Category: Politics

Elections Commission announces Saturday 5pm deadline for submitting re-registration complaints

The Elections Commission (EC) has announced a deadline of 5:00pm on Saturday (November 2) to submit complaints regarding re-registration for the first round of the presidential election on November 9 as well as a possible second round scheduled for November 16.

Voter details can be checked in the Maldives by sending an SMS to 1414 in the format ‘VIS [ID#]’, or by calling the helpline on the same number. Registration details can also be checked online at http://elections.gov.mv/index2715.html

The EC noted in its announcement that all re-registration forms submitted by citizens wishing to vote in a location other than their home island have now been processed.

In addition, complaints submitted ahead of the canceled election scheduled for October 19 have also been attended to, the EC said.

The commission also announced that Elections Complaints Bureaus have been set up in Addu City and islands with atoll council offices.

With the exception of Fuvahmulah and Shaviyani atoll, the bureaus have been established at the atoll council offices. The bureau in Shaviyani atoll is located at the first floor of the Atolhuvehi building in Funadhoo while the office in Fuvuhmulah was set up at the atoll house.

The bureau will be open until November 16 from 8:00am to 3:00pm except on Fridays. On Fridays, the bureaus will be open from 2:30pm to 5:00pm.

The complaints form is available from the EC website and the National Complaints Bureau counter on the second floor of the PA complex building as well as the bureaus in atoll and city council offices, atoll election units, and election focal points set up in island council offices.

Phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses of the complaints bureaus can be found at the EC website.

According to the timeline for the rescheduled election, re-registration forms will be sent on November 3 to the Department of National Registration (DNR) for verification of fingerprints – a key demand by two of the three presidential candidates.

The voter registry will be finalised, printed and sent to presidential candidates on November 4. Candidates will be asked to sign the voter lists on November 5 and 6.

Ballot boxes are to be dispatched on November 8, the election will be held on November 9 and the preliminary results will be announced on the same day.

The official results will be announced on November 12, one day after the current presidential term ends.

Re-registration form verification

The DNR revealed last week that 11 out of the 500 voter re-registration forms sent to the police so far for verification have been rejected to date.

At press conferences on Thursday (October 31), the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Jumhooree Party (JP) said that they have identified several problems with the re-registration forms, after the EC allowed the parties to review the forms last week.

Abdulla Ameen, campaign agent of PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen, told the press that a five-member team from the party reviewed the information on 11,000 forms submitted before October 19 and discovered issues on 20 percent of them.

Among the problems the PPM discovered, Ameen said, included address mismatches, expired ID card numbers, smudged fingerprints, missing signatures, missing phone numbers and incomplete information of witnesses.

The forms should have been rejected by the EC, Ameen argued.

The PPM has therefore asked the EC to verify 6,000 forms either through fingerprint verification or by contacting the re-registered voter, Ameen said.

The verification was necessary to ensure that voters were not re-registered in a different location without their knowledge, he added.

JP candidate Gasim Ibrahim meanwhile told reporters that the party’s team also identified similar problems after checking about 15,000 forms.

Gasim reportedly said that he would not allow the election to be held in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in the apex court’s judgment annulling the September 7 election.

The re-scheduled election on October 19 was cancelled after the JP and PPM candidates refused to approve the voter registry as required by the Supreme Court guidelines and police obstructed the EC an hour before polls were due to open.

In an interview on the state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM), EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek described the Supreme Court guidelines as “locks” and “restrictions” while expressing frustration with candidates having “veto power” to prevent the election from taking place.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Other religions will not be allowed under MDP government, says Nasheed

Religions other than Islam will not be allowed in the Maldives under a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government, former President Mohamed Nasheed reiterated on Friday (November 1).

Speaking at a campaign event in the island of Velidhoo in Noonu atoll, the MDP presidential candidate said Islam has always been accorded “the highest place” in the hearts of the Maldivian people who “hold sacred the noble principles of Islam.”

“There will be no room for another religion in this country under an MDP government. This is very clear,” Nasheed asserted.

Allegations suggesting otherwise by rival political parties “to play with the hearts and minds” of the public were sowing “discord and division” in Maldivian society, Nasheed added.

Last week, a group of local religious scholars from the Maldives Society for Islamic Research released a 48-page book titled “The word of religious scholars concerning Nasheed,” calling on the former president to “repent” and “return to the true path.”

