A car lost control and flipped over while traveling at high speed in Hithadhoo, Addu City today (May 27), reports local media.
The accident occurred near the Hithadhoo harbor at approximately 9am when the car’s driver attempted to overtake a motorcycle, police told local media.
The drivers of both the car and motorcycle were not injured, however the car sustained “a number of damages”, according to police.
(0)Dislikes
(0)The Maldives Food and Drug Authority (FDA) issued a food alert today (May 27) warning that recent imports of wheat flour contain gravel, worms, and lice, reports local media.
The FDA also advised local retailers to refrain from selling contaminated wheat flour stock.
The agency has received a “number of complaints” that stones and sand were found in recently sold wheat flour.
The FDA is currently conducting tests of wheat flour storage facilities in Male’, and thus far they have determined shipment number 4500003103, produced in March 2013 and set to expire on September 2013, did not contain any of the suspected contaminants.
(0)Dislikes(0)Police withheld 349 drivers licenses last week for traffic violations, reports local media.
Police Vehicle Checkpoints (VCP) set up in different locations around Male’ from May 19th to the 26th enabled police to seize individuals’ licenses for various traffic violations.
The majority of violations were due to driving with expired “roadworthiness stickers”, resulting in 210 licenses taken, while expired annual registration fees, violating traffic signals, driving the wrong direction down one-way streets, driving while on a mobile phone, “dangerous” driving, and other miscellaneous violations comprised the remainder of offenses.
Police also detained 86 people for driving without proper licenses.
(0)Dislikes(0)The Maldives’ women’s basketball team refused to play without their headscarves, forfeiting the International Basketball Federation’s (FIBA) first under 18 three-on-three tournament held in Bangkok, Thailand earlier this week.
“The girls were really upset, we are as well. We came prepared based on the uniform the team wore in the last two games,” Maldives Basketball Association (MBA) President Ahmed Hafiz told Minivan News today (May 27).
“According to FIBA, the head cannot be covered during play. We have to go with FIBA rules if we want to play,” Hafiz stated.
The Maldives’ women’s basketball team has been allowed to participate in past tournaments while wearing burugaathah (headscarves), however the decision to make an exception to the rules “depends on the officials”, according to Hafiz.
“Qatar held a tournament two weeks back and there were some complaints that the Qatar team was wearing headgear, so FIBA was forced to apply the rules,” Hafiz explained. “Maybe that is the reason this issue came up for the Maldives [in this tournament].”
FIBA Asia has designed a jersey for Muslim players, but still needs to obtain FIBA international approval, according to the MBA.
“FIBA Asia is working on this because lots of Muslim countries are involved. Now the are suggesting to FIBA International to change the rules to allow headgear,” said Hafiz.
The Maldives’ under 18 women’s team is planning to participate in the upcoming Asian Youth Games, to be held this August in Nanjing, China, according to Hafiz.
“However, [the choice] is up to the players. We will not force them,” he said.
“This is a big problem for the game and will ruin the development of women’s basketball for a place like this, because there are still very few girl players and most wear the burugaa,” MBA Secretary General Arif Riza told Minivan News today.
“FIBA is pretty clear about the rules, so although the team has been allowed to play twice before, this was a mistake of ours also,” said Riza.
The primary issues of concern to MBA are that FIBA permitted the Maldives’ team to wear headscarves during tournaments in 2011 and 2012 as well as allowed other teams to play in violation of different dress code rules, such as wearing t-shirts instead of jerseys, according to Riza.
“Immediately after President Hafiz arrives [from Thailand] we will discuss the issue and write FIBA a letter,” said Riza.
“They should be allowed to have the right to play,” he declared.
FIBA Response
The headgear ban is “a part of FIBA Rules, but not a policy,” FIBA Asia Secretary General Hagop Khajirian told Minivan News Thursday (May 23).
“It has nothing to do with headscarves as such, but more to do with the regulations which stipulate that the playing gears of players has to be such that it may not cause any harm or hindrance to themselves or opponent players,” explained Khajirian.
