Day: February 26, 2013

Under-age rape victim convicted of fornication, sentenced to 100 lashes

A 15-year-old rape victim from the island of Feydhoo in Shaviyani Atoll was convicted of premarital sex at the Juvenile Court today and sentenced to 100 lashes and eight months of house arrest.

In June 2012, the girl gave birth to a baby that was discovered buried in the outdoor shower area of her home. Her stepfather was later charged with child sexual abuse, possession of pornographic materials and committing premeditated murder.

Her mother was meanwhile charged with concealing a crime and failing to report child sexual abuse to the authorities.

An official from the Prosecutor General (PG)’s office told Minivan News in January this year that the fornication charges against the minor were related to a separate offence of premarital sex that emerged during the police investigation. The charges were filed on November 25, 2012.

In its verdict delivered today, the Juvenile Court ordered the state to transfer the girl to the Children’s Home in Villigili to enforce the sentence of eight months house arrest, according to local media reports.

The girl reportedly confessed at the trial to having consensual premarital sex.

The Islamic Shariah punishment of flogging would be administered when the girl turns 18. However, the sentence could be implemented earlier should the minor request expedition, a court official explained to local media.

In late January, the PG’s Office told Minivan News that it was reviewing the decision to press charges against the minor. Two hearings at the Juvenile Court were subsequently cancelled upon request by the PG.

However, the trial resumed after the PG decided earlier this month not to withdraw the charges.

Officials from the PG were unavailable today to clarify whether the male offender faced the same charge of premarital sex.

The case of the 15 year-old had prompted concern from the executive following international media coverage. The government announced last month that it would review and “correct” laws that victimise young women and minors who have suffered sexual abuse.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad told Minivan News that from government’s perspective, the 15 year-old girl was a victim who needed to be protected, not punished by authorities.

“We will be talking with the Ministry of Islamic Affairs over this manner and will review and correct the problem,” he said.

Masood said that the Maldives had experienced a number of similar cases of late where young women had been victimised and punished by authorities – a situation he said the government was looking to prevent.

“We are reviewing this right now and if we have to go to the extent of changing existing laws then we would look to do this,” he said.

“Absolute outrage”

The criminal charges against the minor was slammed by Amnesty International last month, which called the prosecution “an absolute outrage.”

“This is an absolute outrage, regardless of the reason for her charges. Victims of rape or other forms of sexual abuse should be given counselling and support – not charged with a crime,” said Abbas Faiz, Amnesty International’s Maldives Researcher.

“We urge the Maldivian authorities to immediately drop all charges against the girl, ensure her safety and provide her with all necessary support.

“Flogging is a violation of the absolute prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The Maldivian authorities should immediately end its use regardless of circumstances. The fact that this time a 15-year old girl who has suffered terribly is at risk makes it all the more reprehensible,” said Faiz.

“Flogging is not only wrong and humiliating, but can lead to long-term psychological as well as physical scars.”

In response to a Minivan News report in 2009 of an 18 year-old woman fainting after a 100 lashes, Amnesty International called for a moratorium on the “inhumane and degrading punishment.”

Of the 184 people sentenced to public flogging in 2006, 146 were female, making it nine times more likely for women to be punished.

In November 2011, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay urged the authorities to impose a moratorium on flogging and to foster national dialogue and debate “on this issue of major concern.”

“This practice constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women, and should have no place in the legal framework of a democratic country,” the UN human rights chief told MPs during a maiden visit to the Maldives.

Her remarks sparked protests by Islamic groups outside the UN building and drew condemnation from the Islamic Ministry, NGOs and political parties.

According to statistics from the Department of Judicial Administration, almost 90 percent of those convicted of fornication in 2011 was female.

Of 129 fornication cases in 2011, 104 people were sentenced, out of which 93 were female. This included 10 underage girls, 79 women aged 18-40 and and four women above 40 years.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN Special Rapporteur criticises “arbitrary” appointment of judges in Nasheed trial

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, for his controversial arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2011.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, while responding to questions from media after delivering her statement on Sunday.