The scholars claimed that Nasheed demeaned the Prophet’s Sunnah (way of life prescribed as normative for Muslims on the basis of the teachings and practices of Prophet Mohammed), rejected tenets of Islamic Shariah, and tried to foster public debate over the enforcement of compulsory Shariah punishments.

Regardless of the winner in the upcoming presidential election, Nasheed assured that there was no possibility of other religions being introduced to the Maldives.

“That is not something that we should doubt. But the doubt is created because our rivals are constantly using these words. Something that does not exist will exist when you continually talk about it. A lie becomes the truth when you keep repeating it. It enters our hearts as the truth,” he said.

The religious faith of Maldivians was actually threatened by the MDP’s political opponents, Nasheed contended, because they were “creating suspicion and doubt.”

Addressing the people of Hinnavaru in Lhaviyani atoll earlier in the day, Nasheed reportedly said faith should not be “shaken so easily” because of what one hears or sees, adding that it was the five pillars rather than “backbiting” (gheeba), spreading rumours, and defaming others that were needed to uphold Islam.

Nasheed’s remarks follow persistent accusations by the MDP’s political opponents concerning the party’s alleged “securalisation agenda” and anti-Islamic policies, contending that the 100 percent Muslim status of Maldives would be threatened under an MDP administration.

Political record

Among Nasheed’s alleged transgressions, the scholars listed the “idolatrous” monuments placed in Addu City, efforts to legalise sale of alcohol in inhabited islands, remarks suggesting addicts should be able to use drugs, and a speech in Denmark in which he allegedly criticised the Sunnah.

On December 23, 2011, a coalition of eight political parties and an alliance of NGOs rallied at a mass gathering to “defend Islam” from Nasheed’s allegedly liberal policies and conveyed five demands to the then-MDP government.

The mass gathering followed the release of a pamphlet titled “President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians” alleging that the MDP was working with “Jews and Christian priests.”

Meanwhile, the religious conservative Adhaalath Party – presently allied with the Jumhooree Party and backing its presidential candidate business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim – released a press statement on Thursday (October 31) claiming that the MDP would amend the constitution to allow religious freedom if the party gained a majority in parliament.

The Adhaalath Party referred to an amendment to the Drug Act recently proposed by an MDP MP to shorten the jail sentence for the offence of refusing to provide a urine sample to police from one year to 15 days.

“Therefore, in the ‘Other Maldives’ that Nasheed wants to bring, the punishment for a person caught redhanded using drugs is only a 15-day detention. Drug use cannot be encouraged any more than this,” the press release read.

The Adhaalath Party contended that, with a larger majority in parliament, the MDP would not hesitate to “decimate” Islam in the Maldives and “open up the country to other religions.”

With the provisional support of nine Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MPs, the MDP currently has a simple majority of 39 votes in parliament. However, a two-thirds majority or 52 MPs is needed to amend the constitution.

In the face of religion-based attacks, the MDP has maintained that rival parties were using Islam as “a political weapon to sow discord.”

In a press statement in September, the MDP reiterated that the party would not allow other religions to be introduced in the Maldives.

The statement referred to the MDP’s achievements in government: establishing a Ministry of Islamic Affairs, allowing freedom to preach for local scholars, building 42 mosques as well as a number of prayer rooms in schools, training 150 Islamic teachers, strengthening the National University’s faculty of Shariah and law with foreign assistance, opening of an Islamic Bank and the construction of a new government-funded building for Arabiyya School in Male’.

The party’s 2013 manifesto meanwhile includes the construction of an “Islamic Knowledge Centre” in Male’ for MVR 200 million (US$13 million) that would include a library, lecture halls and a mosque with a capacity 5,000 worshippers.

Among other policies for the next five years include conducting an international Islamic conference in the Maldives at an estimated cost of MVR 25 million (US$1.6 million) with the participation of renowned foreign scholars, training 300 Quran teachers to first degree level, and allocating MVR 36 million (US$2.3 million) for renovating mosques across the country.

“We note that all these projects are costed and budgeted and the manifesto includes details for implementation,” the press release stated.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: Election annulment’s confidential police report

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

Just before midnight on 7 October 2013, the Maldives Supreme Court issued a ruling cancelling the first round of the second democratic elections held on 7 September 2013.

Although the election was found to free and fair by over a thousand domestic and international observers, Jumhooree Party candidate Qasim Ibrahim filed a case at the apex court citing fraud and vote rigging during the election.

The 4:3 verdict cited a confidential police report submitted to the court allegedly claiming that 5600 votes were ineligible. The report has not previously been available to the public and was not shown to the Election Commission’s defence lawyers.

