Day: February 27, 2013

Election Commission to establish units in Maldives atolls

Election Commission (EC) units manned by permanent staff are to be established in every atoll in the Maldives, local media has reported.

EC member Ali Mohamed Manik told local media that the units are to be established in 20 Atolls and that three members of staff will be employed at 13 of the 20 units.

While one assistant director and two other staff members will be employed at each of the 13 units, the remaining seven will only have an admin officer and an office assistant due to a lack of funds.

According to local media, the units are to be located at the atoll capital’s council offices, with five Atoll offices having confirmed availability of space for establishing the units.

EC President Fuad Thaufeeg told local media that the main task of the employees at the units would be to maintain the Atoll registries as efficiently as possible.

“We have difficulties in obtaining information, especially related to deaths. They would remove those people from the list. They would also work with preparing and holding by-elections,” Thaufeeq was quoted as saying by Sun Online.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC member/presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim accuses UN Special Rapporteur of lying, joking

Leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP) and Parliament’s representative to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), MP Gasim Ibrahim, has accused UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul of lying and joking about the state of the Maldivian judiciary.

During her preliminary observations on the country’s judicial system, Gabriela Knaul expressed concern over the politicisation of JSC – the body constitutionally mandated to oversee the functioning of the judiciary.

Addressing a relatively small party gathering held in its headquarters in Male, Gasim – also the party’s presidential candidate – claimed that JSC had been acting within the boundaries of the law and that the process of the appointment of judges adhered to constitutional stipulations and the law.

“[Gabriela Knaul] claimed that the judges were not appointed transparently, I am sure that is an outright lie. She is lying, she did not even check any document at all nor did she listen to anybody. She is repeating something that was spoon-fed to her by someone else. I am someone who sits in JSC. She claimed there were no regulations or mechanism there. That is a big joke,” Gasim claimed.

“She wouldn’t tell bigger lie”

“We had made all the announcements through the media and we even clearly stated necessary criterion required as well as how the interviews will be carried out. We were acting on what we had announced. She couldn’t tell a bigger lie than that,” Gasim said.

Gasim claimed that the composition of  theJSC was decided after a strong debate between members of the assembly, and contended that “nobody can criticise its decisions, not even under international law”.

“That is why I am telling you all this. We the people should not believe the reports compiled by people who come like this without verifying it. This is an influence that has a different motive,” Gasim accused.

Gasim – who is also the Chairman of the Villa Group of companies that owns several resorts in the country – said that a UN representative had once come to Maldives and claimed it could never build a tourism industry.

“A person came like that in 1972. After much surveying, he claimed that the Maldives cannot host a viable tourism industry. Is that true today? But that is what was in the UN report. That is what is on the report by the World Bank. Does the Maldives not have a tourism industry now? He said we cannot; according to him we did not have electricity, water or a transport system but just a bunch of small islands. What would he know?” Gasim said.

Gasim also referred to the presidential elections.

“Is the US judiciary very good? What happened when [George W] Bush sought re-election? You would all know how that election went. Florida High Court ordered for a recount of the vote. When the issue came, Al Gore began winning and winning. Then the Republican Party, who was very upset with that, filed a case at the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court ordered not to count the votes and that President is Bush. Following that order, Al Gore admitted defeat and congratulated Bush on his re-election. This is something the world witnessed,” he told his supporters.

The incident to which Gasim Ibrahim referred took place in the US Presidential Elections 2000, in which George W Bush was running for office for the first time against then Vice President Al Gore. The election was called a victory for Bush after the US Supreme Court declared the ruling made by Florida Supreme Court requiring a state wide recount of votes was unconstitutional. Bush later ran for re-election against then Senator John Kerry in which he won the race by 286 to 251 electoral votes.

Concerns

Knaul’s preliminary observations highlighted that the JSC – mandated with the appointment, transfer and removal of judges – was unable to perform its constitutional duty adequately in its current form.

Her comment was among a number of preliminary observations on the Maldives’ judiciary and wider legal ecosystem, following an eight day fact-finding mission.

