Month: April 2013

First time entire panel of judges have ganged up on a chief judge after a verdict: Nasheed’s lawyer

Member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed concern over the case filed against the Chief Judge of High Court, Ahmed Shareef.

The judges filed the case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the High Court’s decision to issue a stay order on the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed’s legal team had appealed the decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejecting their request to delay the trial of the former President until the end of the presidential election on September 2013, in which Nasheed is contesting on behalf of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The team also contested the legitimacy of the panel of the judges appointed to hear the case.

Nasheed is currently being tried in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Following the appeal, the High Court ordered the magistrate court to halt the former president’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The Hulhumale Magistrate Court subsequently suspended all trials concerning the arrest of judge.

Last Wednesday, eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed a case against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef at the JSC challenging the decision and claiming that the chief judge had issued the order arbitrarily.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News that the commission had received a “letter” from eight judges of High Court regarding Judge Shareef. However, he declined to provide any details of the case.

However, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency –  argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They also claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended.

The former minister said it was very concerning to see all the judges of High Court teaming up against the chief judge and taking the matter to the JSC following the decision.

The JSC is mandated with the oversight, appointment and discipline of judges, and was also responsible for both creating the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and controversially appointing the panel of judges overseeing the Nasheed trial.

The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim.

Latheef alleged that two out of the eight High Court Judges who had filed the case against the chief judge had also acted in a similar manner, but no complaint had been filed.

He also questioned the motive behind the filing of the case at the JSC – which is mandated with oversight of appointing judges and looking into their disciplinary issues – arguing that the JSC was the one of respondents in the appeal case.

Owing to the fact that the case of the chief judge is being looked into by the JSC who is a party to the case, Latheef cast doubt as to whether justice would be served in the court case.

“Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case,” Latheef said.

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

He also questioned as to why the High Court judges had not rebelled against an order issued by a single judge, invalidating a Civil Court order halting a police raid on the MDP protest camp in May 2012.

On May 31, 2012 the Civil Court ordered to halt to the dismantling of the Usfasgandu site by the security forces, after police had obtained a search warrant from the Criminal Court on the grounds that the MDP had been using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

However, the High Court the following day – which happened to be a Friday and not a government working day – overturned the Civil Court order. The order was similarly issued by a single High Court judge.

Latheef criticised the court’s inconsistency and alleged the courts were giving selective justice depending on who had filed the case.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“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, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bahrain Telecommunications Company acquires majority share in Dhiraagu

Bahrain Telecomunications Company (Batelco) has acquired the majority share of Dhivehi Raajjeyge Gulhun Public Limited (Dhiraagu), the largest telecommunications service provider in the Maldives, Dhiraagu announced Wednesday (April 3).

Previously, Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC), a British multinational telecommunications company, was the majority shareholder of Dhiraagu. Batelco purchased a majority of assets in Monaco & Islands Business Unit from CWC, resulting in its owning 52 percent of Dhiraagu shares.

Dhiraagu’s board of directors was altered following the purchase. The company’s leadership now includes Ibrahim Athif Shakoor as Chairperson and Government Director, and Ismail Waheed as CEO and Managing Director.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP dismisses prospect of power-sharing coalition

Senior figures of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) including former President Mohamed Nasheed have said that sharing cabinet positions among different political parties will not result in an efficient government in the Maldives.

The party’s stand on coalitions come at a time where President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) and other smaller political parties have claimed that the September 7 elections can only be won through a broad coalition of political parties.

Last week, President Waheed announced plans to form a coalition between his party and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP), ahead of the presidential elections.

Meanwhile President Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) has also announced its plans to join Waheed’s GIP and back for the president’s re-election.

The three parties are among the eight political parties currently comprising of an informal coalition backing President Waheed’s government, following his controversial ascension to power on February 7, 2012 after the sudden resignation of President Nasheed.

Coalitions result in weak governments: Nasheed

Speaking during a party gathering of his own party MDP on Tuesday evening, President Nasheed stated that leaders of political parties had learned “bitter lessons” surrounding the inability to run a government by sharing cabinet positions among different political parties over the last four years.

“A cabinet in which one minister belongs to this party and another belongs to that party, cannot run a government,” he said.