On the Supreme Court’s request, a team of ‘forensic experts’ from the Maldives Police Service worked from 26 September to 3 October inside the Supreme Court premises analysing ‘evidence’ of alleged fraud and vote rigging on 7 September.

It was cited in the Supreme Court ruling as the main basis on which the court ruled in Jumhooree Party’s favour. Dhivehi Sitee discovered a copy of the report online. The following is an English translation.

Maldives Police Service, Forensic Service Directorate, Male’, Republic of Maldives

Report No: K/JER/2013/0001

Report on discrepancies found in lists compared in the case submitted on vote rigging in the first round of the presidential election

1. Introduction

This is a report on the findings of the investigation into the validity of evidence submitted against Elections Commission by Jumhooree Party in case No. 42/C-SC/2013 being heard at the Supreme Court, conducted upon a request made by the Supreme Court in its letter 197-C1/171/2013/30 dated 26 September 2013.

A large number of Forensic Document Examiners, Digital Examiners and support staff participated in the analysis, gathering and compilation of the information contained in this report. The work was conducted in the Supreme Court of the Maldives, in the presence of Court staff, between 26 September 2013 and 03 October 2013.

2. Material compared

2.1 List of 470 ballot boxes described as containing (in separate boxes) List of People Who Voted in the 2013 Presidential Election (7 September 2013): (Note: Although this is how the box files sent by the Elections Commission were marked, the separate booklets contained in the box files were labelled ‘List of Eligible Voters in 2013 Presidential Election’. From now on, all references to this list or to the booklets in this report will be as ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. Thus, in total, the number of booklets or lists were contained in 44 box files, total 796 booklets.)

2.2 The following documents submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party

2.2.1 Children under the age of 18 in the Eligible Voters List (41 names included);

2.2.2 List of dead people in the Eligible Voters list (list including 669 names);

2.2.3 Names of people repeated in the Eligible Voters List (list including 204 names);

2.2.4 List of people in the Eligible Voters List not included in the ID card registry of the Department of National Registration (List in which names of 1818 people are included);

2.2.5 List of people in the Eligible Voters List registered at addresses without knowledge of the home owner (Including information on 1187 people).

2.3 Personal information of citizens stored by the Department of National Registration (DNR Database);

2.4 Access logs of the computer software Ballot Progress Reporting System (or B.P.R.S) used in the Elections Commission on polling day;

2.5 Copy of the Eligible Voters List provided to the Jumhooree Party by the Elections Commission;

2.6 Eligible Voters List in the 2013 Presidential Election published in the Government Gazette.

3. Methodology of verifying validity of the lists

To establish the validity of the lists submitted to the Maldives Supreme Court by the Jumhooree Party, they had to be compared against the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the court by the Elections Commission. The origins of the on-going case submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party lie in doubts raised over the Voters Registry of the Elections Commission. Hence, assessing the validity of the Elections Commission’s ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was also seen as essential and efforts were made to do so. Thus, information contained in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was compared with personal information stored by the Department of National Registratin (DNR Databse) and discrepancies found are included in this report.

Further, the ‘Presidential Election 2013 – Eligible Voters List’ published in the Government Gazette Vol.42, No.94 of 30 May 2013; ‘Amendments made to the 2013 Presidential Election Eligible Voters List of 30 May 2013 following complaints received’ published on 29 June 2013; and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission were also compared and the findings are included.

To conduct this work, separate lists in the 470 boxes of ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ were re-typed into computers and compared with the DNR database. As more than 1 (one) list was included in one ballot box, information in such lists were looked at and analysed individually.

Further, the lists referred to in 2.2 of this report were individually compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and the DNR Database.

Access logs of the computer software Ballot Progress Reporting System (or B.P.R.S) used by the Elections Commission on polling day were obtained.  But, due to the manner in which the system was used with access allowed from many IP addresses and the short time available for research, adequate analysis was not carried out.

In examining the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ efforts were made to establish how [officials] verified the identity of which person from the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ was casting the vote. This was done with reference to Chapter 3 (Taking Votes) of the ‘Officials Handbook – Presidential Election 2013’ compiled by the Elections Commission.

Moreover, efforts were made to assess information around the lists that we believed must be looked at in conducting work of this nature. Points of note from these efforts are also included in this report.

