit report revealed that the ministry spent MVR 1.28 million (US$84,306) for “a first-ever beach and water sports tournament in South Asia” that never took place.

In February 2011, event organisers told Minivan News that the “Maldives Beach Games 2011” would bring hundreds of athletes from around the world to compete in 10 sporting events.

The international games were launched in February with a laser show and an appearance from renowned Sri Lankan cricketer Sanath Jayasuriya at a ceremony in Male’s Kulhivaru Ekuveni Indoor Hall.

The audit report meanwhile noted that the reasons for the eventual cancellation could not be discerned from the official documents.

The expenditure – made through the Maldives Olympic Committee – included over MVR 542,000 (US$35,149) on advertising and MVR 103,450 (US$6,708) on “a mascot and theme song for launching the beach games.”

Equipment, furniture and other items purchased for the cancelled games cost MVR139,545 (US$9,050).

Of the ultimately wasteful expenditure, the report noted that MVR 843,571 (US$54,706) was spent in violation of the Public Finance Act and regulations as estimates were only sought from one party.

A member of the sports council created by the ministry was meanwhile paid MVR50,000 (US$3,242) – without a public bidding process – to transfer sand from a soccer pitch made for the games to the artificial beach, the report found.

The Olympic Committee spent MVR 117,000 (US$7,588) to prepare the soccer pitch in the vacant plot in front of Villa College.

Moreover, a deputy minister and the sports council member travelled to Bangalore at a cost of MVR57,825 (US$3,750) purportedly in relation to the games, but the purpose of the trip was unclear as an official report was not prepared.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government to assist fisheries sector with HCFC-free refrigeration switch

The Maldives’ government is to assist the fishing industry in switching to alternative hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) free refrigeration technologies under a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the environment and fisheries ministries.

The MoU signed this week by Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu and Minister of State for Environment and Energy Abdul Matheen will aim to phase out the use of HCFC refrigerants in the fishing sector by the end of the decade, according to local media.

The use of HCFC refrigerants has been linked to depletion of the ozone layer and as a result, is presently the subject of international treaties to curb such an impact.

under the MoU, Sun Online has reported that both ministries will target the introduction of HCFC-free technologies in the Maldives as well as introducing policies to support such efforts in line with the Montreal Protocol signed by the country back in 1989.

The Montreal Protocol calls for an end to HCFC usage by 2020 – a date that also coincides with the Maldives’ deadline for efforts to try becoming a carbon neutral economy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court instructs High Court to suspend hearings on former President Nasheed’s appeal

The Supreme Court has instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on an appeal lodged by former President Mohamed Nasheed, challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

The High Court on Sunday granted an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, pending a ruling on the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included determining the legitimacy of the magistrate court.

Nasheed’s lawyers were informed by the High Court this morning that a hearing scheduled for 10:15am was cancelled because a judge was “on sick leave.”

An official from the High Court initially told Minivan News that the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on sick leave. However, asked which of the three judges on the panel had taken ill, the official said she would have to clarify.

The High Court official said later that the case had been suspended based on instructions from the Supreme Court. A letter from the Supreme Court was received in the late afternoon yesterday, she said.

“The judge took the sick leave [this morning] after the Supreme Court ordered the case to be halted. It wasn’t cancelled because he took ill,” she claimed.

Nasheed’s lawyers were at first unaware of the Supreme Court order.

Abdulla Shair from Nasheed’s legal team said that the High Court has since informed the lawyers of the Supreme Court’s instruction to halt the case.

However, it was unclear whether the Supreme Court’s order was a writ of prohibition or “just a letter telling the High Court to halt the case until the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court,” he explained.

The High Court official said that the instructions were made in a letter from the apex court.

A media official from the Supreme Court was not responding at the time of press.

However, the official told local media today that the High Court was asked to halt hearings on the appeal because one of the procedural points involved the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court, which the Supreme Court had been asked by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to determine.

The Supreme Court also informed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on Wednesday to resume proceedings on other ongoing cases, pending a ruling on the magistrate’s court legitimacy.

Following the High Court’s injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases in light of the questions raised over its legal status.

In an announcement a day after the High Court granted the injunction, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

The Supreme Court media official told newspaper Haveeru today that the decision by the highest court of appeal would not affect the High Court injunction suspending the former President’s trial.