Although these rules have “been the case always”, FIBA is currently reviewing the headscarf restriction.
“There have been requests from many nations regarding this. And the FIBA Asia Central Board, in its meeting [held] on April 24 in Kuala Lumpur, resolved to send a study paper to FIBA to be taken up for further consideration,” said Khajirian.
The choice to cover
While Maldivian women’s participation in basketball is slowly increasing, netball is popular nationwide. Although there are key distinctions between the two sports – such as no dribbling in netball – the rules are very similar, according to a skilled Maldivian netball player of nine years and student coach of six years.
“Wearing the burugaa while playing netball is no problem for us, it is not difficult and we’ve never experienced any injuries [from the headscarves],” she explained on condition of anonimity.
“Every person has the choice of whether or not they choose to wear the burugaa. However, it is a religious thing, in Islam Muslims have to cover, it is the right thing,” she continued.
“Although some are not wearing [headscarves], that is their choice,” she added.
The netball enthusiast agreed with the Maldives’ women’s basketball team decision to not remove their headscarves and forefit their game in the recent FIBA three-on-three tournament.
“Their choice was the correct one, they do not want to break religous rules,” she said.
“FIBA should change their rules if they want Maldivians to participate, because so many [women] are wearing burugaathah. They have to change so everyone can compete,” she added.
Burugaa bans
A senor researcher from the internatonal NGO, Human Rights Watch, previously highlighted the discriminatory issue of banning women from wearing headscarves, in a 2012 article “Banning Muslim Veil Denies Women a Choice, Too”.
“The sad irony is that whether they are being forced to cover up or to uncover, these women are being discriminated against. Banned from wearing the hijab – a traditional Muslim headscarf – or forced to veil themselves, women around the world are being stripped of their basic rights to personal autonomy; to freedom of expression; and to freedom of religion, thought and conscience,” wrote Judith Sunderland.
“Denying women the right to cover themselves is as wrong as forcing them to do so. Muslim women, like all women, should have the right to dress as they choose and to make decisions about their lives and how to express their faith, identity and moral values. And they should not be forced to choose between their beliefs and their chosen profession,” notes the article.
Muslim women’s basketball players in Switzerland and Baharain have also faced controversial opposition to their refual to remove their headscarves.
The Baharaini team was “lauded” for their refusal to remove their headscarves during an international competition in 2009, according to Gulf News.
Meanwhile, Sura Al-Shawk, a 19 year-old STV Luzern basketball player, was denied permission to play while wearing a headscarf by the Swiss basketball association ProBasket in 2010, reported the Associated Press.
ProBasket told the Associated Press it followed FIBA rules and that wearing the headscarf while playing basketball “could increase the risk of injury and the sport has to be religiously neutral”.
In July 2012, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) overturned a headscarf ban, which was put into place in 2007, after a yearlong campaign led by FIFA vice president Prince Ali of Jordan, reported the Associated Press.
(0)Dislikes(0)Police have said 11 suspects have been taken into custody for alleged involvement in a stabbing attack at the ‘Home X’ store in the capital on May 19 that hospitalised one male victim – with authorities pledging to continue a crack down on gang activity.
In a statement released today, police claimed that the 11 individuals, all male suspects between 17 and 27 years of age, were detained on the 9th floor of the Aroodhaage building in Male’ as part of investigations into the store assault.
“Out of the 11 individuals brought in, there were two 19 year old males, one 27 year old male, one 20 year old male, one 21 year old male, four 18 year old males and two 17 year old males,” police stated following the operation.
Local media reported at the time that the victim of the attack had fled into an electronics store in Male’ in order to shelter from a group that proceeded to assault him using a “sharp object”.
The store attack was among a series of stabbings reported across the capital this month – prompting police to form a special task force designed to try and combat gang violence.
The now-active task force consists of members from the Forensics Directorate, Intelligence and Covert Policing Command, Information and Communication Directorate, Central Operations Command and Technical Police from the Divisional Operations Command of the Maldives Police Service.