Nasheed is currently facing trial at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, the legality of which has been much contested in recent weeks.

The Special Rapporteur commented on the matter of Nasheed’s trial being conducted by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

“According to the law, the constitutional court which has jurisdiction to hear this case is the Criminal Court. While I understand the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office regarding the possible eventual conflict of interest since Judge Abdulla sits in the court, it is not for the prosecutor to decide if the judge will be impartial,” Knaul stated.

“It is the duty of the judge or judges to recuse themselves when they feel they would not be impartial in presiding over any case,” Knaul said.

Speaking about the case of the detention itself, Knaul stated that judging by the briefings received in her meetings in the country, the detention seems to have taken place outside the parameters laid down by the constitution.

“Regardless of the merits of the allegations of corruption or misconduct on the judge, I do believe that proceedings against judges should also be fair and impartial,” Knaul said.

“I think in disciplinary proceedings, especially disciplinary hearings, a judge should have the right to a fair trial. And all decisions taken should be subject to an independent review.”

In presenting her preliminary findings after the eight day fact-finding mission, Knaul stated that she found the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself.

Knaul also spoke about the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the body mandated with appointment, transfer and removal of judges – stating that the commission is politicised, subject to external influence, and hence unable to fulfill its mandate effectively.

Knaul also highlighted the lack of transparency in the assignment of cases and the constitution of benches in all courts, including the Supreme Court.

“When cases are assigned in a subjective manner, the system becomes much more vulnerable to manipulation, corruption, and external pressure. Information on the assignment of cases should be clearly available to the public in order to counter suspicions of malpractice and corruption,” she observed.

Knaul asserted again that the composition of the JSC must be revised. She has written in her statement that “an appointment body acting independently from both the executive and the legislative branches of government should be established with the view to countering any politicization in the appointment of judges and their potential improper allegiance to interests other than those of fair and impartial justice.”

Responding to a question posed by a journalist asking if the rapporteur believed it wise for such a ‘high-profile’ case to be delayed, Knaul said that the judiciary should be effective for everyone who seeks justice.

“According to the constitution, the judiciary should not choose cases based on X,Y, or Z person. It should be equal in applying or delivering justice. It is necessary to have an objective criteria for selecting cases and to assign cases in court. If you apply these processes, you make the system work in the least subjective manner possible,” Knaul stated.

Government responds

Attorney General Azima Shakoor received the preliminary findings from Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul on behalf of the government of the Maldives.

“In the discussion the Government also noted the responsibility of international partners in establishing a conducive environment where institutions of the the State, particularly the judiciary, are respected by the public,” an official statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website read.

The statement did not include any details of whether or not the government planned to take any action in response to the rapporteur’s findings and comments on the judicial system.

When the question was asked of President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad, he referred Minivan News to the Attorney General, saying “she is probably a more relevant person to talk about this matter.”

Attorney General Azima Shakoor said she was unable to speak on the subject once Minivan News posed the question to her.

The government also did not offer any response to the additional comments Knauls made regarding Nasheed’s trial after delivering her written statement.

MDP claims commitment to judicial reform

Responding to the Special Rapporteur’s findings, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it is ready to work with other political parties to immediately begin work on urgent reforms to the judiciary and the judicial accountability mechanisms.

“Establishing a truly independent, professional and widely respected judiciary is central to ending the political turmoil in the Maldives and to consolidating democracy in our country. We have always accepted this. Yet Gayoom, Waheed and others who have benefited and continue to benefit from our current corrupt and biased judiciary never have,” MDP’s international spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, said in a statement.

