Day: September 23, 2013

Parliament resolution to ‘ensure election’ passed with show of hands, amid protest by pro-government MPs

A resolution submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) calling on all state institutions to ensure that the second round of the presidential election is held as scheduled was passed at an extraordinary session of parliament today, amid disorderly protests by MPs of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP).

The resolution was read out by MDP MP Ali Waheed over loud protests and whistle and horn-blowing by pro-government MPs. The special sitting – held during the ongoing recess upon request of 29 MPs – was adjourned shortly thereafter by Speaker Abdulla Shahid due to disorder in the chamber caused by PPM and JP MPs gathered in front of his desk.

When the sitting resumed at 1:00pm to vote on the resolution, PPM and JP MPs were occupying the Speaker’s chair as well as the secretariat desk. The vote was called by Speaker Shahid – surrounded by security guards – standing in front of the chamber well and passed with a show of hands.

According to MP Ali Waheed, the resolution was passed with 37 votes in favour. The MPs occupying the Speaker’s space and secretariat desk appeared not to participate in the vote.


Following the adjournment of the sitting this morning, MDP MPs alleged on social media that MP Ahmed Amir – a member of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA), which is currently backing PPM presidential candidate MP Abdulla Yameen – poured water on and damaged the parliament sound system.

The MDP resolution adopted by parliament today meanwhile states that the second round run-off scheduled for September 28 should “not be delayed for any reason” and called for all state institutions to cooperate with the Elections Commission (EC) in adherence with constitutionally-stipulated deadlines for the presidential election.

Moreover, the resolution stated that the parliament’s security services or ‘241’ committee would oversee the actions of the police and military with regard to the second round of the presidential election to be held next Saturday.

The resolution was passed while a Supreme Court case initiated by the JP seeking the annulment of the September 7 election is ongoing, with the fifth hearing taking place today.

Chaos in the chamber

Today’s sitting took place after two previous attempts yesterday was disrupted by PPM and JP MPs who blew on whistles and a vuvuzela and gathered in front of the Speaker’s desk.

Yesterday’s sitting in the morning was adjourned after Speaker Shahid’s microphone was vandalised during the disruption.

The sitting resumed at 9:00pm but could not proceed due to similar disorder caused by PPM and JP MPs protesting in front of the Speaker’s desk.

Videos meanwhile emerged on social media showing PPM MP Abdul Raheem Abdulla using obscene language against Speaker Shahid and insulting his mother during the morning session.

Following the cancellation of the 9:00pm session, the MDP-aligned Raajje TV showed video of JP MP Ilham Ahmed, also the party’s deputy leader, take out what appeared to be pliers from his pocket and cut a cable.

Local media reported that PPM MP Abdul Raheem Abdulla and JP MP Shifaq Mufeed were injured in scuffles that broke out between pro-government and MDP MPs at last night’s sitting. The former was reportedly treated at ADK hospital last night.

Despite their apparent injuries both MPs were seen actively protesting at this morning’s session.

Speaking at a press conference last night, PPM vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed contended that the MDP was attempting to “cover up irregularities of the first round” of the presidential election on through the parliament.

PPM MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakur told press outside parliament today that the party believed MDP’s resolution was unlawful as it involved an ongoing court case, and suggested that the Supreme Court would rule that it was unconstitutional.

Both Dr Jameel and MP Abdul Azeez alleged that the first round of the polls was rigged in the MDP’s favour, claiming that the 95,224 votes (45.45 percent) its candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed received included fraudulent votes.

Meanwhile, in a letter to MPs published on the parliament website following the incidents last night, Speaker Shahid wrote that yesterday’s attempts to proceed with the sitting were unsuccessful due to “numerous acts in violation of the People’s Majlis’ regulations.”

“In particular, the sitting could not proceed because [computer] systems, cameras and cables in the Majlis chamber were damaged with sharp objects on a number of occasions,” the Speaker’s letter stated, expressing concern with the actions of MPs.