As well as recommendations to address what she said were minimal levels of public “trust” in the nation’s judicial system, Knaul also addressed matters such as the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed – who is currently facing trial for his detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court last year, charges he claims are politically motivated to prevent him from contesting presidential elections later this year.

She also criticised the appointment of judges presiding over the case against former President Mohamed Nasheed, alleging that the set up was made in an “arbitrary manner”.

“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.

Her key concerns included the politicisation of the JSC, flaws and inconsistencies over the independence of the judiciary and lack of transparency and accountability.

“I have heard from numerous sources that the current composition of the JSC is inadequate and politicised. Because of this politicisation, the Commission has been subjected to all sorts of external influence and consequently has been unable to function properly,” Knaul stated.

Knaul said she believed it best for such a body to be composed of retired or sitting judges. She added that it may be advisable for some representation of the legal profession or academics to be included.

However, she maintained that no political representation at all should be allowed in a commission such as the JSC.

“I believe that an appointment body acting independently from both the executive and 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,” Knaul added.

Judicial independence

Knaul stated that upon conclusion of her mission meetings, she had found that the concept of independence of the judiciary has been “misconstrued and misinterpreted” by all actors, including the judiciary itself, in the Maldives.

“The requirement of independence and impartiality does not aim at benefiting the judges themselves, but rather the court users, as part of their inalienable right to a fair trial,” Knaul stated, while emphasising the important role of integrity and accountability in judicial independence, and hence its role in the implementation of the rule of law.

Stating that it is vital to establish mechanisms of accountability for judges, prosecutors and court staff, Knaul said: “Such mechanisms must guarantee that the investigation of any actor in the judicial system safeguards the person’s right to a fair hearing. Investigations should be based on objective criteria, the process should respect the basic principles of a fair trial and an independent review of all decisions should be available.”

Transparency and accountability

“When selection criteria [of judges] used by such a body [as the JSC] are objective, clear, based on merit, transparent and well publicised, public understanding of the process and the basis for the appointment of judges increases, and the perception of unfair selection of appointments can be avoided,” Knaul said.

Knaul also spoke of the lack of transparency in the assignment of cases, 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 stated that while transparency is public administration is an obligatory requirement in a democracy, transparency remains a challenge for the Maldivian judiciary.

Furthermore, Knaul highlighted the absence of some fundamental legislation – including the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act – in the Maldives, adding that this posed huge challenges to upholding the rule of law.

Knaul was appointed to deliver recommendations on potential areas of reform to the Maldives’ legal system, at the 23rd session of the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2013.

Velezinee ruined the JSC: Gasim

Gasim meanwhile alleged that the JSC could not function properly due to then President Mohamed Nasheed’s appointee to the commission, Aishath Velezinee.

Velezinee was an outspoken critic and whistleblower on judicial inconsistencies and lapses. She has consistently maintained that the JSC is complicit in protecting judges appointed under the former 30 year autocracy, colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior supporters of the old regime. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

“At first, the JSC were not able to carry out its duties because of a person called Aishath Velezinee who was appointed to the commission by [President] Nasheed of Canaryge’. She destroyed the whole place. The damage she inflicted on the JSC was so severe that we had to do so much work to bring the place back to order,” he claimed.

Gasim said judiciaries in all countries had problems and that this was not a different case in the Maldives. He also contended in all the countries have to be reformed.

“A person called Gabriela came and met us. She told us there are lots of issues that need to be corrected within the judiciary. Judiciaries in all countries should be reformed. Which country has a judiciary that does not need to be reformed?” Gasim asked.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police Commissioner, Home Minister, refuse to appear before Government Oversight Committee

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has sent a letter to parliament stating that he will not appear before the Government Oversight Committee on advice from Attorney General Azima Shukoor.

In the letter Riyaz said the police accountability did not fall within the mandate of the committee, and that this was rather a responsibility of the National Security Committee established under article 241 of the constitution.

In response, chair of the oversight committee, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed, told local media that the committee will examine the case further with a view to taking action against the police commissioner for refusing to attend the committee.

Ali Waheed noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the parliament committees can summon anyone and that until now, Riyaz and other government officials had accepted this fact and attended parliament committees as requested.