“Today, as we digest yet another report by an eminent international body that clearly says our judiciary is not fit for purpose, it is time for all political parties to put aside their differences and work together to urgently reform our justice sector. This means immediately halting the political trials launched against President Nasheed and the hundreds of pro-democracy activists currently facing ‘terrorism’ and other trumped-up charges. It also means establishing a caretaker government to oversee judicial reform and to prepare the ground for genuinely free and fair elections,” Ghafoor said.

The party’s statement also noted Knaul’s concern over the system of appointment of judges, stating “the Special Rapporteur expressed support for the concerns repeatedly raised by Aishath Velezinee, a former member of the JSC and whistleblower (who, in 2011, was stabbed and almost killed because of her outspoken comments), who said that the very starting point of judicial independence – the post 2008 Constitution system of screening and reappointing judges – was marred by malpractice and corruption.”

Referring to the rapporteur’s comments on selectivity in case assignment, prioritisation and bench constitution, the MDP alleged it had led to “hundreds of important cases against allies of former President Gayoom and members of the current government being kicked into the legal ‘long grass’, while the Prosecutor-General, the judicial administration authorities and the courts enthusiastically pursue political trials against President Nasheed and other MDP members.”

MDP echoed Special Rapporteur Knaul in stating that these deep-rooted problems had led to the public having an alarming lack of trust in the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court denies former President permission to travel abroad

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has had his request to leave the country denied by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

An official from the Judiciary Media Unit told local media that the court had denied Nasheed’s request as he had not cooperated with the court on previous instances.

Nasheed, who had asked to leave the Maldives on Wednesday (February 27) until March 5, had received travel permission from the court when previously asked.

Nasheed had stated that he would be travelling abroad at the end of February, having accepting an invitation from the Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, and to Denmark under an invitation from the state.

The former President’s request to leave the Maldives follows his exit from the Indian High Commission on Saturday (February 23) after he sought “refuge” inside the embassy building for 11 days.

Nasheed moved into the Indian High Commission after police were ordered to produce him at Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court on February 13 for his scheduled trial hearing.

Nasheed has maintained that the charges against him – of detaining the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office – are a politically-motivated effort to prevent him contesting the 2013 elections.

British-based publication, Daily Mail reported that Nasheed’s exit from the Indian High Commission came after the Maldivian government “brokered” a deal with the government of India.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since denied the claim in a statement released on Sunday (February 24), stressing that there had been no deal made with “anyone” that would result in Nasheed leaving the high commission.

Speaking to press on the day he exited the Indian High Commission, Nasheed emphasised his desire for stability to be restored following eight days of continuous protests by the MDP, dozens of police arrests and a violent attack on a Maldivian journalist.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Colonel Mohamed Ziyad denies charge of illegally arresting judge

Former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Head of Operations Directorate Colonel Mohamed Ziyad has denied the charge levied against him by the state over the former government’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Colonel Mohamed Ziyad is charged for arresting the chief judge in January 2012, alongside former President Mohamed Nasheed, his Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel and former MNDF Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi.

All are facing charges under Article 81 of the Penal Code, for the offence of “arbitrarily arresting and detaining an innocent person”.

Article 81 states – “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to law innocent persons. Persons guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00”.

During the hearing held at Hulhumale Magistrate Court on Monday, Colonel Ziyad denied the charges while his defence lawyer Mazlaan Rasheed raised two procedural points.

In the first procedural point, Ziyad’s lawyer informed the court that the Prosecutor General (PG)’s decision to press charges against his client while not pressing charges against the MNDF officers who actively took part in bringing the judge to custody violated the principle of fairness and equality.

In his second procedural point, Rasheed questioned the court as to how the state had decided on the innocence of Judge Abdulla.

State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna argued that following orders at the time from the Commander in Chief, President Mohamed Nasheed, Colonel Mohamed Ziyad as the Head of Directorate took part in the operation carried out by the MNDF in arresting the judge.

Responding to the charges, Ziyad’s lawyer contended that the charges lacked fairness and equality while Article 81 of the Penal Code – which the charges are based on – had “constitutional issues”.

