Month: February 2013

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)

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)