Nasheed said he could not understand the relationship between national development and political coalition, reflecting on the coalition of parties currently involved with President Waheed, which he described as not a real cabinet but rather a mixture of individuals with different political ideologies.

Highlighting the developments that took place his post-resignation, the former President said the UN had urged his party MDP to join the government of President Waheed, but the MDP refused to the offer because it did not see how development could be brought to the country at a table with people who lacked commitment in coming to common terms.

“I want the people of this country to remember that, when there is word of coalition, it means of forming a weak government,” said the former president.

Nasheed defeated former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the second round of the 2008 election under the “Wathan Edhey Gothah” coalition. The MDP steadily shed its coalition partners during its term in office, falling out with the DQP, business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP), the Adhaalath Party and President Waheed’s GIP.

The Wathan Edhey Gothah Alliance was short lived and almost all parties left the government within the first two years. Gasim Ibrahim left the government within 21 days while the DQP left within the first four months.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said it was an uphill task to run a stable government with political parties of different views, and stressed that political stability was pivotal for development and attracting foreign investment.

Common political ideology not political positions

Chairperson of the MDP MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik echoed similar sentiments claiming that the MDP could not work with political parties which demanded political positions first hand.

However, Moosa said the MDP would welcome colleagues who had sincerity and commitment to an MDP-led government’s policies.

“There is no place in the MDP for those who come to us and demand a package of four cabinet positions, 12 judges, three warehouses and the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA). But it doesn’t mean all doors are closed for those parties interested in working under a common political ideology,” Manik said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP, MP Ali Waheed, argued that coalitions would not work in presidential systems such as in the Maldives.

“We don’t need to divide government portfolios among political parties. Even MDP should not do that by saying that it is an MDP alliance. That is not how we can run the country. Youth Minister from a different sect, the Finance Minister in a different sect, the Islamic Minister in a different sect and the Economic Minister keeps his eyes closed. Is that a cabinet? You cannot call that a cabinet,” said Ali Waheed.

Ali Waheed argued that cabinet ministers should hold common views with the President in charge, and should follow the president’s plans and policies.

Elect one political ideology, not a mixture

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP spokesperson MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy said coalitions do not work in a proper presidential system and that it would be better for the country to have a single political party with a single political ideology to govern the country rather than a group of parties with different views on issues.

He also contended that sometimes a coalition may limit proper representation of people where a smaller political party is given larger political portfolios in the government.

“For example with this government, the Adhaalath Party does not have even a single seat in parliament nor does it control any local council. But they are given several cabinet portfolios, so it is not actually representing the people,” he said.

Fahmy contended that if the country was to see fast development and a stable economy it needed to adopt a stable government.

“If people are electing a government, they should vote for a single ideology. Especially in presidential systems it does not work like that because the government is not formed from the parliament,” he added.

Meanwhile speaking to Minivan News previously, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of government aligned Dhivehi Rayythunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom said the word coalition was “not very meaningful in the Maldives”.

Mausoom at the time suggested that legislation would be required to enforce coalition arrangements before they could become a serious feature of Maldivian politics. DRP had previously argued that the current alliance of political parties in support of President Waheed as a national-unity government rather than a coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: To boycott or not to boycott

This article was first published on Ethicaltraveler.org. Republished with permission.

Ethical travel as a concept is now common discourse, with travelers increasingly asking now they can minimise the impact they have on local communities, as well as expressing growing interest in volunteerism and working with communities to enact change. Travelers hold a unique position of economic power over the whole tourism supply chain – transport, accommodation, hospitality and other vital aspects of many burgeoning economies. Tourism boycotts are a common and somewhat popular way to cash in on this power.

Avaaz, an international advocacy and campaigning community, has recently realised this potential in a campaign in the Maldvies against an outdated law that has led to a 15-year-old rape victim being sentenced to 100 lashes. The Maldives rely heavily on tourism, and the fact that nearly two million people have signed this petition shows the potential power that tourists have. The Maldives’ former president Mohamed Nasheed recognised this potential when he asked for a tourism boycott last year, telling the UK Financial Times newspaper that tourists visiting the country would just be bankrolling an illegitimate government.

The idea of shunning a country is far from new. Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi called for a tourism boycott of her country in 1999, arguing that tourism is “a form of moral support for [the military regime]…they seem to look on the influx of tourists as proof that their actions are accepted by the world.”