“Criminal at large”
Speaking to local media today, Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz said members of the taskforce were now searching for 50 “high-profile” suspects alleged to have had involvement with gang-related activities
“They are a threat to the society. We consider everyone, who had not been punished for a crime they had committed, as a criminal at large,” he was quoted by local newspaper Haveeru as saying.
Riyaz was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press regarding how the 50 suspects had been identified or if they belonged to specific groups. The police media department was also not responding to calls at time of press.
Riya’s comments were made less than a week after he alleged politicians were most often responsible for encouraging gang-related activities in the capital island Male’.
The claims echoed the findings of a report into the country’s gang culture published last year by the Asia Foundation that found politicians and businessmen paid gangs to assault rivals, damage property, and in some cases have opponents killed.
Clear approach
Speaking to Minivan News earlier this month, former head of police intelligence Chief Superintendent Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed claimed the stabbing incidents were “probably” retaliatory and inter-related based on media reports at the time.
Hameed also raised accused the country’s police service of presently lacking a clear approach in terms of reducing and dealing with violence crimes and criminals.
“Not being able to police Male’ – the most populated city in the country – due to the lack of an effective strategy and the disconnect between the key areas of criminal investigations, intelligence gathering, and front line policing is a big issue,” he added.
In addition to the lack of a “very effective policing approach” to combat violent crime, low level crimes had also not been addressed, according to Hameed.
“A lot of antisocial behavior goes unnoticed and unaddressed by the police, such as harassment and public nuisance. For example, girls of a very young age are harassed, even while walking with their families. Additionally, juveniles are seen under the influence of drugs and intoxicated in public,” he explained.
Hameed advocated that a strong, more integrated, holistic approach is needed that applies a broader strategy to effectively reduce crime.
“Increasing police officers physical presence, as well as effective targeting of high profile offenders and hotspots needs to be addressed,” he said.
“Collaboration between criminal investigations, intelligence gathering, and front line policing are three areas that have never worked that effectively,” he added at the time.
(0)Dislikes(0)The Maldives has “fully implemented” only three of the UN Human Rights Council’s 145 recommendations since its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in March 2011.
A mid-term assessment of the Maldives’ commitment to human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stated that 12 recommendations had been “partially implemented”, 33 “not implemented” – or rejected outright – while 96 recommendations received “no response”.
Recommendations fully implemented included provisions relating to accepting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the withdrawal of certain reservations to the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The UPR report sought comment from assorted NGOs, the Maldivian state and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) in compiling the progress so far.
It noted that while the Maldivian government had made a formal commitment to provide a mid-term report, “it did not respond to our enquiry.”
“[HRCM] did not respond to our enquiry either.”
In the absence of input from the government or the country’s national human rights body, the majority of responses and comments on the recommendations were provided by three NGOS: Earthjustice & Human Rights Advocates (EJ+HRA), Friends of Maldives (FOM), and the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (GIEACPC).
Treatment of minorities
In response to a recommendation from Norway that the government try to promote tolerance towards migrants in the Maldives, FOM stated it was unaware of any efforts to prevent stigmatisation.
“The stigmatisation has risen to concerning levels, especially towards Bangladeshi, Indian and Srilankan labourers,” FOM stated.
FOM noted that a bill on the Prohibition of Human Trafficking and People Smuggling had been submitted to parliament in December 2012, but said this had not yet been tabled for discussion and had not been subject to consultation with either the public or the NGO sector.
Regarding a recommendation for laws concerning the treatment and human rights of the physically and mentally disabled, “Legislation protecting persons with physical and mental disabilities seem to be of little or no interest within lawmakers,” observed FOM. “There is very little awareness on the importance of this matter. This is particularly concerning in the areas of law enforcement. For example, there are no protocols within the police service when dealing with persons with physical or mental disabilities.”
Treatment of women and children
In response to a recommendation that the Maldives abolish corporal punishment and the practice of public flogging, particularly of women and children, GIEACPC noted that the draft penal code included a legal defence for the use of corporal punishment in the home “under the concept of ‘justifiable force’ on a child for the ‘prevention or punishment of his misconduct’, providing this does not result in ‘death, serious bodily
injury, extreme or unnecessary pain or distress’.”