Former President Nasheed is facing criminal charges over the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Speaking to press after the High Court hearing on Sunday, Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain claimed that the state was unable to offer valid arguments to defend the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which the former President’s legal team contends was formed in violation of the constitution and Judicature Act.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the JSC revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Local media reported on Monday that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

Meanwhile, writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

At Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal, the three-judge panel heard arguments on the procedural issues from both the claimant and the state, represented by the Prosecutor General’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariya had said that the judges would try to ensure that the next hearing would be the last before issuing a ruling.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

IMF urges parliament to expedite fiscal responsibility legislation

A delegation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has urged MPs to expedite legislation on fiscal responsibility, at a meeting with parliament’s Finance Committee and Economic Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

According to the parliament secretariat, the IMF team told MPs that passage of the fiscal responsibility bill currently being reviewed by the Economic Affairs Committee was the most important measure the People’s Majlis could take to improve the country’s economic outlook.

A fiscal responsibility bill to impose limits on government spending and ensure public debt sustainability was submitted to parliament in 2011 by the administration of former President Mohamed Nasheed as part of an economic reform package.

Presenting the bill in August 2011, MP Ahmed Easa of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said a lot of effort was needed to “change the inherited, outdated and indebted economic system.”

As measures to legally mandate fiscal responsibility, the legislation proposed setting limits on government spending and public debt based on proportion of GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Borrowing from the central bank or Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) should not exceed seven percent of the projected revenue for the year, according to the bill, while such loans would have to be paid back in a six-month period.

Moreover, the bill proposed that a statement outlining the government’s mid-term fiscal policy must be submitted annually to parliament at the end of the financial year in July.

Meanwhile, according to parliament, members of the IMF mission currently in the Maldives are Overall Coordinator Dr Koshy Mathai, Dr Fazurin Jamaludin, Nicholas Million, Dr Nandaka Molagoda, and Jules Tapsoba.

Ahmed Munawwar, Manager of the Monetary Policy Section of the MMA also attended yesterday’s meeting.

According to the latest figures from the Finance Ministry the fiscal deficit as of November 4 stands at MVR 2.4 billion (US$155.6 million), with government spending of MVR 10.4 billion (US$674.4 million) outstripping revenues of MVR 8 billion (US$518.8 million) so far this year.

Of the MVR 10 billion in expenditure, MVR 7.6 billion (US$492.8 million) was on recurrent expenditure – salaries and allowances for government employees and administrative costs – while MVR 1.5 billion (US$103.7 million) was spent on repaying loans and interest payments.

Fiscal imbalance

In April 2012, Jonathan Dunn, chief of the IMF mission to the Maldives, told Minivan News that the country’s fiscal deficit was “substantially understated.”

The remarks followed the IMF warning of dire consequences if expenditure was not curbed to rein in the ballooning budget deficit.

Speaking in parliament on behalf of the former government in August 2011, MP Easa meanwhile noted that according to the World Bank, a 66 percent increase in salaries and allowances for government employees between 2006 and 2008 was “by far the highest increase in compensation over a three year period to government employees of any country in the world.”

“We are seeing the bitter consequences today of spending out of the budget without any control or limit,” MP Easa had said.

Dunn had meanwhile emphasised in April 2012 that “fiscal imbalances in the Maldives have been present for many years” and that “fiscal adjustment remains necessary”.

Faced with increasing pressure from the IMF to lower expenditure after failed attempts in 2010 to keep in place unpopular pay cuts for civil servants – a maneuver blocked by the Civil Services Commission (CSC) and backed the then opposition – former President Nasheed’s administration insisted that increased revenue from the new taxes would match expenditure, and boasted that the 2012 budget was the first in many years to balance income and expenditure.

Following the police mutiny and controversial transfer of presidential power, spending by President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s administration had escalated as it sought to shore up support in a fractious political environment.

Moreover, in September 2012, a pair of government-aligned MPs blamed President Waheed’s lack of solid policies for the increase in state expenditure.

Newly-announced expenditure in first few months of the Waheed administration included:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Desperately seeking justice

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed was the Maldives Ambassador to the UN, defacto non-resident Ambassador to the US and one of the Maldives’ most experienced and respected diplomats. He resigned live on Al-Jazeera following February 7’s controversial transfer of power, expressing “certain moral and ethical concerns I had that surrounded the departure of the former President [Nasheed].”