This decade-long boycott was declared ”over” in late 2010 following a statement from the National League for Democracy, the Burmese political opposition party led by Suu Kyi. In 2011, Survival International called for a boycott of Botswana following the closure of a local waterhole essential to the Bushmen at the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. This boycott was only lifted when the Bushman won the legal case and the borehole was reopened after nine years.

Sometimes the proposed tourism boycott is just for a particular area or a particular company. Environmentalists are calling for a tourist season boycott of a New Jersey shore town in the USA over the local council’s decision to use tropical hardwood to rebuild their boardwalk.

Harpseals.org pushes for a Canadian tourism boycott in a bid to end seal hunting. British tourists are being asked to boycott Thai elephant camps, something international animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) has strongly supported. Dutch journalist Jos van Noord called for a boycott of Egypt and other Arab countries last year in order to stop violence against local Christians. However, Arab-West Report argues that this tourism boycott will only hurt Christians, saying the international travel community should instead be working to promote and reinvigorate tourism in the Middle East as so much of the local economy relies on this trade.

Last year’s arrest and conviction of the first gay hotel owners in Granada, Nicaragua, has “prompted some members of the gay community to boycott Nicaragua tourism,” according to The Nicaragua Dispatch. The authorities claim that the Belgian men were exploiting minors; however supporters insist that the foreigners were targeted because of their sexual orientation. The town has already seen a drop in local tourism, although it is unclear whether this is a result of the boycott or of fear.

Back in the Maldives, recently dismissed Chinese employees of the Beach House Iruveli resort have claimed discrimination against staff and tourists from China. Initial reports suggest that, following an eruption of such claims through Chinese social media networks several potential tourists from that nation are concerned and reluctant to make reservations – not just with the resort but in the Maldives in general.

But do tourism boycotts actually achieve anything?

Corporate Ethics International’s Michael Max argues that “boycotts don’t have to reduce the number of tourists to be successful… The reality is that the mere awareness of a boycott causes the target constituency and its supporters to attend more to criticism of their government’s or companies’ policies and inevitably they become more aware of the legitimacy of the criticism.”

Travel consultant David Beirman, however, told Australia’s The Sydney Morning Herald in 2007 that boycotts can be counterproductive as they hurt local people who rely on an income from tourism. This argument was widely used during the Burma boycott; Lonely Planet co-founder Tony Wheeler was particularly vocal in encouraging travel to the insulated nation over the past decade.

Should travelers adhere to calls for boycotts?

Travel, particularly ethical travel, is a highly personal journey. Traveling exposures us to new ideas and concepts. By opening ourselves to these experiences, we will undoubtedly be faced with difficult moral and ethical decisions. Ethical travelers have a duty to make themselves aware of these issues and to act both appropriately and responsibly.

The best advice is to ensure that you are well informed of the political, social, and economic contexts of your destination before you travel, and make your own decision about whether you want your hard-earned cash to support that particular institution or regime. Wherever possible, try to support local businesses.

“We live in a wonderful world that is full of beauty, charm and adventure. There is no end to the adventures we can have if only we seek them with our eyes open.”

– Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India

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)

New financial restrictions on tourism development exclude small and medium-scale investors: developer

An island owner involved in the country’s burgeoning mid-market holiday sector has slammed new regulations imposing financial restrictions on tourism joint venture projects with the government, claiming the legislation outright excludes small and medium-scale investors.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the island owner alleged that the recently implemented amendments to the Tourism Act served to “shut the door” on small and medium-sized investors.

The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture told Minivan News that the regulations were required in order to ensure future developments in the country were financially viable and that investors could guarantee a project’s completion.

However, the regulation is expected to favour much larger-scale investment projects such as resorts, to the detriment of mid-market tourism, claimed the island owner.

“The real issue here would be that only those with very high net worth can be venture partners with government. Very, very few tycoons are in that wealth bracket,” the source said.

“[Former President] Nasheed’s government tried to be inclusive in offering business opportunities. This regulation is exclusive and shuts the door for medium to small-size investors to partner with the government.”

Joint venture regulation

Published in the Government Gazette Volume 42, number 17 – dated January 28, 2013 – the regulation requires any joint venture partner working with the state on a tourism projects to have a minimum financial worth of US$300 million  and make a minimum initial capital investment of at least US$100 million.