He stated that the article conflicted with powers of the police to arrest a suspect of a crime. This, he explained would arise if a person is arrested and then later released by court, which would deem that his arrest was unlawful and all officers who took part in the arrest should be prosecuted.

The state in response argued that it was at the sole discretion of the Prosecutor General to decide on whether to press charges or not, and said that Ziyad had been charged over the extent of his involvement.

The prosecutor further claimed that it was Ziyad who had given the briefings to the officers before the arrest was made and had also requested two MNDF lawyers to see if the action could be legally defended.

The state attorney said that the reason for not pressing charges against officers who actively took part in the action was that those officials were obliged to follow orders and that the officers were not in a position to determine whether their orders were lawful or not.

She also posed several questions to the defendants, including on what charges the judge was arrested, why he was not brought before a court of law within 24 hours as stipulated in the constitution and why he was not released after the Supreme Court had ordered to do so.

In response, Colonel Ziyad’s lawyer argued that his client was not in a position to call for the release of judge and had several other higher-ranked officers.

Responding to the claim, State Attorney Abdulla Raabiu – who also was in the state prosecution team – said that Ziyad was being charged because he took part in discussing on how the judge should be arrested, days before the arrest was made.

“When speaking about fairness, where was Abdulla Mohamed’s right to life, when he was detained in Girifushi Island for 22 days? Where was his right to freedom?” Raabiu questioned.

In concluding today’s hearings, Chief Judge of the three-member panel of judges stated that it would later decide on the procedural points taken by the defendants, as the court required time to review the PG’s procedures.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi all denied the charge of arbitrarily detaining Chief Judge of Criminal Court AbdullaMohamed.

Prosecution

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President as the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of the Judge. The HRCM also identified Tholhath Ibrahim as a “second key figure” involved in the matter. Others included Brigadier General Ibrahim Didi and Chief of Defense Force Moosa Ali Jaleel.

Judge Abdulla Mohamed was taken into military custody after the former Home Minister Hassan Afeef wrote to Defense Minister Tholhath asking him arrest the judge as he posed a threat to both the national security of the country and a threat to the country’s criminal justice system.

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

In July 2012, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz pressed charges against the parties who had been identified in the HRCM investigation as responsible for the arrest.

Following the charges, former President Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court in High Court, but the Supreme Court intervened and dismissed the claims by declaring the magistrate court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

4000 square feet of land awarded to Maldives Association of Construction Industry (MACI)

Maldives Association of Construction Industry (MACI) has been awarded 4000 square feet of land in Male’ for the construction of the association’s building.

Speaking at the handover ceremony on Monday night (February 25) President of MACI Mohamed Ali Janah said the 10-storey building to be constructed on the site will be used to conduct training programs for people who want to join the industry, local media reported.

“It is a difficult task for an organization like ours to construct such a building and conduct it in a sustainable manner. We have planned to use a number of financial models for the construction of the building,” Janah was quoted as saying in Sun Online.

Janah said that the building will be designed within a year and the construction work is expected to bring the building to an operational level within 30 months.

The handover agreement of Male’ plot number 392 was signed on behalf of the government by Minister of Housing Mohamed Muizz.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government plans to launch new scheme to empower local councils

Fifty percent of rent from atoll shops in Male’ and lease rent on uninhabited islands is to be given to atoll councils, the government has decided.

Speaking at a function marking the decentralisation of administration in the Maldives, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik announced strategies for providing financial support to local councils, local media reported.

As of July this year, the government plans to give 50 percent of rent from atoll shops and uninhabited island lease rent to atoll councils.

The president noted that for the decentralisation system to work there would need to be equal assistance and opportunities for the people. To do this, Waheed said it would take local councils to set aside their political differences.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Failure to recover misappropriated state funds to be investigated: Parliament Public Accounts Committee

Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee will investigate the failure of authorities to recover funds highlighted by the auditor general as misappropriated.