The Government Oversight Committee has summoned Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel and the police commissioner to question them about a previous decision by police to boycott MDP-aligned television station Raajje TV.

The Committee has said it also intends to question the pair about the death of Abdulla Gasim, a bystander who died in motorcycle collision. Police had denied involvement, however CCTV footage of the incident that was subsequently leaked showed a police officer striking a suspect fleeing on a motorcycle with his baton, prior to the fatal collision. Police have defended the officer’s action as in line with regulations.

The Home Minister has meanwhile informed parliament that he cannot attend the committee hearing because he had to attend a cabinet meeting, and said he would then be out of Male’ for the rest of the week.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court extends detention of suspect arrested for attack on Raajje TV journalist

The Criminal Court has extended the detention period of the suspect arrested in connection with the attack on Raajje TV senior journalist Ibrahim Waheed ‘Aswad’.

Police have not officially identified the suspect, however local media reported that the suspect was 21 year-old Ahmed Vishan.

The suspect was arrested on Tuesday while he was at his house and was summoned before the court, which extended his detention by 15 days.

The arrest was initially reported by Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, who informed the public in a tweet that a person had been arrested in what he described as a “murder attempt”.

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 early on Saturday morning.

The attack left him unconscious, and he was transferred to a hospital in Sri Lanka for treatment. Doctors have since said his condition is stable, and that he is recovering.

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

In July 2012, July 2012, 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.

However, no arrests were made in connection to the case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hand foot and mouth disease on the increase in Maldives

Health Protection Agency (HPA) has warned people of the spread of hand, foot and mouth disease in the Maldives, local media has reported.

HPA reported that the number of confirmed hand, foot and mouth disease cases had increased in some regions since January 2013.

The disease normally affects children aged between one and four, and is spread through direct contact with mucus, saliva or faeces of an infected person, local media reported.

According to the HPA, good hygiene is an effective way to prevent the disease. The first symptoms include fever, lack of appetite, fatigue and a sore throat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Rape victims punished, failed by Maldives justice system

The Maldives court on Tuesday sentenced a 15 year-old girl to 100 lashes and eight months’ house arrest, for having pre-marital sex with a man.

At any given time in the Maldives, thousands of female tourists are on the country’s beaches in bikinis, with their male counterparts. Many of them are straight and gay couples, married or unmarried, enjoying sex on rose petal-covered beds in water bungalows. For them, this chain of islands with white beaches and blue shimmering waters is a short escape to heaven.

While they enjoy a piece of paradise on a luxury resort vacation, just a few miles away 300,000 locals face the grim reality of a struggling democracy and increasingly radicalised interpretation of Islam.

Women and girls are bearing the brunt of this. Calling it sheer hypocrisy would be a gross understatement.

The 15 year-old girl  is from Feydhoo island in Shaviyani Atoll, one of the 200 remote islands in the country with less than a thousand inhabitants. She was arrested last year on the island, when police discovered a dead newborn buried in an outdoor shower area in the yard of the house. The investigation uncovered a disturbing yet common reality in the capital and isolated islands of Maldives: sexual abuse.

The girl’s stepfather had been raping her for years. Her mother assisted this gruesome abuse by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to her pain and cries. When the girl became pregnant as a result of rape, they pulled her out of school afraid that the community would find out the family’s dark secret. They waited patiently for nine months, and killed and buried the newborn after delivery.

Soon after the baby’s body was dug up, the parents were arrested and charged with murder and abuse of a minor.

While any authority with professionalism and common sense would be expected to protect a child who has suffered such horrifying abuse and provide help of a psychologist, the Maldives police and prosecutors had a different plan.

On the contrary, the girl was arrested, interrogated and charged with fornication within a few months by the authorities. They claimed that she had confessed to having consensual sex with another man – not the stepfather. The identity of this man, who has not stood up, been found, arrested or charged to this date, remains a mystery.

And yesterday, despite the ongoing debates challenging the legitimacy in pursuing fornication charges against victims of child sexual abuse, the court issued its ruling to flog the girl 100 times. A conviction against her abusive step father, and neglectful mother is still pending.

This case is just the latest in a series of unashamed attempts by the Maldivian Sharia-Common Law based judicial system to punish sexual abuse victims, instead of providing protection and justice.