More than eight months since the first democratically elected government in the Maldives was brutally cut short by a mutinous mob on 7 February, the country continues to be divided on intensely partisan grounds.

Emotion, rather than rational discourse, has become the mainstay of political debate, both in and outside of parliament. In the meantime, the country’s economy appears to be in freefall, violence and brutality is on the rise and social norms are declining. A country once hailed as a haven of peace, both by its citizens as well as visitors, is fast becoming a playground for drug peddlers, criminals, pedophiles, bootleggers and knife-wielding gangsters.

This is not the country I grew up in; nor is it the country I wish to bequeath to my children.

I write this, not because I wish to blame one or the other person or party for the plight we find ourselves in; nor because I have any definitive or fanciful solutions to the seemingly ceaseless arguments of right or wrong pervading through our society at this particular junction in our history. There must be, indeed, there has to be, a better way of resolving our differences, of rising above narrow partisanship, of being able to settle our political scores, while respecting the views of those who diverge from us in belief and conviction.

Almost four years ago, when we so eagerly adopted a new Constitution granting us many freedoms hitherto unfamiliar, both at the individual as well as at institutional levels, we rejoiced proudly at our ability to instigate change through discussion and debate, and transform our country from a 30 year authoritarian regime to a multi-party democracy peacefully through the ballot box. The whole world heaped unbounded praise on the good judgment of a small nation that had lit a beacon for peaceful democratic transition other small nations could hopefully emulate; Maldives was in fact regarded as a ‘success story’ by the United Nations and the international community – a ‘poster-country’ for peaceful democratic transition!

There was indeed a sense of poetic justice as the once all-powerful old ‘dictator’ humbly bowed down to the will of the people, and without much fuss handed over the reins of governance to a new democratically elected youthful leader, who in fact had been repeatedly incarcerated by his defeated predecessor for demanding greater political freedoms in the country.

On that joyous day, we all believed in the depths of our hearts and souls that a new era of political pluralism, with concomitant freedoms and longed for justice, had dawned on the shores of our beautiful isles; we were marching in step with civilization and progress.

Regrettably, our elation seems to have been short-lived.

As we decline further into an abyss of political and economic disaster, following the abrupt and unceremonious regime change on 7 February 2012, many in the Maldives seem to be fast losing faith in the anticipated promises of democracy, in our politicians sworn to serve the people, and the independent institutions that were set up to protect the system.

Today, the people of Maldives, especially in Male’, yearn for some normalcy in their lives; to be able to send their children to school; do the shopping; cross the street safely; enjoy a ride around the island; above all, have their loved ones return home in one piece. Yet, unfortunately, normalcy for the people of Maldives appear to be increasingly elusive as the politics of vengeance, mutual distrust, personal enmity and party rivalries take precedence over every other national interest.

This is no better demonstrated than in the current efforts to convict the ousted President on charges of alleged abduction of a judge, whose ‘unorthodox’ rulings in the execution of his judicial duties, to say the least, is common knowledge.

It is not my intention here to vilify the said judge, but suffice it to say that there are many who believe, and seemingly justifiably so, that his continued stay as a judge is an affront to the ‘independence’ of any respectable judiciary. For them, he represents, in many ways, the worst and most manifest example of judicial abuse, in an already weak and compromised judicial system that has consistently been meting out systematic injustice, according to more than one international observer who have analysed and commented on the Maldivian judicial system.

Be that as it may, the arrest of the said judge by the then President was roundly condemned both nationally and internationally as legally untenable, the perceived moral imperatives of the President’s actions by some notwithstanding.

During the ensuing months since that fateful Tuesday, our country has been thrown into a seemingly never ending cycle of turmoil and turbulence. Our society has been brutalised, violence has become commonplace, respect for and confidence in the various state and government institutions and high ranking officials has never been so low. Indeed, even the very legitimacy of the newly sworn in President and his cabinet continues to be questioned by a considerable section of the Maldives polity, despite an internationally recognised Commission of National Inquiry having deemed the transfer of power as being legal and constitutionally mandated.

In the Maldives today where you stand on any conceivable issue of national significance depends almost entirely on with whom you party rather than on any sound judgments reached based on a rational analysis of facts. Truth, when it impedes the political interest, is summarily discarded.