3.1 To establish that persons named in the ‘List submitted to the Supreme Court by Jumhooree Party of 41 children who were under 18 and ineligible to vote but are said to have been allowed to vote’, referred to in 2.2 of this Report, are Maldivian citizens, the list was compared with the DNR Database. To this effect, as those not included in the DNR database are people who have not obtained a national identity card, they have been regarded as people who not eligible to vote. If the people in this List were found in the DNR database, their ages were verified and it was established whether or not they were 18 years of age by 06 September 2013 and therefore eligible to vote.

3.2 Information relating to the 669 people who are said to be dead were compared, as stated in the previous point, to the DNR Database. In addition, it was checked whether those people from the 669 whose information was found to be in the DNR database were included in the Eligible Voters List said to have been used in the polling stations of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013. It was also checked whether such an individual had voted in the presidential election on 7 September 2013.

3.3 The list submitted by the Jumhooree Party of 1187 people from the Eligible Voters List in the Presidential Election on 7 September 2013 said to have been registered at a different ballot box without the knowledge of the voter cannot be verified through data comparison work such as this. Therefore, this work could not get to the bottom of it. But, we state that the issue must be addressed in concluding this case and propose that it be verified by the relevant complaints (elections) office or committee records.

3.4 Information relating to the 102 people noted by Jumhooree Party as repeated in the lists of eligible voters in the presidential election of 7 September 2013 were compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’.

3.5 Checked whether any individual’s name was repeated in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. It was also checked whether such a person voted more than once.

3.6 To verify Jumhooree Party’s claim that 1818 people described by Jumhooree Party were entered into the List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election without valid information, their details were checked against data comparison [sic], DNR database and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’.

3.7 Checked whether any person was included in the lists of eligible voters used in the polling stations in the presidential election of 7 September 2013 that was not in the DNR Database or had invalid information. Clerical evidence available was used to verify whether or not any such individual voted in the presidential election of 7 September 2013.

Findings

4.1 Following are the findings of note resulting from examination of the lists submitted as evidence by Jumhooree Party

4.1.1 The ‘List of children under the age of 18 included in the Eligible Voters List’ submitted by the Jumhooree Party did not give the identity card number of the 41 children named in the list. When this list was compared with the DNR Database, 32 of them were found to have been under the age of 18 by 7 September 2013. The remaining 9 people’s information could not be verified because the list did not contain identity cards. That is, their names could not be found by the work conducted using their permanent addresses, names and ballot boxes as the basis. List of People Who Voted in the Presidential Election of 7 September 2013 notes that 12 of those 32 children voted. Information relating to the 32 persons identified are listed in Annex 1 of this report.

4.1.2 When the ‘List of Dead People Included in the Eligible Voters List’ containing names of 669 people submitted as evidence by the Jumhooree Party was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, information relating to 637 people were found. 14 of them were noted in the List of People Who Voted in the presidential election 2013 (7 September 2013). 2 of the 14 people were recorded as having voted using an identity card that was no issued in their names. Moreover, when the Elections Commission official noted the identity card of one of the two people using a pen, one digit from the identity card number was omitted. DNR database shows that 156 people recorded as deceased died on 01 January 1800. This information is in Annex 2.

4.1.3 When the names of 204 people submitted by the Jumhooree Party as list of people repeated in the Eligible Voters List was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 174 matching entries were found. This includes 22 people the DNR Database had noted as repeated and entered “REPEAT / REPEAT.REPEAT” as their permanent address. This information is in Annex 3.

4.1.4 When the list submitted by Jumhooree Party as containing information of 1818 people who are not in the Department of National Registration’s ID Card Registry were compared with the DNR Database it showed that DNR has not issued 1637 of these people with ID cards. Efforts to find the remaining people by matching other information were unsuccessful. This also includes 7 people referred to in Point 4.22. Records show that of the people identified, 207 did vote. 96 of them voted using identity cards that were not the same as listed in the gazetted list. Information relating to this is in Annex 4.

4.1.5 When the information relating to 1187 people listed as registered to certain addresses in the Eligible Voters List without the knowledge of the homeowners was compared with the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and the DNR database, 1186 records were found. 44 of these people were registered some place other than their home islands. While these 44 people voted, the Registry shows 1115 people in the list voted. It is believed that more information about this list cannot be found by data comparison. Information relating to people with such discrepancies is included in Annex 5.

4.2 It is noted that the ID card numbers of some people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ did not match with some of the ID card numbers written in pen on the list as voted. In this regard, 815 individuals had identity card numbers that did not match. Information relating to such discrepancies are given in Annex 6.