The regulation, entitled the “Procedure to Follow Where the Government Undertakes Joint Venture Investment in Islands or Land”, allows a company with at least a 10 percent share held by the state to develop a resort from land set aside for tourism use, such as a picnic island.

Land used for water sports or diving would also be included once the lease for the area is acquired by a joint venture company.

“Notwithstanding that section five of the Maldives Tourism Act states that islands and land for development as tourist resorts shall be leased to the party that submits the best-qualified bid in respect of such islands or land in accordance with pre-established procedures in a public tender held by the Ministry of Tourism; the same section states that those Islands or land in which the Government makes an investment wholly or in joint venture shall be exempted from the Procedure provided therein,” the regulation reads.

“Therefore the object of this procedure is to determine the procedure to follow in that prescribed exemption status. Uninhabited islands or land may be leased to a company created under a joint venture with the Government for tourist resorts, tourist hotels and marinas development pursuant to this Procedure.”

An unofficial English translation of the regulation can be read here.

Development safeguards

Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture Ahmed Adheeb told Minivan News this week that the regulation was needed to safeguard future resort development, claiming opportunities would continue to exist for small and medium investors in the tourism sector through sectors such as guest-houses and safari boats.

With what he called a “limited” number of islands presently available in the country to be developed as resort properties – a major earner for the Maldives government both in terms of lease payments and Tourism Goods and Services Tax (T-GST) – Adheeb said the regulation was already bringing in large-scale investment.

“We already have a Qatar-based group interested in the resort business here and they have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on this,” he said. “We are now looking to find a suitable location for them.”

Adheeb claimed the legislation was particularly important considering the  number of pending tourism development projects approved under the former government that failed to be completed – resulting in an overall loss to the country’s economy as a result. He said that the regulation approved back in January would ensure a more “strategic” solution to finding investment partners to ensure financial returns on tourism projects.

Adheeb said that the regulations applied to land such picnic islands that were effectively being used “almost as a resort”, such as areas licensed to serve alcohol to tourists, something not allowed on islands designated as “inhabited”.

“The only difference [to these islands] is that tourists cannot sleep there for the night,” he said. “Now they can stay there the night, but [operators] have to pay land rent. It is to stop the concept from being abused.”

The tourism minister said that picnic islands open to the Maldivian public would not be affected by the regulation and would continue to be accessed and used by local people.

“Picnic island”

Speaking to Minivan News, former Tourism Minister Dr Mariyam Zulfa said the concept of a “picnic island” dated back to the 30-year rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

She said the Gayoom administration had opted to lease islands either for tourism – such as through the development of exclusive resort properties – or tourism-related purposes.

While islands leased for tourism went through a bidding process, land provided for tourism related purposes was said to have been provided on an “ad hoc” basis at the tourism ministry’s discretion, according to Dr Zulfa.

“These were often leased for the purposes of day picnics for tourists, safe harbours and other ancillary facilities of resorts,” she stated. “These islands were only for the use of those persons allowed by the leaseholder (and not available for public use). These islands came to be known as ‘picnic islands’, leased by the Ministry of Tourism.”

Dr Zulfa claimed that the method of providing land for tourism related purposes during the Gayoom-era meant that there had been a lack of regulation for how much an individual party paid to lease such islands.

“Originally these were leased at rates that were not based on a uniform formula and it was very difficult to justify as to why one party had an island for, say US$2,000  a month and others for double that or sometimes more,” she added.

“What has happened traditionally is that some of the leaseholders started building rooms on some of these islands for tourists and very soon some islands became, for all intents and purposes, a tourist resort but without being registered as one and of course without being registered for the taxes that were attached to tourist resorts.”

Under the Nasheed government, Zulfa claimed the former administration attempted to introduce “a fair and just” formula allowing “picnic islands” to be converted legally into tourist resorts at the leaseholder’s request in partnership with the government.

“Thus the uniform formula of US $600,000 per square hectare and all the other conditions were stipulated in our regulations and picnic island lease holders were invited to become legal – if they so required, and without involving the bidding process. These islands are very different to islands leased by other ministries as tourism legislation – and tourism tax, I might add – applies only to islands leased by the Tourism Ministry.”