Consequently, a government that had been formed on the claim of ‘national unity’, by stitching together a coalition of disparate political parties, appear to be going through a complete policy paralysis, as competing factions in the government fight for greater leverage on every issue. Many, in fact, are inclined to believe that this has become a one-issue government – that being the denial of candidacy for the ousted President in the 2013 presidential elections. Indeed, it seems that it is only on this one issue that the government is really united.

Little wonder then that the state’s decision to relentlessly pursue criminal charges against the former President, on charges of alleged human rights violations of an ‘innocent’ man, appears to meet with so much skepticism both within and outside the country. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

There are those who passionately argue that the former President must be tried and sentenced to jail for his alleged abduction of the judge. There are others who just as vehemently argue that his actions, even if wrong, were understandable, in the larger interest of establishing an enduring and robust judiciary, claiming the charges to be based more on political expediency rather than a quest for justice. Both claim to be seeking justice for the people of Maldives.

It is my belief that, taking into consideration the events that led to the resignation of the then President, the mayhem that followed and the current emotionally charged atmosphere in the country, not to mention the questionable reputation of our judicial system, the pursuance of criminal charges against the former President is unlikely to serve the best interests of our nation which we so dearly claim to love; indeed it could possibly result in even more injustices being heaped on the people of Maldives.

At a time when we are so desperately in need healing the many wounds pervading through our nation, it is even more imperative that the state should not try to further fan the fires of distrust, disharmony, hatred, instability, and even political insanity. Indeed, it is duty bound to make every effort in harnessing greater harmony, mutual trust and increased cooperation amongst the various factions of the community.

It is quite evident that whatever the eventual outcome of the on-going court proceedings against the former President, the country will be further split on party lines. A conviction and possible disenfranchisement of the defendant will provoke the ire and indignation of his intensely loyal supporters who comprise a considerable mass of the country’s voting population. An acquittal will be an equally devastating blow for the many who have been so vociferously demanding the former President’s incarceration in jail.

Indeed, whatever may be the final decision of the three magistrates entrusted to hear the case, it would be a lose – lose situation for the country as a whole. Instability will continue to reign supreme.

Even more sadly, the moral authority of any President elected in a presidential election that had disenfranchised the chosen candidate of the largest political party will be considerably compromised, both domestically as well as internationally.

No one can doubt the steep uphill battle ahead for any new President, whose first and foremost task on assuming office will be to begin the healing process for a nation that had been torn apart over the last few months. The new President will require much goodwill and trust, moral and material support, both from within the country and international friends.

If our presidential elections do not receive the unequivocal stamp of approval as being free and fair, both nationally as well as internationally, there will always be a cloud of doubt hanging over the legitimacy of the new President. That would be a shame the people of Maldives should not have to bear, nor a burden we should impose on a newly elected President.

I believe our country currently face a very particular and unique situation in its short democratic history, in which the people of the Maldives desperately deserve the opportunity to have their say in determining whether or not the former President’s actions were justified, even if legally suspect. Let the people decide!

It is for all these reasons, in the larger interests of the future of our small yet beloved nation, that I would urge the State to cease the on-going prosecution of the former President on criminal charges. This becomes even more critical when there appear to be near universal agreement on the systematic weakness of our judiciary and its questionable competency to provide justice.

A long time ago, when I was still a young and impressionable student, a professor of mine once advised me that regret is something we should not waste our time on; we can never change what happened yesterday, but we can do something today to help shape our tomorrow, he said. Much has happened in the Maldives during the recent past, many of which perhaps regrettable, yet today unchangeable.

It is time for us to move forward, learning from our past, with confidence in a future shaped by our own actions taken today in the larger interest of our country, as the people of Maldives so desperately seek justice.

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed was the former Maldives Ambassador to the UN and defacto non-resident Ambassador to the US.

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)

Elections Commission deputy backs dropping fingerprinting for party membership applications

A decision by Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee to cease requiring fingerprints on political party application forms has been welcomed by Vice President of Elections Commission (EC) Ahmed Fayaz, who downplayed concerns over the potential for future membership fraud.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Fayaz stressed that the EC would not be officially commenting on the parliamentary commission’s decision yesterday until speaking with various party leaders. However, he claimed that he personally believed the Majlis recommendation to discontinue the use of fingerprints would make the system of membership applications more efficient and easier for both the EC and political parties.