4.3 In instances where people’s information contained in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ did not match their information in the DNT Database, it must be noted that, they were given the opportunity to vote by changing such information with a pen to match that contained in the DNR Database. Information relating to such individuals are contained in Annex 7.

4.4 In sorting the names in the two lists of Ballot Box Number T03.1.4 different methods were used. While one of the lists was sorted according to the addresses on the identity cards the other was sorted according to the order of identity card numbers. Therefore, the names on the two lists were topsy-turvy and the two lists had lost their order.

4.5 Some people’s names were added to the ‘List of People who Voted in the Presidential Election 2013 (7 September 2013)’ with a pen and given the opportunity to vote. It can be noted from the lists that 07 people were given such an opportunity. Information relating to such individuals is contained in Annex 8.

4.6 It was noted that the list used to highlight people who voted in Ballot Box No. Z33.1.1 installed on “Vivanta by Thaj Coral Reef Maldives” was similar to the list gazetted by the Elections Commission. Therefore, the list did not contain important voter information such as Identity Card and Date of Birth. This is a list different from the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and similar to the list gazetted by the Elections Commission.

4.7 It was noted that the methods used to note those who voted on the Eligible Voters List varied at different polling stations. The following are methods used to note people who voted:

4.7.1 Using highlight markers to note who voted;

4.7.2 A tick against the name of the person who voted in pencil or pen instead of using a highlight marker;

4.7.3 Writing the voter’s identity card number with pen or pencil instead of using a highlight marker;

4.7.4 Putting a cross (x) beside the name with a pen or pencil after using a highlight marker;

4.7.5 Using a highlight marker to denote a person having voted and not at all entering their identity card numbers;

4.7.6 Using a highlight marker to denote that a person had voted, then using a different coloured highlight marker to denote the person had not voted; and

4.7.7 Having noted a person as voted by writing the person’s identity card number in pen, then crossing it out with a pen, then connecting it to an identity card number against someone else’s name with a line.

“Officials Handbook – Presidential Election 2013, Chapter 3 (Taking Votes) states that it should be done thus: ‘After checking the voter’s name in the list, note the voter’s identity card number in the allocated box and, once the person who issues the ballot paper has done so, note the person’s name in the list with a highlighter marker.’

4.8 It was noted that while two or three lists were used with the ballot boxes at some polling stations, others used only one list.

4.9 While it was noted that 690 people recorded as dead on the DNR Database was included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, records show that 18 people recorded as dead in the DNR database voted. Information relating to these 18 people are on Annex 9.

4.10 It was noted that the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ included information related to minors under the age of 18. 39 such children were included in the list. 07 of them voted after changing their age. It is evident from the Identity Card numbers entered into the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ with a pen that 4 out of these 7 children voted using another Identity Card belonging to someone over the age of 18. One such person voted at a ballot box abroad, in Malaysia. Information related to persons noted in this point are included in Annex 10.

4.11 It was noted that votes were cast using the same identity card (repeatedly) in the lists of eligible voters in 07 September 2013 presidential election. It was noted that three identity cards (ID Card Number: A047595, A100910, A263120) were used to vote repeatedly.

4.12 ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ repeated 07 different identity cards. Information relating to such persons is in Annex 11.

4.13 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 2273 people had Dates of Birth different from that listed in the DNR Database. Information relating to people in the eligible voters lists whose dates of birth were listed differently in the DNR Database is included in Annex 12.

4.14 There were 1804 people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ whose addresses were typed in the DNR Database as “REPEAT / REPEAT.REPEAT”. The registry of people who voted in the presidential election show that 225 of these people voted in the 07 September 2013 election using this identity. Detailed information relating to such persons is included in Annex 13.

4.15 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 4032 were found to have permanent addresses different from their addresses listed in the DNR Database. 2830 of these people voted. People whose permanent addresses listed in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ were different from that listed in the DNR database are included in Annex 14.

4.16 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, 319 people’s gender was listed as different from that listed in the DNR Database. Information relating to these people is in Annex 15.

4.17 Of the people included in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, 1164 individuals were found to have names different from the DNR Database. Registry of Voters shows that 952 such people voted on 7 September 2013. Information relating to people whose names were different is in Annex 16.

4.18 It was noted that carelessness when writing in identity card numbers of those who voted from ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’, meant some digits were missing or illegible. The information of 162 people were noted this way. Moreover there were 815 people in the registry of voters whose ID card numbers written in pen by the polling stations did not match the ID card numbers printed in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. This figure includes the 162 Identity Card numbers previously mentioned. This information can be seen in Annex 07 of this report.