She added that land leased for public purposes such as picnics by other ministries would not be affected by the Tourism Act.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed to speak at University of Copenhagen

Former President Mohamed Nasheed speaking at a Sustainability Lecture organised by the University of Copenhagen on the 16th of April 2013.

According to a statement from Nasheed’s office, for former President will outline the dangers posed to the Maldives by climate change, and explain how the world can build a carbon neutral global economy by focusing on the opportunities provided by clean technology, “in order to defeat climate change and overcome the fossil fuel interests trying to prevent progress.”

The University of Copenhagen invites speakers to pass on their experiences and opinions on how to approach challenges concerning sustainability.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Authorities unwilling to see me contest election, Nasheed tells Foreign Policy

Until last year, Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed was best known for his high-profile advocacy on behalf of small island nations in climate change talks, which included high-profile stunts like holding a cabinet meeting underwater and starring in an acclaimed documentary, writes Joshua Keating for Foreign Policy magazine.

But political reality got in the way in March of last year when he was, he claims, forced from power in a coup.

With all this going on, FP spoke with Nasheed on Wednesday by phone from his office in Male.

FP: Do you believe that you will be able to contest this year’s presidential elections?

Mohamed Nasheed: I don’t think it is certain yet at all. I don’t see the authorities here being willing to accept that. They know they cannot win if we contest. I am unfinished business, because they have to finish me off for their coup to be successful. So there may not let me contest at all.

FP: So what will happen in Maldives if you can’t run?

MN: There’s been a lot of hope among the younger generation that this country can change, that we can change our government though peaceful political activity and through the ballot and not through brute force. A fair amount of people have invested a lot of their life on trying to bring these changes. When they see it vanishing into thin air, there’s bound to be a backlash.

FP: In another recent interview you said, “Usually in a coup you kill the other man, but in this instance I remain an irritant to them.” Does that imply that you fear for your safety?

MN: There are always so many rumors going on in Male. Recently we’ve heard the that the Artur brothers from Armenia, who have a history in Kenya, have been in the Maldives. [The Artur brothers are alleged drug smugglers and hitmen from Armenia who have been implicated in a number of crimes in Kenya. Prime Minister Raila Odinga has accused them of a plot to assassinate him.] The police have commented on it and there’s a very big scheme. There are all sorts of reports coming out related to these too people. There are always reports of murder attempts. Always reports of threats.

Full story

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Kandooma Resort signs up to provide water plant to local island

Kandooma Resort in Kaafu Atoll today signed an agreement to provide a 30 tonne water plant to the local island of Guraidhoo as part of a MVR1.5 million (US$97,600) investment by the company.

Resort management signed an agreement with Maldives Water and Sewerage Company (MWSC) to move forward with the project, which is expected to be completed by year end, according to the Sun Online.

Guraidhoo Council President Hussain Yameen today praised the efforts of the resort in providing funding for the plant, local media reported.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sea turtle killing threatening Maldives’ dolphin-safe tuna certification

The Maldives is at risk of losing its dolphin safe tuna certification, while fishing vessels will be banned from delivering tuna for export if they participate in sea turtle killing.

A recent report by Minivan News found that the practice of slaughtering sea turtles is widespread throughout the Maldives due to lack of enforcement and poor awareness, and prevailing attitudes that the practice is acceptable.

A marine biologist and former civil servant with knowledge of the matter told Minivan News that the killing of endangered sea turtles was a nationwide problem.

“I know for a fact there are still specific island communities that harvest and consume green turtle meat. For example, in Laamu Atoll there are good nesting sites. Sea turtle meat is sold for a high price because it is marketed as a substitute for beef,” he said.

The marine biologist stated that the vessel in a photo published by Minivan News showing a large number of slaughtered sea turtles was “very obviously a diving dhoni”.

This, he said, raised the possibility that Maldivians were supplying resorts and/or safari boats with sea turtle meat for the consumption of guests.

The large number of slaughtered turtles on the boat also indicated that they were taken from a special nesting beach with a high nesting intensity.

“If it is nesting season there are many female turtles in the water and on the beach, and they can be easily caught,” the marine biologist stated.