Announcing the decision yesterday to recommend an end to fingerprinting, the Independent Institutions Committee members questioned the efficiency of such technology, arguing that no mechanism or database presently existed in the Maldives that could store the required amounts of information.

Nonetheless, local NGO the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) told Minivan News that while it was unsure of the efficiency of the EC’s fingerprint system, fraudulent membership registration for Maldivian political parties remained a significant problem that needed to be addressed. MDN claimed that alternative methods of party member verification should now be sought by parliament and the EC.

Fayaz responded that under regulations adopted in 2005, political parties had not been requested to submit membership forms to the EC. Instead, he said they have been required every three months to produce a list of their members including names and their ID number.

“When these lists are sent, these members should not be registered with other political parties,” he said. “[Parties] must check for themselves that these members are genuine.”

Fayaz said he believed that the present system of checking party membership lists every three months left little room for “fraud” within the system. He claimed therefore that a larger issue facing party membership rather than fraud was the state system of giving payments to parties on the basis of which group had the largest number of followers.

Fayaz accepted that the use of a verification system “like fingerprinting” could help stop possible fraud within party memberships, particularly in the case of people charged with recruiting members for the country’s political parties.

“I think some of the people doing recruiting [for parties] may in cases go beyond the rules,” he said, noting that there had been an improvement in following regulations in recent years.

Upon taking his oath of office along with current EC President Fuad Thaufeeq back in 2009, Fayaz claimed they had discovered “a culture” at the commission where regulations were often not being followed as required under laws outlining political party memberships.

“Perhaps under pressure from political parties there was a regulation where membership lists were not being checked every quarter,” he added, claiming that regulations were now being upheld up by the EC.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, MDN Executive Director Humaida Abdul Gafoor said the NGO was extremely concerned at ongoing cases of members being signed up to parties fraudulently.

“Often, people are not aware they have been signed up,” she stated. “It is imperative that it is down to an individual to decide which party they want to belong to and no one else.”

Humaida Abdul Gafoor said it was vital that some form of verification mechanism was in place to ensure party memberships were genuine, adding that a bigger issue facing the committee was in finding alternatives to the fingerprint technology, rather than simply halting it.

“We don’t know if the EC’s adoption of fingerprinting was a move in the right direction in first place,” she added.

System criticism

Explaining the decision to discontinue the EC’s request for fingerprints, Deputy Chairman of the Independent Institutions Committee, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Sameer, said that the Maldives did not presently have a mechanism or system to collect and store such information.

“In regards to issues with the fingerprinting system, the EC, Department of National Registration and the Maldives Police Service all agreed they didn’t have enough records or verification systems available,” he told Minivan News.

One ongoing critic of the EC’s fingerprint system is MP Ahmed Mahloof of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

Back in September, Mahloof alleged via local media that close to 8000 membership forms from his party have been rejected by the Elections Commission (EC) – mainly due to the quality of fingerprints appearing on the forms.

The MP claimed that the fingerprint issue had arisen because the EC did not have sufficiently modern machinery to look at the fingerprints, relying instead on the perception of its staff – drastically limiting memberships numbers for the party.

A spokesperson for the EC told Minivan News at the time that similar complaints had been received from other political parties including the Jumhoree Party (JP), Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

PPM MP Mahloof, DRP chief Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and DQP Leader Dr Hassan Saeed were not responding to phone calls by Minivan News at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Cabinet opts to expand foreign investment oppurtunities

Cabinet ministers have opted to try expanding the number of investment opportunities available in the Maldives in order to generate interest from foreign enterprises.

Following discussions on a paper presented to the cabinet by the Ministry of Economic Development, a decision was taken yesterday to create a “scheme of action” outlining how to attract and handle foreign investments being made in the Maldives, according to the President’s Office website.

The cabinet was also said to have agreed on the need for a specific investor focus around the provision of basic needs, updating public services and developing the country’s economic landscape.

As a result of the investment plan, the islands of aakan’doodhoo and Firun’baidhoo in Shaviyani Atoll and Maakuredhdhoo in Noonu Atoll are expected to be leased out for long-term agricultural projects.

The cabinet’s decision comes as Indian media earlier this month raised concerns that enterprises including TATA and infrastructure group GMR – both presently operating in the Maldives – were struggling to overcome political interference they claim is derailing their substantial investments in the country.