In a meeting held on Monday (February 25), Committee Chairperson MP Ahmed Nazim revealed that the committee intended to send a letter to Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor regarding the failure to recover the misappropriated funds.

Majlis Finance Committee member MP Ahmed Hamza told Minivan News today (February 26) that the Public Accounts Committee was still going through the reports and was unable to give an estimate as to how much money is still owed as a result of the misuse of state funds.

“We are having to look into past audit reports starting from when they first began under [former President Maumoon Abdul] Gayoom was president. We are not able to scrutinise the spending from any year before audit reports were introduced.

“We have agreed that in order to scrutinise Gayoom’s government accounts, the majority of those looking into them will be held by opposition parties. This will also be the same when [former President Mohamed] Nasheed’s accounts are looked into,” Hamza said.

The finance committee member said that there were two issues in regard to the failure of recovering misused funds.

“If the government incurs a loss due to the misappropriation of funds, rather than recover the money, the guilty party is faced with criminal punishment instead.

“Secondly, it is a case of certain members finding it not possible to recover the funds that had been misused,” Hamza added.

When asked whether there had been any effort to recover the money in the past, Hamza stressed that some had been returned, but he was unable to give a rough figure as to how much.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Visam Ali was reported by local media as saying that government offices do not correct issues relating to how funds are managed, even after repeatedly being advised to do so in audit reports.

The Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor and Head of Majlis Finance Committee and MP Ahmed Nazim were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Finance Committee member and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Abdul Ghafoor Moosa answered his phone when contacted by Minivan News stating that he was “in a meeting”.

Extravagant spending

Previous reports compiled by the auditor general have uncovered extravagant spending by former Presidents and ministerial officials.

Earlier this year, an audit report for 2010 highlighted 12 instances whereby the President’s Office – under Nasheed’s government – had acted in breach of laws and regulations.

The report noted that in 2010, the President’s Office spent MVR 7,415,960 (US$480,931) over the parliament approved budget for the office.

In addition, the report also highlighted Nasheed’s chartering of an Island Aviation flight from Colombo to Male’ on November 19, 2010. This had cost MVR 146,490 (US$9500).

The audit report states that while all these were paid from state funds, no records were available to prove that Nasheed booked this flight for official purposes.

The report further reveals that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan, then Vice President, had spent MVR 764,121 (US$49,554) on a trip to Malaysia and America with his own family.

Meanwhile, the expenses of Former President Gayoom were leaked last year revealing the excessive spending on Gayoom’s family from money allocated to helping the poor.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam leaked the invoices revealing Gayoom’s spending through Twitter in 2012.

In a statement, Rozaina noted that a total of MVR 905,636 (US$58,807) was spent on various items for Gayoom’s family, including MVR 193,209 (US$12,546) on trouser material in 2008.

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim told newspaper Haveeru back in October 2012 that the state should recover funds used by former presidents on their families and associates.

Lack of legislation explicitly prohibiting such expenses was not an obstacle to recovering the misappropriated funds, the Auditor General contended.

He noted that there was no law that authorised the use of public funds for personal expenses, adding that assistance from state funds should be provided on an equal and fair basis.

“Even if its Nasheed, Waheed or Maumoon, no one can spend state funds for their own personal use,” Niyaz was quoted as saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf recommends beheading, firing squad over lethal injection

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf has called on Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor to amend the government’s draft bill on the implementation of death penalty, urging that convicts be beheaded or shot instead of given lethal injection.

In letter to the AG proposing its recommendations for the bill, Salaf explained that by beheading the convicted murderer, the pain he endured would be reduced while the heirs of the victim would still receive satisfaction.

Salaf argued that Islamic history had precedents for this form of execution, while the purpose of Qisas – an Islamic legal term for equal retaliation which follows the principle of Lex talionis (‘an eye for an eye’) – would be achieved if it acted as a deterrent to others from committing such crimes.