“The draft was recently amended to provide for Sharia punishments, including amputation, though it is unclear as yet if this would be imposed on child offenders,” GIEACPC noted.
FOM noted that despite the government’s ratification of the CEDAW and withdrawal of reservations to certain clauses, “women in the Maldives still face corporal punishment, notably with the recent case of a 15 year-old girl condemned to flogging despite being the victim of sexual abuse.”
FOM observed that there was a “clear rejection by the judiciary to reform, and this has been a major challenge that the Parliament, Executive as well as the civil society have been facing for the past years.”
Bringing domestic laws concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, equal rights, and sexual and domestic violence and abuse in line with CEDAW was “particularly difficult” due to the country’s extremely narrow interpretation of Sharia and its strict application, stated FOM.
Issues relating to the rights of women remained “still highly controversial between the government and NGOs”, FOM observed, noting that this was possibly due to the government’s alliance with the Adhaalath Party, “a political movement that is seen to have more fundamental views and narrow interpretations of the Islamic Sharia, which has negative effects in terms of rights of women and girls.”
FOM also highlighted a growing trend of “families withdrawing girls from school in the name of religion.”
“These girls are then coerced into marriage in ages as early as nine to twelve years. There have been no visible efforts to control this or protect the right to education of these children. Although regulations prescribe that the age for marriage is 18, religious fundamentalists take refuge in Islamic Sharia over these matters and withhold that the consent of these girls are in the hands of their fathers or guardians. No efforts to prevent or react to these incidents have been seen in the Maldives,” FOM noted.
Justice system
Despite “elevated public discontent” over the state of the judiciary, formal dialogue as to its reform had been limited, FOM noted.
Regarding a recommendation by Malaysia that the Maldives accept offers of human rights training for judges and judicial staff, FOM responded that it was “aware that several international organisations as well as some local NGOs offered funds and programs in order to enhance the knowledge of human rights for judges, and that such funds exist presently, namely with the UNDP. However the judiciary have on several occasions ignored or avoided such offers for enhancement of knowledge.”
While a voluntary code of conduct for judges had been developed by the Judicial Service Commission, “the implementation of this code is not monitored. In addition
the general public view is that the code needs several amendments.”
Meanwhile, a report containing recommendations by the UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers had met with no response from the government, and public dismissal by several members of parliament.
Human rights
FOM observed a “serious deterioration in [the Maldives] process of promoting and protection of human rights”, with “continued confrontations between the law enforcement and protesters calling for fundamental rights and freedoms have resulted in excessive police brutality, obstruction of the right to assembly through the amendment of the existing Regulations on Assembly, several physical attacks and threats on journalists and many more such incidents which have been ignored by the relevant authorities.”
“Members of the police force who are seen on video clips to have brutalised protesters have since been given promotions. A single case of police brutality that the Police Integrity Commission investigated and which the Prosecutor General charged for, was rejected by the Criminal Court,” FOM noted.
Responding to a recommendation by France that the Maldives ensure the safety of journalists, FOM noted that “the situation of the journalists are such that they are targeted and harassed for what they report on. Some received physical threats and it is believed that politically motivated attacks on journalists have left them fighting for their lives.”
UNHRC Panel report
A delegation from the Maldives defended the Maldives’ human rights record before the UNHRC in July 2012.
It was headed by Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel, former Justice Minister during the 30 year rule of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and co-author of a pamphlet entitled ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’, published in January 2012.
Dr Jameel was accompanied by State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dunya Maumoon – Gayoom’s daughter – as well as the Maldives’ Permanent Representative in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam.
Asked by a panellist whether the country was seeking to reconcile human rights with Islam, Dr Jameel responded that human rights in the Maldives streamlined with Islam “with very few minor exceptions.”
“The general acceptance of Muslim jurists is that Islamic human rights were there long before we subscribed to universal human rights,” he said.
“We declare that there are no apparent contradictions between human rights and what is there in the Maldives constitution.”