GMR, contracted to develop and manage a new terminal at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) in Male’ in the largest foreign investment project ever seen in the country, is facing opposition from some government-aligned parties over allegations about the validity of its contract.

GMR has denied the allegations, adding that all relevant documentation was overseen at the time by the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

Last month, Jumhoree Party (JP) Deputy Leader Abdulla Jabir criticised attempts to “politicise” the dispute between the government and India-based GMR over an agreement to develop INIA – fearing a negative impact on foreign investment.

However, the Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MNCCI) has stated that legal wrangling between the government and India-based developer GMR over the multi-million dollar airport development would not harm confidence in the country’s “challenging” investment climate.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Kirsty Brimelow, QC

Kirsty Brimelow QC is one of three UK legal experts on former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team. The new government has pursued criminal charges against Nasheed for his decision to detain Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, charges Nasheed contends are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting the 2013 Presidential elections.

Brimelow is an experienced criminal law specialist with expertise in international human rights, and has worked in a number of small island states including Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago.

JJ Robinson: How much background knowledge did you have on the political situation in the Maldives prior to deciding to join Nasheed’s defence team?

Kirsty Brimelow: Very little other than the usual views of the Maldives as beautiful islands for romantic holidays – I had never been here before. I had heard about the climate change aspect of Maldives at the time of the Copenhagen summit – it was something I remember reading about. I thought that it would be terrible if Male’ was under water in 20 years.

JJ: How much had you followed the February 2012 transfer of power?

KB: No I hadn’t followed it. When I was contacted [to join Nasheed’s legal team] I looked it all up. I don’t know if it was reported in English newspapers. I don’t remember reading anything about it. At the time the news was dominated by news of Syria and starvation in the world’s youngest democracy, Sudan. I think they dominated the headlines, and the London Olympics more than anything else that was going on.

JJ: What was behind your decision to join Nasheed’s legal team?

KB: As an international lawyer there is a real interest in how rule of law operates in different jurisdictions. In recent years I’ve done a lot of work in small island states – I am Legal Advisor to the Constitution Commission of Fiji, I worked in Trinidad and Tobago as part of the team defending the chief justice, and was appointed Counsel to a Commmision of Inquiry into a massive international fraud inquiry in Antigua. I have also worked in Jamaica.

I suppose I am interested in the Maldives as a new democracy, and how that struggle is being played out. I am also really interested in the Maldives both as international and human rights lawyer. I have real interest in fairness of procedures and that there are independent and impartial judges. No court system can operate if you have biased judges, or judges who are of a standard such that justice cannot be carried out.

JJ: How much do you know about the Maldivian judiciary and its condition?

KB: I’ve read a couple of reports which have the same conclusion – that the judiciary is not functioning at a level that can deliver justice. But I read these reports as background – I have really been concentrating on this specific case.

JJ: The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have made a case on the basis of challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court where Nasheed is being tried, rather than defending the specific charges against him. Do you think this is a good approach, and can you argue that in court: “I don’t respect your legitimacy, your honour”?

KB: There are different arguments going on at the moment. The high court application [regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court] is a legitimate argument accepted as such by the Attorney General. It is a jurisdictional public law matter now removed from criminal law.

The validity of the jurisdiction of courts is fundamental – people can’t just set up their own courts because they feel like it, and they can’t just put in who they like as judges of that court. It has to be done in a transparent and independent way in order for the courts to have any respect.

JJ: Why should courts care about the respect of the public?

KB: The general public in any democratic society cares about its justice system because that underpins its democratic society. If you think your justice system is corrupt – that whatever evidence you have when you’re in court will be ignored because you have a corrupt system – then that is bad for democracy.

Democracy can’t survive with a corrupt justice system. I think people do care about that. But obviously the select people who want to keep it corrupt, don’t.

JJ: This is the first time there has been foreign legal representation applying to appear in the Criminal Court, as far as I’m aware. Are you allowed in?

KB: At the moment there is apparently a policy that says you have to be Maldivian and/or married to a Maldivian to appear in court. It is very restrictive. It is going to be a matter we are going to challenge.