The Speaker added that “assault, damaging Majlis property, and intimidating Majlis staff” was “unacceptable” conduct as the parliament was an institution where disputes should be peacefully resolved through discussion and dialogue.

Meanwhile, a car in the garage of Speaker Shahid’s residence was set on fire in the early hours of Monday morning. Local media reported that the car belonged to Shahid’s brother.

Shahid told newspaper Haveeru that CCTV footage showed a man with his face covered pour petrol and set the car alight, describing it as “an act of intimidation” intended to incite political unrest.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jumhooree Party submits three witness statements to Sunday’s Supreme Court hearing

The Supreme Court panel of seven judges has heard three witness statements submitted by the Jumhooree Coalition during Sunday’s hearing, in the party’s ongoing bid to annul the first round of polling in which it narrowly missed a place in the run-off.

The court stated that the identities of all three witnesses were to be protected and therefore only their voices – altered to make identification difficult – were heard in the court room.

The first witness – a male voice – stated that upon going to the polling station on September 7, election officials informed him that he had already cast his vote, and that his name had been marked as such on the voters registry.

He then claimed that after discussion with the election officials at the said booth, he had been allowed to cast his vote, despite the list showing he had previously voted.

The second witness – female – said that she had been unable to cast her vote as the elections officials at the polling station she had attended had said her name was not on the voters list.

When the JP’s lawyer and presidential running mate Dr Hassan Saeed asked the witness if she had registered to vote, and why or why not, she responded that she had not and that it was because she had figured “I too will need to go where everyone else at home went”.

Hassan then asked “You are saying it is because you intended to vote from the area of your permanent address?”, prompting a “yes” from the witness.

Hassan then asked if she had taken a valid national identity card which had all the text on it clearly visible, and if the elections officials had checked it.

The witness said that she had taken one, but alleged officials had not looked at it.

Questions were also asked of the second witness by Judge Adam Mohamed.

Adam Mohamed asked if the elections officials had offered her any reassurance that she would later be allowed to vote, to which she replied in the negative.

The judge then asked if the officials had then just asked her to go home, to which the witness replied that she had of her own accord gone home, as her name was not on the voters’ list.

The third and final witness in the hearing was a man who claimed to have worked as a senior election official in charge of a ballot box. The location of the box was not revealed, to protect his identity.

Dr Saeed asked him about the time voting started and if the netbook and Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) queue system provided by the Elections Commission was working.

The witness said that voting started at approximately 7:30am. He said that although the netbook was in perfect working condition, as was the BPRS, the officials at the station had some trouble working it as they did not understand how. He said they then had started the voting process using the hard copy of the voters’ list as instructed during their training.

He stated that they had already released 10 queue numbers for voting before they were able to get the BPRS queue system working.

According to the witness, he had instructed another official to start entering these 10 numbers at about 10:00am when the queues had calmed down, during which process they discovered that five of the 10 people appeared on the system as having already voted.

He however assured that no person whose name was not on the voting list had cast a vote at the station he had been watching over.

The Elections Commission’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, asked the witness if these five persons were people who had come from another island, which the witness confirmed as true.

He then asked if it was possible to say they had cast their votes on another island and then come to the witnesses’ island in an attempt to cast their vote.

The witness stated that this was impossible, as they had been among the first in queue when voting began.

Dr Saeed again questioned the witness, asking if the official knew the island of origin of the five alleged double-voters, and how much time it would have taken them to travel to their permanent residences on a speed boat from the official’s island.

The official said the people came from an island outside his atoll, and that it would take at least an hour and a half to reach there, even by speedboat.

Dr Saeed then asked if there was any other island with ballot boxes and which was the closest.

The witness said the closest one was 10 minutes away by speedboat, and that he believed that “in times as technologically advanced as this, it is possible that these five persons had removed the ink mark indicating having voted and gone to a nearby polling centre and recast a vote.”

Husnu Suood at this point intervened, asking the judges to make the witness’s statements be based on facts, and not inclusive of opinions.

The judge overruled the objection, stating that witness statements were an account of what they believed to have happened.