On the subject of justice, Dr Jameel emphasised that any citizen could bring their grievances before the judiciary, over which the executive had “little or no influence.”
Following the delegation’s defence, the UNHRC recommended “radical changes” to Maldivian law to ensure compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
These changes include the abolition of the death penalty, compensation for “systematic and systemic torture,” withdrawal of reservations to the ICCPR’s Article 18 regarding freedom of religion and belief, and reforming the country’s judiciary.
A panel member during the UNHRC session itself also noted the “troubling role of the judiciary at the centre” of the controversial transfer of power on February 7.
“The judiciary – which is admittedly in serious need of training and qualifications – is yet seemingly playing a role leading to the falling of governments,” the panel member observed.
Read the UPR mid-term assessment
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the UPR was conducted in 2012. The Maldives UPR held between 4 November 2010 and 27 March 2011. On 4 November 2010, the Maldives performance was reviewed, queried, debated and responded to in a 3 hour discussion in which nearly 150 recommendations were made. After this discussion, a report was compiled and in March 2011, the Maldives gave a commitment to implement 145 of those recommendations.
(0)Dislikes(0)
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has appealed against “obstruction” of the commission’s legal and constitutional responsibilities in a press statement yesterday (May 26), following a protest march by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on Saturday (May 25).
The party marched on the streets of Male’ to protest against JSC Chair and Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla’s alleged attempts to unduly influence the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.
The MDP contends that Adam Mohamed was abusing his power and authority as head of the judicial watchdog body to intimidate judges on the High Court bench.
On April 1, the High Court ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend Nasheed’s trial pending a ruling on the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed by the JSC to preside over the case.
The JSC has sent letters to the High Court requesting expedition of Nasheed’s case, the party noted in a press release last week.
The MDP objected to the judicial oversight body summoning the Chief Judge of the High Court for questioning over a complaint filed more than a year ago.
The move amounted to intimidation of judges and undue influence on judicial processes, the party contended, calling on the JSC to cease its “dirty and cowardly” efforts as the commission was the adverse party or respondent in the High Court case.
In the first hearing of the case, the JSC contested the High Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench constituted by the commission.
“It is strange that the JSC’s legal counsel contested jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the case on the grounds that they had sought the advice of the Supreme Court in determining the bench,” MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, spokeswoman of the former president said after the hearing.
Meanwhile, in its statement issued a day after the MDP protest march, the JSC noted that the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act of 2008 mandated the commission to investigate complaints against judges and enforce disciplinary measures.
The commission was entrusted with powers to summon and question persons and take witness testimonies, the JSC stated.
There were “no legal or constitutional grounds” to interpret carrying out the commission’s legal responsibilities as intimidation or exerting undue influence on judges, the statement added.
The JSC statement concluded by calling on all parties to “not commit any act or participate in any activity that could obstruct the constitutional and legal responsibilities and duties of the commission.”
Responding to the statement yesterday, MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor tweeted,
JSC statement is a display of ethnocentric arrogance (vathany kiburuverikan)of petty island mentality. haveeru.com.mv/dhivehi/news/1… via @haveeru
— Hamid Abdul Ghafoor (@haaghee) May 26, 2013
UN Special Rapporteur report
In her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives in February 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul expressed concern with “the significant backlog of complaints with the Judicial Service Commission that are not dealt with or at least are perceived as not being dealt with. Some judges that have several complaints and cases for misconduct against them are still sitting.”
Moreover, Knaul wrote that according to several judges, “disciplinary procedures before the Commission lead to public humiliation and damages to their reputation.”
“Some even said that, when summoned by the Commission, the principle of presumption of innocence is not respected and they do not have appropriate time and access to information to prepare for their cases. Judges are also often not told for what allegations they are being investigated. It is common that, after an appearance before the Commission, judges are not informed if their case was dropped, if a decision was taken, or if it is still pending,” Knaul wrote.
“The Special Rapporteur is worried that disciplinary proceedings before the Judicial Services Commission are not in line with international law and principles, and may sometimes be used to expose and question the integrity of judges and magistrates before the media and the general public before the conclusion of a proper investigation into the allegations. She wishes to underline that, according to the Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing under an appropriate procedure, which should be subject to an independent review.”