While, several in and outside the country are taking to the social media to condemn this ruling as morally wrong, cruel, degrading, and a violation of human rights and protection guaranteed to children and victims of sexual abuse under national and international laws, the police who arrested her, the PG office that charged her and the court which sentenced her have not even flinched.

In fact, shortly after reversing its decision to withdraw the fornication charges, the Prosecutor General stated that they have found “no substantial reason to withdraw the charges” and allowed the trial to continue. They repeatedly emphasised the case is “unrelated to the rape”. Furthermore, both the PG and courts repeatedly defended the decision in media, claiming that there is nothing illegal or wrong in this case.

Under Sharia Law, both men and women – adult and children alike – can be punished with 100 lashes and house arrest if they are found guilty of having pre marital sex or adultery. Of course, the tourists are exempted – they are free to have sex, eat pork or drink alcohol as much as they wish, on islands designated as “uninhabited”.

Flogging is the one remaining Islamic Sharia penalties that continues to be practiced in Maldives, despite the century old moratorium on other Shaira penalties such as stoning, capital punishment and cutting off hands. UN Human Right’s Commissioner Navi Pillay and other international organisation’s calls for the moratorium of flogging have been rejected by current and past governments, amid mass protests from conservative factions of society.

As with any other Sharia offence, fornication is only proved with a confession or four witnesses. Notably, ninety percent of those flogged are women, accordig to the 2011 Judicial statistics report. It revealed that out of the 129 sentenced to 100 lashes, 11 were minors – 10 girls and one boy.

However, in 2010, the parliament passed a legislation to prevent corporal punishment  of children in sexual related offences and provide stringent punishments for child abusers, as a response to curb the widespread cases of incest and child molestation in the Maldives: one in seven children is reported to be a victim of sexual abuse. The legislation for the first time paved an easy road for the prosecution of child sexual abuse cases by reducing the Sharia-based burden of proof, which otherwise makes it impossible to prove the sexual offences without a confession or four witnesses.

This legislation, as part of the common law practiced alongside Sharia, set the precedent that no child below 13 can consent to sex and that any sexual relations will be deemed as child abuse. The same law also adds in clause 25 that no child between 13 – 17 can consent to sex either ,”unless proven otherwise”.

It must be noted that hundreds of children have been protected under this law, and several child rapists and abusers have been put behind bars for decades since it came into effect. However, in this specific case, the authorities report that the girl confessed to having consensual sexual relations, and that therefore it cannot be treated as a case of abuse.

But what is highly questionable is the failure by the state to provide a motive that can justify pressing charges against an abused victim, especially a child, with utter disregard to the mental trauma she has suffered in an endless cycle of abuse.

In the past, the court had sentenced a man for abusing a 16 year-old girl. However, the same girl was sentenced to 100 lashes and house arrest after being found guilty of confessing to having consensual sex with the same man who was found to have abused her. This conflicting ruling, stands out as clear evidence that fornication charges against minors in sexual abuse cases are being pursued by authorities, simply because its legally possible to do so with a confession, regardless of whether the victim is abused or not.

In the face of growing international pressure over such incidents, the government claimed in media that it would review and “correct” laws that victimise young women and minors who have suffered sexual abuse. However, no information was made public of any such attempts apart from this public condemnation.

Another issue worth noting is also the significantly low rape convictions in cases where the rape victim is an adult. Annual judicial statistics report show that in past three years, zero cases of rape have reached a positive verdict. This year alone, three rape cases have been reported,while 1 in 3 women aged between 15 – 49 are found to be victim of physical or sexual abuse – a statistic that is a reminder of a justice system that is failing women in every way possible.

According to Human Rights Lawyer Mohamed Anil, rape is defined as ‘forced fornication’ in the currently practiced outdated laws. The aforementioned legislation provides special provisions in child abuse cases, however, he explained, rape and sexual assault victims aged 18 or above, are denied justice because of the Sharia’s burden of proof – confession of the rapist or four male witnesses – is required to prove fornication, whether forced or consensual.