The last question was posed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) lawyer Ahmed Zaneen Adam, who asked if the EC had asked officials to make voters remain in the polling area for 30 seconds after the ink mark was drawn on their fingers.

The witness responded that they had been told so, and had worked under these instructions.

Judges then told Zaneen that he could not question the witness beyond the scope of his statement.

Although the judges panel stated that all parties would be given an opportunity to speak after the witness statements, the court session ended directly after the statements were delivered.

Another hearing in the case began today (Monday September 23) at 11:00am and was ongoing at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AG’s election intervention constitutional, yet morally questionable: senior legal source

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukoor’s intervention in a Supreme Court case against the Elections Commission (EC) is constitutional, despite questions over the “moral grounds” for her involvement, a senior legal expert with experience working in government has said.

AG Azima last week intervened in a Supreme Court case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) seeking the annulment of the September 7 presidential election.

While the AG herself is not reported to be seeking an annulment of the first round of voting, she has asked the country’s apex court to order the prosecutor general and the police to investigate alleged electoral fraud after noting “serious issues”.

With no constitutional clause requiring the the AG’s involvement in the case, the intervention was made at the personal discretion of Azima, according to the confidential legal source.

The first round of voting has been met with unanimous confidence from local NGOs and international election observers over the credibility of the polls, amidst calls for the the second round of voting to proceed as scheduled.

The run-off vote is presently scheduled to be contested on September 28, between former President Mohamed Nasheed of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and second placed candidate Abdulla Yameen of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

“Public interest”

The source – who has served in a senior legal capacity under the last two governments – maintained that the AG was entitled to enter a case she personally deemed to be in the “public interest”.

However, with Azima representing the government, whose incumbent President Dr Mohamed Waheed secured five per cent of the vote in the first round of polls, the legal source said some of his peers were questioning the AG’s mandate to seemingly take sides in the JP’s case.

“Having spoken with other lawyers, how would the AG, who represents a candidate with only five percent of the public vote, decide what is in the public interest [in regards to the election case]? The AG can decide what is in the public interest, but I do not believe she has sufficient moral grounds to do so [with this case],” the source argued.

The same source added that the AG’s role in the ongoing Supreme Court case was complicated by the Maldives’ present lack of general rules or legislation regulating issues such as conflict of interest and similar ethical issues within the court system.

“Problem with the AG is that she is currently the authority on ethics of other lawyers and when to reprimand them,” the legal figure added. “We also lack a legal and judicial culture to really appreciate the idea of professional ethics.”

“No comment”

Rather than appearing to back the grievances of the JP, the senior legal figure said the correct procedure for the AG would have been to provide ‘”no comment” to the court when asked about the capability of the EC.

The source pointed to previous conduct of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) in a case, where the institution had been asked to defend the Maldives Police Service against allegations of arresting people outside of correct procedure.

With the High Court requesting the PGO to answer for police in the case, state prosecutors – concerned the MPS may be at fault – opted to provide a ‘no comment’ on the matter.

The legal source claimed that such a move – based on best practices from across the international community – allowed the courts to infer that police had acted outside of regulations without the PGO taking a side on the matter.

The legal figure also said that, although the AG was permitted to take a side in the case, she should not vocally back a specific party.

AG denies taking sides

Speaking during a Supreme Court hearing on September 18, Attorney General Azima told the court that the state was not taking sides in the legal dispute.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) decided on Friday (September 20) are currently pursuing a no-confidence motion against Azima, as well as for a change the composition of the Supreme Court bench.

The MDP had  previously accused the Azima of advocating against “the interests of a state institution or the state and in favour of the Jumhooree Party’s self-interest.”

The AG, however, repeated her claims that the her office had come across discrepancies in the voter registry published by the EC prior to the election.

“There were names of underage people in the list. There were names repeated in the list. Unless these issues are resolved before holding the second round of the elections, rights of many voters will be undermined,” Shukoor told the court.

AG Azima and Deputy AG Ahmed Usham were not responding to requests for information at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)