4.19 Of people in the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ 07 people were completely missing from the DNR Database. Of those 07 people, one person voted in the 07 September 2013 presidential election. As this person has a passport, it is believed that the person voted using the passport. Nevertheless, no information relating to this person is in the DNR database. Information relating to the 7 people is included in Annex 17.

4.20 It was noted that there were differences between the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ published in the government gazette and list given to Jumhooree Party candidate by the Elections Commission. As such, while the total number in the gazetted amended Voters registry (on the Elections Commission website) was 239956, the total number of eligible voters as per B.P.R.S was 239593. The list Elections Commission gave the Jumhooree Party contained the number 239593. The voters registry sent to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission (on a CD) contained information relating to 239971 individuals. However, the booklets (used in the polling stations, printed on paper) containing ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ that the Elections Commission submitted to the Supreme Court to show the registry of people who voted contained a total of 239603.

4.21 Discrepancies were noted in results from ballot boxes. As such, there was a difference of 251 votes between the total number given in the ‘List of People Who Voted in the 2013 Presidential Election’ and results announced by the Elections Commission on its website and other forums. Total number of votes from 66 boxes was less than the number published by the Elections Commission. While 284 boxes had no problems, 120 boxes had more voters than announced by the Elections Commission. While the number which voted less is 123, the number of votes cast more than the total at the boxes was 254. Annex 18 contains a list which shows the discrepancies in the vote boxes.

Conclusion

5.1 Of the issues noted in No.4 of this report, records show 773 people were allowed to vote despite discrepancies in identity card numbers, 7 people whose names were not on the list were added by pen, 18 people voted who were listed as dead in the DNR registry, according to the Registry 07 children voted, 3 people voted repeatedly, 225 people voted who were marked as ‘repeat’ in the DNR and were not issued with identity cards, 2830 people were given the opportunity to vote even though their permanent addresses did not match, 952 people voted despite discrepancies in their names, 7 people voted whose records were non-existent in DNR, and 819 people were included whose identity card numbers in the printed Voter Registry did not match the identity card numbers entered with insufficient care by Elections Commission officials. This is a total of 5623 votes. In relation to the announced results of this election, we see this as a massive figure.

5.2 While officials in the presidential election 2013 were given training, a particular procedure was set for them to follow, and an ‘Officials’ Handbook’ was printed and shared with them, it was noted that there was no consistency in how voters’ identity card numbers were entered and in drawing the required line with highlighter markers to denote people who voted. This created additional difficulties in entering this information into the computer.

5.3 We did not receive enough technical information necessary for analysing the Ballot Progress Reporting System. Therefore, we cannot explain the system’s process and data flow mechanisms and did not have the information to assess the importance of using such a system or to identify the vulnerabilities of the system if any. When we asked for the system’s server access log and audit trail, we only got the access log. Adequate information in this kind of work cannot be gathered this way. However, as access log shows that the software has been accessed by several IPs, it is our view that these access points be identified and their legitimacy established. From analysing the access logs, it can be seen that the Ballot Progress Reporting System is a server hosted in a way that allows access to it by the general public. That is, the server had been accessed by a large number of domestic and foreign IP addresses. As such, records show that it had also been accessed several times by IPs in countries that did not host ballot boxes on that day. The IP counts of the access log also shows up information that makes us believe that some Nets used at polling stations were also connecting to the server. It is also our opinion that additional people (third-party), too, can enter the server. As the Elections Commission did not provide the audit trail of the Ballot Progress Reporting System, we could not do the work to answer complaints raised by the public about its stoppage at various times on polling day.

5.4 As the database of the Ballot Progress Reporting System could not be obtained, we could not further verify the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’ submitted to the Supreme Court by the Elections Commission.

5.5 As the clerical evidence obtained cannot get to the reality of the claims that votes had already been cast in their names when some people arrived at polling stations, and because there is no time to carry out such work, and as we do not have information on complaints filed at complaints bureaus, it was not possible for this report to get to the origins of those suspicions. For the same reasons the validity of the ‘List of 1187 people included in the Eligible Voters List who were registered at addresses without knowledge of homeowners’ could not be adequately verified.