A state prosecutor once commented that proving rape is “next to impossible” despite the most prudent investigations, because the only two kinds of admissible evidence is never available. Both lawyers have said that this cannot be changed unless the amended penal code – which includes rape as an offence-  is passed by the parliament, where it had been stuck for more than half a decade.

Alternatively, the parliament could pass the sexual offences bill submitted by MP Mohamed Nasheed. This bill defines actions to be taken against specific types of sexual offences, including rape, spousal rape, prostitution, sexual trafficking, bestiality and incest etc. While submitting the bill, Nasheed echoed the immense need for an updated legislation to deal with the modern day sexual offences to bridge the shortcomings, especially related to proof and evidence and leniency in the current legal structure.

Meanwhile, in recent years reports of infanticide and baby dumping have increased to alarming levels, as women and underage girls – including those who become pregnant as a consequence of rape – are forced to take desperate measures, such as self-induced abortions, infanticide or leaving babies abandoned. Such was the case with the 15 year old girl in question.

With an unforgiving system and laws stating that is a punishable offence to give birth outside of marriage, driven by a thirst to punish the victims rather than protect them, victims find themselves alone, helpless and forced to remain silent.

These are just a small fraction of the many deep-rooted gender issues in the justice system of Maldives, that ripple outward from the branches of justice system into the entire society.

In her recent visit to Maldives, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers issued a statement in which she commented “all members of the justice system should be sensitised to gender equality and women’s rights to make access to justice a reality for women in the Maldives.”

She also also expressed concern over low representation of women in the judiciary. There are currently no women sitting on the Supreme Court and only eight women sitting in the High Court, the Superior Courts and the Magistrate Courts. It is arguable that the gender issues in the system are arising due to lack of a diverse representation in the court benches and decision-making bodies.

When women and girls are stripped off their dignity and rights for having sex or being raped, it is not an issue that can be simply ignored. Meaningful action is needed by the authorities to remove the gender issues through legal and structural reforms, and prevent the culture of impunity currently enjoyed by sadistic perpetrators such as rapists and child molesters.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Comment: What case, if there is no Judge Abdulla?

This article was first published in Ceylon Today on 27 February 2013, and is reproduced with the permission of the author.

President Mohamed Nasheed is being prosecuted, accused of using the military to remove ‘Chief Judge of the Maldives Criminal Court’. Found guilty, Nasheed will lose the chance to contest elections; and the public will lose the first consistent voice for democratic change for nearly a quarter of a century.

On 17 January 2011, Abdulla Mohamed, who sat as Chief Judge of Criminal Court, was forcibly “removed” by the military. Political opponents of Nasheed, all once linked to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, quickly screamed foul, praised “Top Judge Ablow”, wreaked havoc on Male’ streets, damaged public property in nightly riots, and by 7 February had co-opted the security forces in a drama that unfolded live on local media.

This Criminal Court, which in fact was the ‘subject’ of the political crisis, had kept the nightly ‘vigil’ for “Judge Ablow”, systematically releasing detainees and helping to sustain numbers out on the streets. Those released praised Allah on social media, their release a sign that victory was theirs and God was with them.

To the familiar eye, the crowd of no more than 300 to 400 people who came out nightly were easily identifiable. Leading opposition politicians, MPs, recognised gang activists, and petty criminals. Many had cases before the Criminal Court or had appeared before ”Judge Ablow” on some criminal allegation. They were joined by former security personnel ‘retired’ during the government transition and a few serving policemen adorned in pink t-shirts. With them was sitting member of the Judicial Service Commission – business tycoon, MP and presidential candidate Qasim Ibrahim – and Chair of the JSC’s Parliamentary Oversight Committee, MP Mohamed (Kutti) Nasheed. It certainly was not the ‘public’, as public would be defined in a democratic state.

I watched these unfolding scenes, stunned, as my fears were confirmed.

To all outward appearance, however, President Nasheed had faulted. He had, it seemed, interfered in the business of the independent judiciary, an area strictly forbidden to the executive.

The international community, wary of domestic politics and players, is cautious not to be seen as interfering in a matter of rule of law. Due process, while reiterating the importance of free and fair, inclusive elections, is the mantra of the democratic international community.