It obviously depends on the particular country, but most small island states have developed a system where foreign lawyers are able to practice within that system on a case by case basis. For example I have appeared [in court] in the Caribbean. The reason is that the smaller the place the smaller the pool of lawyers, and the bigger the case, the more political difficulties and influences that could be brought to bear on people from that society. So if you bring someone in from outside it can bring the balance back.

It is also a good way to increase knowledge and expertise. For example my knowledge is based on international human rights law, whereas if you are practicing in a small state you don’t have that comfort of being able to specialise. International law is not foreign law – it is part of the law of the Maldives, and to develop it you need that knowledge running through [the system]. The way you do that is allow international lawyers.

The Maldivian lawyers I’m working with are keen to make the application so that I could represent President Nasheed in court together with them. It would be their application on my behalf.

JJ: Dhivehi can make the country quite inaccessible to outsiders – to what extent is that a challenge in this case?

KB: Of course it’s a challenge and as to how it would operate [in court], nobody’s ever tried it before. As far as I understand English is widely spoken fluently, and i’m told many Maldivians prefer to speak English. Obviously it would have to be translated in court – but that happens in many jurisdictions with no difficulty. I don’t see it as meaning that the position would be impossible – there would have to be systems in place.

JJ: The judges on the panel hearing Nasheed’s trial were appointed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), and include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents – Jumhoree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim and Speaker of Parliament, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Shahid. In this environment, and given the politicisation of the case, is it reasonable to expect that Nasheed can have a fair trial at all in the Maldives?

KB: I think at present if the trial were to go ahead in the Hulhumale Court, as presently constituted, there are real issues as to whether there is any chance at all as to whether Nasheed will have a fair trial. There are real issues and real concerns.

JJ: What is the approach then? The MDP has challenged the court’s legitimacy, but what about defending Nasheed’s decision to detain the Chief Judge of the Crimnial Court? Would you advise defending these charges or lean towards challenging the court’s legitimacy?

KB: Nasheed at his recent rally said that based on the evidence served against him, he should be acquitted.

The trial has two aspects: there are real issues as to fairness and those aspects fall into two categories, which relate to the court itself, which will be argued further, and the second aspect relates to the ability of President Nasheed to properly defend himself. I can’t go into details because those submissions have not been made to the trial court.

JJ: How similar are the challenges in the Maldives compared to other small island states?

KB: Each place is very different – but a common thread is the real difficulty getting a neutral tribunal to consider the evidence. Most countries have a problem where so much is in the newspapers already that people have formed opinions by the time the matter comes to court. In fact the trial is run in the newspaper, usually against the defendant, who isn’t in a position to present his defence in the newspaper as well, so it becomes one-sided and by the time the case comes to court people have the view that the person is guilty.

That would not happen in a larger jurisdiction where there are all sorts of laws to prevent people coming to court with a closed mind. That’s a problem here.

The Maldives has specific problems, such as those documented issues in relation to the judiciary, and those issues are quite extreme and are not found in many other small island states I’ve worked in. Many of those states such as Jamaica have a strong judiciary.

JJ: What would be some of those concerning issues?

KB: I don’t want to be upsetting the trial. I can quote from the reports though. Things like the statistics of those serving in the judiciary with criminal convictions and so on. It must be a concern to a fair minded observer as to what sort of justice is being dispensed if you are appearing before someone with criminal convictions, for example. That kind of thing is what I mean.

JJ: To what extent do you think the trial of Nasheed could be a catalyst for judicial reform in the Maldives?

KB: I think it is an important trial for the Maldives, and it could be a catalyst for reform in that the issues which are being raised are fundamental to a functioning justice system, and they are serious, so it should at the very least trigger debate in parliament in a democratic country.

There has to be a robust system which will regulate judges objectively, so someone coming to court can have faith in the system. If there is no check on judges in terms of their independence and honesty, as well as ability, then the courts just simply become a means of reaching a preordained result that everyone has already predicted.

Then quite simply it is not a justice system – it is a figleaf. Everything else flows from that – stability, fairness in terms of elections, parliament; if you’ve got a vacuum in your justice system you quite simply don’t have democracy.

You have to have a robust system to deal with complaints [against the judiciary]. In international law and particularly the Convention of Civil and Political Rights it sets out that privileges and immunities for judges can only go so far, and that they are not meant to stretch to afford protection ‘no matter what’.