Salaf also expressed support for the execution of convicts through firing squad, noting that scholars of Islamic jurisprudence had spoken in favour of the method.

The Attorney General in 2012 announced that the government had drafted a bill on implementing the death penalty through lethal injection, and presented it to the public for comment.

Salaf disputed the reliability of this method, contending that such injections have been proved ineffective in executing a convict within a single needle.

The NGO argued that due to the West’s opposing stance towards death penalty, the Maldives could face difficulties and restrictions in receiving stocks of lethal injections, which would be a “perfect excuse for any president who does not wish to enforce the death penalty”.

“If that is the case, it is a huge injustice to society. It is very dangerous that the current draft paves way for one government to execute it while another can make excuses to not execute it. It is unacceptable. Even today, convicts in several countries are still un-executed because of the non-availability of such injections,” Salaf said.

Salaf also proposed several other recommendations including barring intoxication as a legal defence for the crime of murder, meaning that even involuntary intoxication would not commute a convict from facing the death penalty. Salaf argued that if intoxication could be considered a defense, the purpose of implementing death penalty would be undermined as an accused could always misuse the defense of intoxication to avoid execution.

The current draft bill stipulates that the death penalty should be given to a convict who has murdered someone while in possession of his senses and conscience. In theory, a murder committed while under the influence of a substance will therefore not attract the death penalty.

Salaf also recommended that the current position of the bill on minors should be abolished and that even minors should face execution as soon as the final verdict is made.

Currently the bill stipulates that should a convict who is a minor, pregnant or in a critical medical condition be found guilty of murder, the execution shall be delayed.

Among other recommendations, Salaf proposed amendments to the number of judges that should hear a case concerning death penalty.

Salaf proposed that at a lower court level, the case should be heard by a panel of three judges, while a four member panel should hear such a case at the High Court and a five member panel at Supreme Court level.

Salaf also urged that such cases concerning the death penalty must be heard by male judges only. The NGO also recommended that a clause be included in which before the execution the convict should be given the opportunity to repent and carry out a short prayer.

According to current stipulations in the bill, a suspect found guilty of murder should also be provided with the opportunity to meet his family on the day of execution and say their last farewell.

Salaf in its recommendations called upon the attorney general to remove the clause in the draft bill giving the President the power to commute any death penalty sentence to a life imprisonment sentence, claiming that such a clause defeated the overall purpose of the bill.

Meanwhile, the attorney general’s office has said that it has looked to procedures followed by Egypt, Malaysia and the US in carrying out the death sentence, while also obtaining the opinions of religious scholars and lawyers.

Push for the death penalty

In October last year, the government announced its intention to introduce a bill in the People’s Majlis to guide and govern the implementation of the death penalty in the country.

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

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

The last person to be judicially executed in the Maldives was Hakim Didi, who was executed by firing squad in 1953 after being found guilty of conspiracy to murder using black magic.

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

However, in all cases, the president at the time has commuted these verdicts to life sentences.

Speaking to Minivan News, President of Jamiyyathul Salaf Abdulla Mohamed stated that the current bill by the attorney general was “incomplete” as it had only focused on death penalty, and said that the principle of Qiasas was much broader.

“For instance, the bill does not give a remedy to the victims who are subjected to assault and other bodily harm. They should also get a legal remedy. However the bill is more focused on death penalty,” he said.

Asked if the NGO was of the view that victims could get a fair trial, given the present concerns raised over the impartiality and competency of the Maldivian judiciary, Abdulla Mohamed said the NGO had proposed recommendations to the judiciary on the issue.

“We have previously sent recommendations to the authorities concerning the state of judiciary. We have clearly highlighted the necessary qualifications and standards that a judge should have,” he said.

However, he rejected claims made by critics of judiciary that the judiciary was unprepared to implement death penalty, stating that it was just a “mere excuse” to avoid the laws of Allah prescribed in Sharia’ law.