The sitting government echoes back the words: ‘rule of law’, ‘due process’. Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, who served in President Gayoom’s cabinet as Justice Minister during the transitional years and was personally involved in selecting many of the sitting judges, is one of the loudest voices insisting on ‘rule of law’.

What is not obvious to the casual observer, or understood by distinguished members of the international community, is that while the government and the international community voice the same words, they may not have a shared understanding of the concepts so familiar to democracies that they do not even think to question how another may be using or abusing it. What is forgotten, it seems, is that the Maldives never was a democratic state, but is a state in transition.

The Maldives’ judiciary, unlike in Sri Lanka or even Egypt, has never been independent. The Constitution introduced the concept of an “Independent Judiciary” with requirements upon the state to appoint a new judiciary within two years, and 15 years transitional provision to develop it.

Hence, the suggestion that Nasheed interfered in the judiciary holds true only if built upon certain assumptions, such as the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a legitimate judge appointed through due process.

If this assumption – the premise for the case against President Nasheed – stands, if indeed he had disregarded due process, interfered in the judiciary, and physically removed Chief Judge of the Criminal Court from duty, President Nasheed must stand trial. Rule of law must not be disregarded for President Nasheed, Abdulla Mohamed, or myself, and must prevail in all instances for democracy to take root.

Having said that, what if that premise does not hold true?

What if Abdulla Mohamed, who had become a household name with frequent reports of his irregularities in the media and public speeches against President Nasheed and his government, was placed as Chief Judge of Criminal Criminal Court without due diligence or due process?

What if the Judicial Service Commission, backed by President Nasheed’s powerful opposition, had indeed breached the Constitution and corrupted the judiciary in an elaborate scam to deceive Maldivian citizens and the international community? What if Abdulla Mohamed is indeed unfit to sit as a judge?

What if, apart from the criminal conviction for hate speech and disrupting public order – on record before Abdulla Mohamed was first appointed a judge in 2005 – there is truth to the claims that Abdulla Mohamed systematically works with organised crime, “launders” criminals and is likely being blackmailed?

What if there is truth to reports that certain influential MPs are linked to organised crime, and Abdulla Mohamed is kept Chief of Criminal Court by the power and influence of these criminal elements in parliament?

Of course none of these questions will rise anew with the trial of President Nasheed, had they not existed or been raised before.

Questions on constitution breach by the Judicial Service Commission, and the constitutionality of Abdulla Mohamed’s reappointment, together with the reappointment of all other men and women sitting as judges prior to ratification of the Constitution, is a matter pending inquiry in parliament since 2010.

The Parliamentary Oversight Committee for Independent Commissions first summoned the JSC on 2 August 2010, following months of appeal, and after I went public with information pointing to high treason in the JSC.

The summons from parliament to the JSC clearly stated the inquiry was in relation to complaints filed by myself, leaving no doubt that the committee was finally ready to inquire into the matter.

However, the committee sitting, telecast live, turned out to be a farce, a clever cover-up, a signal for the JSC and ‘judges’ to go ahead. The scandalous three-hour sitting centered on allowing then JSC Chair Mujthaaz Fahmy to air his story, a story that he has no evidence to back, and a story I could easily disprove with the documents and audio evidence I had brought to the committee.

Not only did the parliament committee deem it unnecessary to hear my evidence, they decided I was not to speak at all after my initial response to Chair Fahmy’s statement, declaring “all members have equal opportunity to speak” – ie, once. Chair Fahmy and Vice Chair, the late MP Dr Afraashim Ali, responded on behalf of the Commission.

That the matter was a disagreement in the JSC, and the fact that I stood against the Commission, was irrelevant to the MPs. In fact, the DRP and current PPM MPs took the opportunity to ridicule, slander and attack me, and praise the JSC Chair and Vice Chairs’ perjury while I sat gagged. The only other member to join me in noting the Chair was committing perjury was member of the general public appointed by Parliament, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman.

Attorney General Husnu Al-Suood, who also sat as a member of JSC, remained silent.

MDP MPs were of little help. Not having given time to review the evidence they were either not fluent enough with the subject to see the JSC was committing perjury, or not interested in entering a battle where a sure win was far from guaranteed given the balance of power in the Committee and in Parliament.