Meanwhile, a safari boat operator who contacted Minivan News forwarded a photo showing half a dozen dead sea turtles, including one being ridden by a small Maldivian child. The source informed Minivan News that the photo was taken during a picnic last year on Thulhaadhoo in Baa Atoll, inside the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

Dolphin safe certification threatened

The international non-governmental organisation (NGO) that provides the Maldives with its ‘dolphin safe’ tuna certification, the Earth Island Institute (EII), has expressed alarm over the reports of mass turtle slaughter in the Maldives.

“No dhoni (boat) that fishes tuna for export can be allowed to be involved in sea turtle kills. Any tuna dhoni that also kills sea turtles will automatically be banned from delivering tuna to any Maldives processor for tuna export,” Earth Island Institute Associate Director Mark Berman told Minivan News.

He explained the EII’s dolphin safe policy requires that “no tuna company will deal in sea turtles, sharks, dolphins, whales, or their products. All efforts to minimise bycatch of these species is mandatory”.

“Each company in the Maldives, including those owned by the government, are signatories to the policy, therefore the government must do its best to stop this slaughter,” Berman stated.

Maldivian tuna is a “premium” product for the European and US markets because it is pole and line caught (no nets are allowed), there is no bycatch, and because it is dolphin safe and sustainable.

Berman emphasised that the EII will work with the Maldivian government and tuna industry to help stop the practice of turtle killing.

“I am very concerned and surprised this sea turtle [slaughter] problem has grown.

“The EII is not at all blaming the tuna industry or the government for this issue. We want to help solve it,” said Berman. “Earth Island has been a partner of the Maldivian tuna industry, friend of the government, and has campaigned for sustainable dolphin safe tuna exports for over 20 years.”

“However, other NGOs will see this issue and then attach it to any products exported [from the Maldives]. Then consumers in the US or Europe may tie the two together,” he warned.

Berman said the Fisheries Ministry need to alert fishing boat owners, while the EII would inform tuna companies.

“The government should do everything possible to educate the fishing folks that this is a serious problem both for fisheries and tourism. Also, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) could weigh in on the situation,” said Berman.

However the marine biologist told Minivan News that EII was not genuinely concerned with dolphin-friendly advocacy, and instead “have their own political agenda which is very business related and selfish”.

“Some countries are much worse than the Maldives but EII still gives them dolphin-safe certification,” he said.

EII has been working with the Maldivian government as well as fishing and processing companies since 1992. The Maldives was the second nation to sign onto EII’s dolphin safe policy.

“No direct linkages with turtle capture and the fishing industry”: Fisheries Ministry

Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu told Minivan News the Ministry had launched an investigation based on the recent report of mass sea turtle slaughter.

“It is very unlikely it is a tuna fishing boat. There are no direct linkages with turtle capture and the fishing industry,” Shafeeu stated. “Based on the photo it appears to be a normal ferry boat, which looks like it may once upon a time have been used as a dive or safari boat.”

“Just because a group of people have done something [illegal], the entire fishing industry can’t be blamed for breaking the law and committing a crime,” he added.

Shafeeu said the Fisheries Ministry is working the the Maldives’ Marine Research Center (MRC) to stop sea turtle slaughter.

“The MRC Director General Dr Shiham Adam is engaging directly with island councils to investigate.

“Also, Shiham and I are discussing how to fill the legal gaps, such as banning collection of sea turtle eggs. The current regulations are vague and do not apply nationwide – collecting eggs is prohibited only on specific islands,” said Shafeeu.

The Fisheries Ministry is also coordinating with the Environment Ministry to “determine how to start an [awareness] campaign”.

Monitoring fishing vessels directly was very difficult, but fishing boats did require registration and licensing in order to sell tuna.

Given that monitoring is such a challenge, the government needs Maldivian citizens to report any unlawful actions, Shafeeu said.

“We expect that when sea turtle killing occurs, someone will report it to us or directly to the police so it can be investigated,” he said.

“Even with the councils, they just keep a blind eye, so these things continue. People need to know we are serious and won’t just let go of this issue, it is our responsibility to take action,” he declared.

The marine biologist meanwhile explained that environmental law in the Maldives provides an umbrella framework, but only on paper.

“There has been a total ban on killing and catching sea turtles since 2006. However, as environmental crime is not appreciated in the Maldives, enforcement needs to be strengthened,” he emphasised.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)