Among a number of recommendations to reform the Maldivian justice system, Knaul suggested taking “appropriate measures to enforce the code of conduct of judges in a transparent and consistent manner, with full respect for the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing and bearing in mind the importance of the reputation of judges and magistrates.”
(0)Dislikes(0)UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, has expressed “deep concern” over the failure of the judicial system to address “serious violations of human rights” during the Maldives’ 30 year dictatorship, warning of “more instability and unrest” should this continue to be neglected.
“It is indeed difficult to understand why one former President is being tried for an act he took outside of his prerogative, while another has not had to answer for any of the alleged human rights violations documented over the years,” wrote Knaul, in her final report to the UN Human Rights Council following her Maldives mission in February 2013.
The report is a comprehensive overview of the state of the Maldivian judiciary and its watchdog body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). Knaul examines the judiciary’s handling of the trial of former President Nasheed, the controversial reappointment of unqualified judges in 2010, and the politicisation of the JSC.
Knaul also examines parliament’s failure to pass critical pieces of legislation needed for the proper functioning of the judiciary and “legal certainty”, as well as raises serious concerns about an impending budget catastrophe facing the judicial system.
“The immediate implications of the budget cuts on the judiciary are appalling. For instance, the Department of Judicial Administration only has funds to pay staff salaries until November 2013 and it had to cancel training this year,” Knaul notes.
“The Civil Court reported that it would not have sufficient funds to pay its staff salaries after October 2013; furthermore, existing budgetary resources would not be sufficient to pay for utilities and facilities after June 2013,” she adds.
The Nasheed trial
Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing criminal charges in the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for his detention of the Criminal Court’s Chief Judge, Abdulla Mohamed, days prior to the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.
“Judge Abdulla had allegedly shielded a number of powerful politicians in corruption cases by refusing to issue orders to investigate, and many complaints had been made regarding his conduct and supposed lack of ethics,” Knaul outlined.
“The Judicial Service Commission had completed an investigation on him in November 2011, holding him guilty of misconduct. This decision was appealed to the Civil Court, which ordered that the Judicial Service Commission’s complaint procedure be suspended.
“Although the Commission appealed the Civil Court’s ruling, Judge Abdulla was allowed to continue in his functions,” she added.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) maintain the case against Nasheed is a politically-motivated attempt to convict and bar him from the September 7 presidential elections, while the new government has emphasised the judiciary’s independence and insisted on its policy of non-interference.
Following Knaul’s visit and her departure statement, several members of the JSC have also challenged the commission’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Court, and its appointment of the bench. The commission includes several of Nasheed’s direct political rivals, including a rival presidential candidate, resort tycoon, Jumhoree Party (JP) Leader and MP Gasim Ibrahim.
“The trial of the former President raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings,” Knaul notes, questioning the constitutionality of the Hulhumale’ Court and the appointment of the three-member panel of judges, “which seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.”
“According to the law, the Prosecutor General’s office should have filed the case of Mr Nasheed with the Criminal Court. While the concerns of the Prosecutor General’s office regarding the evident conflict of interests in this case are understandable, since Judge Abdulla sits in this court, it is not for the Prosecutor to decide if a judge is impartial or not,” stated Knaul.
“The Prosecutor should act according to the law when filing a case, as it is the duty of judges to recuse themselves if they cannot be impartial in a particular case,” she explained.
“All allegations of unfair trial and lack of due process in Mr Nasheed’s case need to be promptly investigated, including the claims that the trial is being sped up to prevent Mr Nasheed’s participation in the 2013 elections,” she added.
Knaul noted a decision by the Supreme Court to declare the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court as legitimate after the Commission filed a case with it in 2012.
“The Special Rapporteur was informed that the judge of the Supreme Court who cast the deciding vote in this case also sits as a member of the Judicial Services Commission, whose decision to establish the Hulhumalé court as a magistrates court was under review,” the report noted.