“There are other laws passed such as the law against the abuse of women and several other laws where the authorities make efforts to ensure they are enforced and that justice is delivered. Why can’t it be the same in a law that lays down the principles of Islamic Sharia’?” he questioned.

He further said that Islamic Criminal Law was very broad and very detailed, such that there are several conditions and requirements that have to be fulfilled before giving a punishment.

“The purpose of death penalty in Islam is to ensure that the orders of Allah are followed. It is an obligation to all of us as Muslims. Secondly, Islam greatly values a human being’s right to life. No one has the right to take the other person’s life. If he does so, he has to be punished,” he stated.

However the death penalty does not always mean one has to be executed, he explained. There are alternatives, as if even one heir decides to forgive the convict, he cannot be executed. Similarly, it is up to the heirs to demand blood money instead of the death penalty, and that even blood money can be forgiven if the heirs wish to do so.

Speaking to Minivan News previously, former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed has identified the “pathetic state of the [Maldives] judiciary” as one of the key human rights concerns he believed needed to be addressed in the country.

“[The judiciary] is not only corrupt, but also coming under the influence of radical Islam, even to the extent of violating codified laws of the Maldives and clear international obligations,” Dr Shaheed claimed.

“Disregard for rule of law has also meant that a culture of impunity is deeply entrenched, rendering many of the human rights of the people meaningless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

One arrested in connection with attack on Raajje TV journalist

Additional reporting by JJ Robinson

Police have arrested one person in connection with the attack that left Raajje TV journalist Ibrahim Waheed ‘Aswad’ in a critical condition early on Saturday morning.

Waheed was attacked while he was on his way to see two Maldives Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) journalists who were admitted to hospital after being attacked.

Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in a tweet informed the public that one person was arrested in connection with the attack, which he described as a murder attempt. Newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported that the suspect arrested was aged 22.

Waheed, a senior reporter for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned television station, was attacked with an iron bar while riding on a motorcycle near the artificial beach area.

The attack left him unconscious, and he was transferred to a hospital in Sri Lanka for treatment.

Minivan News understands that Aswad is still unconscious but his condition has been stabilised. He is moving his eyes and responding to people in the room, but not yet speaking.

Doctors are bringing him out of unconsciousness slowly, said an informed source, but were confident that he would recover. Aswad is currently under observation, after which the doctors will decide whether surgery is required.

Maldivian journalists took to the streets of Male’ to protests against the recent attacks, joining international organisations who have also condemned the violence.

The attack on Waheed was the most serious incident of violence against a journalist in the Maldives since July 2012, when a group of alleged Islamic radicals slashed the throat of blogger Hilath Rasheed. Rasheed, who had been campaigning for religious tolerance, narrowly survived and has since fled the country.

The United States Embassy in Colombo has released a statement expressing concern over the recent attacks on the journalists.

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental democratic right, and we strongly condemn these attacks on Maldives media personnel. We urge all Maldivians to refrain from violence, urge protesters and police to respect the right of all media outlets to cover demonstrations,” the statement read.

The United Nations in the Maldives said the violence amounted to an attack on freedom of expression and merited “prompt investigations”.

On Tuesday, the Commonwealth’s Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed alarm at the recent string of attacks against journalists, and “called on all sides in the political conflict to halt violence against the media.”

“We condemn these vicious attacks on reporters and call on all parties to do their utmost to ensure that journalists are able to work safely,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Bob Dietz.

The CPJ said journalists in the island nation “have faced numerous attacks since elected President Mohamed Nasheed was ousted a year ago.”

“Nasheed accused his successor, Mohammed Waheed Hassan, and former dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of having orchestrated a coup. Since then, the country’s political crisis has steadily deepened, with the government

promising fresh elections this year, but Nasheed facing legal charges linked to his time in office. India was drawn further into the crisis this month when Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male, according to international news reports.  News coverage in the Maldives has reflected the country’s political polarisation.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)