5.6 Although the figure shown in point (5.1) is not a large percentage of the eligible voters, there is sufficient room to believe that it can affect the second round of the election. But, it must also be said that in relation to the error-margin this is not that big a number. When considering what has happened, it has to be said that there is vast opportunity to say that these things were done intentionally rather than unknowingly. That is, things like the inclusion of 1804 people in the Voter Registry to whom the Department of National Registration had not issued identity cards, a large number of dead people (690) being included in the Eligible Voters Registry and some of them casting votes, 39 children who were not 18 years of age according to the Roman calendar and 07 of them casting votes, 2830 people whose permanent addresses did not match being included in the Voters Registry, including in the Eligible Voters Registry 1164 people whose names contained huge discrepancies are issues which could have been, but were not, easily clarified from the Department of National Registration. For these reasons, it cannot be believed that this was an election in which work of the Elections Commission staff was sufficiently and cleverly supervised.

5.7 Since the issues listed above creates the room in which some people can see them as actions carried out for the benefit of a particular candidate, it is our view that ensuring that such matters are not repeated in future elections is vital for maintaining people’s trust in the young Maldivian democracy.

5.8 There is a difference of 251 people between the election results announced by the Elections Commission and the ‘List of Eligible Voters in the 2013 Presidential Election’. Although we cannot say directly how this difference has emerged, this will also be added to the Registry of people who voted. But, as all officials did not mark the voters registry as outlined in the Officials’ Handbook, and did not act with consistency or use the same method in noting names of people on the list who turned up to vote [sic]. And, it could also have happened because people who were not on the registry were also given the opportunity to vote this time, differences existed in the various copies used at even the one ballot box, or some other reason that has not been noted in this work. Moreover, judging from other problems encountered in the Registry, it is our view that it is also possible that people could have cast extra votes.

6. Researchers

This proposal was researched by a team of people with knowledge in various fields. Thus, document examiners, computer forensic analysts and technical staff participated.

03 October 2013

[Signature]

Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussein Adam

Likes(3)Dislikes(1)

Week in review: October 26 – November 1

The biggest headlines in the Maldives this week came out of the People’s Majlis, beginning with the MNDF going into the parliament to block the entrance of two opposition MPs who had been stripped of their seats by the Supreme Court.

After some scuffles, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Azim was handed over to police, who subsequently extended his detention to 15 days.

Azim had arrived to take part in the emergency session which eventually passed a motion supporting the transition of presidential power to the speaker of the house should no president-elect be determined by November 11.

After calling on the MNDF to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision to remove Azim and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party MP Mohamed Nashiz, Speaker Abdulla Shahid took the decision to appoint a serjeant at arms to oversee future security at the Majlis.

The constitutionally protected status of the Majlis premises was used to full advantage by MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor this week who sought sanctuary from arrest by police who wished to present him in court in relation to drug and alcohol offences.

After threats to try Hamid in absentia, the Criminal Court sentenced him to six months in prison for failure to attend hearings.

The Majlis also found time this week to receive the MVR16.4 billion (US$1 billion) budget for 2014, as well as accepting a bill that would criminalise calling for, endorsing, or taking part in a tourism boycott.

One person not present in the Majlis this week was now-former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, who was removed in a unanimous vote of no-confidence. This day’s proceedings were not without additional incident, however, as mysterious pills – rumoured to be laxatives – were found in a Majlis’ coffee machine.

The week’s events will not have reassured the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who wrote to Speaker Shahid requesting an urgent visit to the country to assess the situation.

Mandatory excess

MPs were not the only ones feeling persecuted this week, as Supreme Court took aim at MDP aligned broadcaster Raajje TV for allegedly defaming its reputation.  The station – decimated in an arson attack earlier this month – also reported fresh threats against its premises.

The Maldives Media Council and Reporters Without Borders joined station management in arguing that the police were acting outside of their mandate, encroaching upon an investigation that rightly fell within the purview of the broadcasting commission.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz warned media outlets that action would be taken against anyone found to be reporting “invalid information, if it relates to courts or judges”.

After levelling similar accusations against the police in relation the delayed election, the Human Rights Commission this week told Minivan News that it felt the police were now attempting to intimidate its staff.

It was the Supreme Court itself, however, that came in for the most stinging criticism this week as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay launched an offensive on the apex bench, accusing it of “interfering excessively in the Presidential elections”.

After being accused of “subverting the democratic process”, the Chief Justice quickly hit back, labelling Pillay’s comment “irresponsible” and “poorly researched”.

Reputation at stake

The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office also expressed its concern this week that repeated delays to the presidential election could hurt the Maldives’ economy as well as its international reputation – something not helped by an attack on the Indian High Commissioner’s official vehicle.