Politicisation of the JSC
Knaul observed that the JSC had a “complicated” relationship with the judiciary, given that the commission “considers that it has exclusive jurisdiction over all complaints against judges, including over criminal allegations, while the Prosecutor General understands that the criminal investigation agencies have the competence to investigate criminal conducts by anyone.”
Knaul underlined that “judges and magistrates, as well as other actors of the justice system, are criminally accountable for their actions. Criminal actions entail consequences and penalties that are different from those resulting from disciplinary or administrative investigations.”
The special rapporteur stated that there was near unanimous consensus during her visit that the composition of the JSC – which draws members from sources outside the judiciary, such as parliament, the civil service commission and others – was “inadequate and politicised”. This complaint was first highlighted in a report by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) in 2010.
“Because of this politicisation, the commission has allegedly been subjected to all sorts of external influence and has consequently been unable to function properly,” said Knaul.
State of the courts
Conflicts of interest and the resulting impact on judges’ impartiality was also a concern, noted Knaul.
“It seems that judges, and other actors of the State, do not want to fully acknowledge and understand this concept, leading to the dangerous perception from the public that the justice system is politicised and even corrupted,” she said.
Knaul also expressed “shock to hear that many members of the judiciary, including in the Supreme Court, hold memberships in political parties.”
The Supreme Court, she noted, has meanwhile been “deciding on the constitutionality of laws ex-officio, without following appropriate examination procedures, under the understanding that they are the supreme authority for the interpretation of the Constitution.”
The relationship between prosecutors and the judiciary was also difficult, Knaul noted, expressing “serious concern” that some courts “use the threat of contempt of court and disbarment to impose their decisions and superiority over prosecutors.”
“The lack of a centralised case-management system does not facilitate their tasks either. In some places, such as Addu City, one prosecutor covers four courts and is often called to different hearings at the same time,” she observed.
“Symbolic” reappointment of judges
Two months prior to the end of the constitution’s transitional period and the deadline for the appointment of new judges according to moral and professional criteria – article 285 – the interim Supreme Court informed President Nasheed “that all its members would permanently remain on the bench.”
This action, Knaul noted, had “no legal or constitutional basis.”
“The five judges who had been sitting on the transitional bench were appointed to the seven-member permanent bench, leaving many with the perception that the Supreme Court was appointed in a politicised manner,” she noted.
The rest of the courts followed suit several months later at the conclusion of the interim period, with the Commission “opting for interpreting article 285 of the Constitution in a rather symbolic way and [not scrutinising] judges’ qualifications thoroughly.”
“For instance,” Knaul noted, “not all criminal allegations pending against judges were investigated. This resulted in a seemingly rushed reappointment of all sitting judges but six, which in the opinion of many interlocutors corrupted the spirit of the constitutional transitional provision.”
While the 2008 Constitution had “completely overturned the structure of the judiciary”, at the conclusion of the JSC’s work on article 285, “the same people who were in place and in charge, conditioned under a system of patronage, remained in their positions.”
As a result, “many believe that some judges who are currently sitting lack the proper education and training […] A simple judicial certificate, obtained through part-time studies, is the only educational requirement to become a judge.”
Way forward
Knaul’s report contains four pages of recommendations for judicial reform, starting with a “constitutional review” of the composition of the Judicial Services Commission – the same conclusion reached by the ICJ in 2010.
“The Maldives finds itself at a difficult crossroad, where the democratic transition is being tested, while remnants of its authoritarian past are still hovering,” Knaul observed, stating that the power struggle she witnessed during her visit had “serious implications on the effective realisation of the rule of law in the Maldives.”
Among many other recommendations, Knaul called on the government to show “strong and nonpartisan leadership”, by pushing for “constructive dialogue aimed at establishing clear priorities for the country, the adoption of necessary core legislation, and policy measures to consolidate the democracy. Such leadership should be guided by the Maldives’ obligations under international human rights law, which provide for a sound and sustainable foundation for democracy.”
She also noted that “the delicate issue of accountability for past human rights violations also needs to be addressed.”