The JSC session with the committee ended not with a conclusion on the issue, but having run out of time. Committee rules did not permit a further extension. The Chair quickly closed the sitting as one MP noted the issue of Article 285 was a very serious matter and was to be investigated.

The JSC, for its part, fabricated a “legal reasoning on Article 285”, organised a press conference unknown to Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman and myself, and made a statement attacking and defaming me in what was supposedly their legal reasoning.

In 24 hours, the judges took a ceremonial ‘symbolic’ oath without check or scrutiny in a ceremony that shocked the entire nation as unexpected live footage of it appeared. It was a moment that replayed continuously on all local TV stations for the next 72 hours, and has been repeated often since. The video footage raised serious doubts in the public.

Questioned by the media immediately after the now infamous oath, parliament made a statement to the effect that the Article 285 inquiry was pending while Legal Counsel Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi reviewed the matter.

However, all was forgotten within the week, as “political dialogue” encouraged by the international community diffused the situation.

The suspension of the interim Supreme Court ended with the appointment of a politically-agreed Supreme Court, and the constitution compromised. On the bench among others of dubious integrity sits the said Legal Counsel Dr.Ahmed Abdulla Didi, who, despite not qualifying even after an unusual amendment to the Judiciary Act hours after its ratification, was approved by Parliament in the same sitting that amended the Act.

The question of Article 285 was forgotten except for my continued ‘rants’. Repeated calls for an inquiry went unheeded despite an International Commission of Jurists report in February 2011, noting both substantive and procedural issues in the JSCs’ actions regarding Article 285.

Repeated concerns on the JSC acting against Constitution and State, the runaway judiciary, the  politicisation of judges, and specifically the JSCs’ cover-up of Abdulla Mohamed and his threat to national security reported in communications to parliament and shared with military intelligence, were ignored. Nor was there any action against me by parliament or the court, all keeping silent on the subject.

If, there is any substance in what I repeat, wherein is rule of law or justice in the trial of President Nasheed?

The real questions in the Maldives case are not about Judge Abdulla Mohamed or the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court. It is a battle centred around the Constitution; its meaningful execution and state building. It is a tug of war between President Nasheed, who attempted the judicial reform required by Constitution, and his opposition intent on preventing fulfillment of Article 285 and retaining their handpicked judges. Abdulla Mohamed is a shield.

Today, the future of the Maldives’ democracy is more than ever dependent on the goodwill, wisdom and diplomatic skills of the international community. The trial of President Nasheed is a standoff where a domestic resolution is out of the question.

Try President Nasheed, and myself too, but not without trust in the judiciary and the guarantee of a free and fair trial. Will the international community guarantee there is no aberration of justice in the name of democracy, rule of law and justice?

Velezinee served on the Maldives’ Judicial Service Commission (April 2009-May 2011) and is the author of ‘The failed silent coup: in defeat they reached for the gun‘ published in August 2012.

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)

Media needs to introduce “peace journalism”: MP Nasheed

Former Legal Reform Minister MP Mohamed Nasheed has recommended Maldives-based journalists introduce “peace reporting” in order to stop violence against local media.

Nasheed claimed that the Maldives media is exploited by politicians to a great extent and that reporters needed to start looking at the similarities between politicians as opposed to their differences, the Sun Online news agency reported.

The Kulhudhuffushi-south MP told local media that a new kind of “peace journalism” should be introduced into the system as the level of rivalry, anger and hatred that exists in the Maldives is too much for people to endure.

“One thing journalists can do is introduce peace journalism, promote peace journalism.

“Instead of making a big deal out of the differences between two people, and spreading information about those differences in the society – they could present the similarities. We should go for peaceful journalism,” Nasheed was quoted as saying in local media.

Nasheed claimed that political leaders prepare quotations in certain ways in order to make the headlines and therefore exploit journalists.

“There is a limit even to political influence. There is a limit to how much journalists can be exploited to obtain political advantages.

“If all journalists unite and establish certain policies, politicians will have no choice but to follow those policies,” Nasheed told Sun Online.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)