My interest is in fair trial procedures, and that fair trial rights are upheld. There are real issues in this case, which is why I’m part of the legal team.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs express concern over Addu airport bidding process, while AIA MD Shahid denies corruption allegations

Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader, MP, and chairman of the Villa Group of businesses, Gasim Ibrahim, denied in parliament today that he had spoken against the sale of shares of Addu International Airport (AIA) with the intention of buying shares himself. He claimed he had done so “in the best interests of Addu and the country.”

“If Gasim wanted shares, Gasim would have bid for them,” Gasim said in response to some MPs, who had alleged he was himself interested in buying the shares.

Referring to his offer in his letter to President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to reclaim land for the project free of charge “using my own dredger, employees and machinery with the government only providing oil,” Gasim said that the costs of the work would come up to US$7 million.

“I am very concerned that they have gone ahead and sold the shares without even considering the offer of free aid of this size,” Gasim said.

Gasim further stated that although he did want to see the Addu airport developed, the shares had not been sold in the right manner, adding “things won’t go very well” due to how the shares had been given away.

JP MP Alhan Fahmy echoed Gasim’s statement that he, too, wished to see the Addu airport developed, but that he was concerned with how the sale of shares had been carried out. Fahmy said that 30 percent of shares being sold off for MVR 60 million (US$3.89 million) was “nothing but daylight robbery”.

“The shares have been sold far too cheaply. Our problem is that they’ve done this while there are many other ways obtain the funds needed for development,” Fahmy explained.

A number of MPs from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) stated that the party supported the concept of privatisation, adding that the development of the Addu airport was originally an MDP initiated plan. They, too, however, expressed concerns over how the bidding process had been carried out.

MDP Parliamentary Group’s Deputy Leader Ali Waheed criticised Gasim Ibrahim for his “lack of conviction” when speaking about the issue in parliament.

Waheed said that Gasim had not dared to criticise the government even after it had sold the shares, despite Gasim’s allegations that major corruption had been involved in the deal.

Referring to Gasim’s common name “Buruma” (‘drill’), Waheed said, “There is no use for a drill without electricity”, alleging that the JP leader had been “too cowardly” to even speak of the issue openly during today’s parliamentary session.

“Cowards need not contest in the coming presidential elections,” Waheed further declared.

Gan Airport development to start in January: Shahid

MD of AIA and STO Shahid Ali said in a press briefing on Monday that the Addu Airport development work is set to begin in January.

Ali said that the pre-bid meetings had been held with the three shortlisted contractors and that the bids were scheduled to be submitted by November 28.

The development plans include an extension of the runway, repairing of the apron, placing an extra layer of tar on the runway and setting up a sea plane base.

He also stated that contrary to general speculation, the airport had not been “sold”, but rather shares from the company AIA that had been sold to KASA Holdings.

He also refuted allegations of corruption, saying that KASA Holdings had been given higher priority since it was a local company and that all proceedings had gone through the bidding process in a matter which was completely free of any corruption.

“It is often said now that 30 percent of the airport has been sold to a private party. The truth is that 100 percent of the land of Gan, the infrastructure of the airport and its facilities are with the government, because Gan Airport Ltd is a company which is 100 percent owned by the government. So all the assets are owned by them. Then this company has leased the airport to AIA for 50 years,” Ali explained.

Ali said that therefore it was clear that selling 30 percent of the shares of AIA, a joint company formed by the Gan Airport Ltd, STO and the Maldives Airports Company Ltd, was not a sale of the airport itself.

Leave politics aside

Addu City council has released a statement welcoming the signing of the contract which they said would lead to the development of the Addu airport.

The statement further notes “the importance of leaving politics aside and for the good of citizens in letting the venture bring positive changes to Addu’s economy.”

Meanwhile, MDP released a statement on Monday urging “not to let political feuds, political needs and power play interfere in important work directly related to the development of Addu City citizens, and generally all Maldivian citizens.”

The statement also condemned Gasim’s threats against Shahid Ali, stating “This party calls on political leaders to refrain from making unlawful threats through the greed for power and political wants.”

In a uncommon move, 18 citizens from Addu held a press conference on Monday, speaking in support of the Addu airport development.

The citizens welcomed the selling of shares to KASA Holdings, stating that it was not a sale of the airport itself. They further said that the citizens of Addu were happy that although the airport has so far remained the same, development work is scheduled to begin early next year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)