(0)Dislikes(0)The Supreme Court has taken over a case filed at the Civil Court by dismissed Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed, who had requested a ruling declaring that the transfer of power on February 7, 2012 was illegitimate.
The Supreme Court ordered the lower court last week to suspend its proceedings and send over the case files before 3:00pm on Thursday (May 23). The court order (Dhivehi) stated that the apex court would determine whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
The court order was issued following a request by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for the Supreme Court to decide on the question of jurisdiction.
At the first hearing of the Civil Court case, the AGO requested proceedings be halted pending a ruling from the Supreme Court. However, the judge decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of a court order by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court order was revealed today by the recently launched official twitter account of the Civil Court.
Proceedings have been halted – Fathimath Dhiyana & Co v Speaker of Parliament[907/Cv-C/2013]under Supreme Court Order twitter.com/MVCivilCourt/s…
— MV Civil Court (@MVCivilCourt) May 26, 2013
Dhiyana Saeed – also former SAARC Secretary General and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s first Attorney General – had first submitted the case to the High Court, which however decided that it was outside the appeal court’s jurisdiction.
The case was filed at the Civil Court earlier this month.
The defendant in Dhiyana’s lawsuit was Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who recently defected from the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) to the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and is currently campaigning for former President Nasheed.
Nasheed resigned in the wake of a violent mutiny by Special Operations (SO) police officers, who assaulted government supporters, ransacked the ruling party Haruge (meeting hall), protested at the Republic Square, clashed with the military, vandalised the police headquarters and stormed the state broadcaster on the morning of February 7.
Saeed’s lawsuit noted that Shahid was the state official with the authority under article 121 of the constitution to declare the office of the president vacant, should an incumbent president resign or vacate the office.
“It was the Speaker of Parliament who declared the office of president vacant, be it had he done it knowingly, mistakenly or unknowingly,” Saeed told newspaper Haveeru. “This doesn’t mean Shahid committed a criminal offense. It also does not mean that he partook in the events or that he made the decision [maliciously].”
She contended that Speaker Shahid had failed to look into the circumstances surrounding Nasheed’s resignation before accepting the letter.
Saeed told Minivan News that she and her co-counsels “stopped short of asking for Nasheed’s reinstatement,” adding that she did not have “the locus standi to ask for a particular relief.”
“If the ruling comes in our favour, it might be possible for Nasheed to institute a second proceeding for reinstatement. As far as this case is concerned, our interest is in the rule of law and invoking constitutional process to uphold the legal order as stipulated by the constitution,” Saeed explained at the time.
Supreme Court intervention
Meanwhile, in her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council following a visit to the Maldives, UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul observed that it was “troublesome that some of the Supreme Court’s interventions are perceived as arbitrary and as serving the judges’ own personal interests.”
“Moreover, the Supreme Court is said to have taken away cases directly from the superior courts before they were adjudicated, without explaining which criteria or procedures were applied,” Knaul wrote.
The Supreme Court has on a number of occasions issued writs of mandamus taking over cases from lower courts. In November 2012, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings on an appeal by former President Nasheed concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.
At the same time, the apex court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, disputing the legal status of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.
The Supreme Court also intervened in litigation concerning a border control project awarded to Malaysian mobile security firm Nexbis.
Transfer of power
Following her dismissal from the cabinet by President Dr Mohamed Waheed last year, Saeed released a personal memoir alleging that Nasheed’s political rivals had conspired to assassinate him.
Saeed alleged that the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7 was the result of a premeditated and well-orchestrated plan, and questioned the findings of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), which concluded that Nasheed had resigned voluntarily.
In January 2013, parliament’s Government Oversight Committee commenced a review of the CoNI report and heard testimony from six of the highest-ranking officers of the security services at the time of the transfer of power.
Following its inquiry, Committee Chair MP Ali Waheed claimed that the report produced by CoNI was “flawed” based on the findings of the committee.
The CoNI report lacked “key information [senior police and military officers] had given” while “others claimed their information was wrongly presented,” the MDP MP said at the time.
(0)Dislikes(0)