FCO minister Hugo Swire urged stakeholders to allow the Elections Commission “the space needed” to prepare for the elections – a request not heeded by either the government nor the presidential candidates who pleaded with the EC to move polls forward in order to avoid the impending constitutional void.

The Elections Commissioner responded that an expedited poll was not possible, regardless of any amount of government assistance – not even the police’s new-found ability to verify fingerprints at 25 times its previous speed.

Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek also revealed that the EC had found at least four of the 18 people deemed dead by the Supreme Court annulment to be alive and “quite fed up”.

MDP candidate Mohamed Nasheed told the press of diplomatic murmurings regarding likely economic sanctions should no new president be found by November 11.

He went on to suggest the way out of the impasse might be for either one of the three candidates to pull out of the  poll, or for the Supreme Court to un-annul the first round – making the November 9 poll a two horse race.

Finally, the World Economic Forum’s gender gap index found the Maldives a mediocre place to be a woman, with the country scoring highly in terms of education and health but falling behind in economic and political parity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis speaker swears in sergeant at arms

The People’s Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid has today sworn in former Maldives National Defense Forces (MNDF) officer Mohamed Haleem to the newly announced position of sergeant at arms.

The sergeant at arms is to oversee security of the Majlis premises – a task currently carried out by the MNDF.

The Majlis is also looking to hire two deputies and four assistants to the sergeant at arms and 100 security officers. Once the new security unit is established the MNDF will no longer oversee the security of the legislature.

The appointment of an independent Sergeant at Arms comes at a time when several MPs belonging to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) are being tried for criminal charges.

The Criminal Court today sentenced MDP MP Hamid Abdul GHafoor to six months in jail for failure to attend a trial over an alleged refusal to provide urine.

The court has issued several arrest warrants, ordering the police to arrest Hamid and present him at court. The police were unable to do so, however, after Hamid took refuge inside the Majlis premises.

Hamid claims the trial is “politically motivated” and contends the Criminal Court scheduled hearings during Majlis work hours.

Article 11 of the Parliamentary Privileges and Powers Act says an MP cannot be summoned to court during Majlis sittings or parliamentary committee hearings.

The MDP and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) currently control a simple majority in parliament. The DRP decided to back the MDP after MDP’s Mohamed Nasheed gained 45.45 percent of the vote in the annulled first round of presidential elections on September 7.

The MDP has condemned the judiciary’s attempts to “purge” its MPs.

On October 24, the Supreme Court stripped MDP MP Ali Azim and DRP MP Mohamed Nashiz of their seats over decreed debt. However, the Parliamentary Privileges Committee said they do not accept the Supreme Court’s “politically motivated” verdict and said Azim and Nashiz’s parliamentary membership continues.

When Azim attempted to attend a Majlis sitting on October 26, the MNDF blocked entry. Shortly afterwards, officers clad in combat fatigues stormed the Majlis and removed Azim from its premises, and handed him over to police officers waiting outside.

Azim is currently in police custody on charges of assaulting a police officer.

Speaker Shahid has condemned the MNDF’s actions stating that the MNDF are to follow his orders within the Majlis premises.

Article 4 of parliamentary regulations read: “Unless otherwise explicitly stated in the Constitution or laws, the Majlis building, hall, the pathways and corridors leading to the hall within the Majlis premises and the Majlis courtyard is under the control and orders of the Majlis Speaker.”

Three MDP MPs are currently on trial, while police have asked the PG to prosecute four additional MDP MPs.

MP Ali Waheed is on trial for disobedience to order for crossing a police barricade, while Hamid and Abdulla Jabir are on trial for alleged alcohol and drug abuse.

Police are charging MPs Alhan Fahmy, Imthiyaz Fahmy, and Mohamed Rasheed with contempt of court for criticizing the Supreme Court, and MP Ibrahim Rasheed with assaulting a police officer.

The MDP notes corruption charges against several government aligned MPs have been dropped since the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

2.2 percent voter registration forms sent to police have been rejected: DNR

Department of National Registration (DNR) Director Fareeda Yoosuf has stated that 11 out of the 500 voter re-registration forms sent to the police for verification have been rejected to date.

Meanwhile, police have announced they are able to verify fingerprints 25 times faster than they had previously stated.

“The DNR is just acting as an intermediary between the Elections Commission [EC]and the police. Once we receive forms from the EC, we forward it to the police who will carry out the verification process. Once we hear back from them, we deliver their results to the EC,” Fareeda explained.

“So far we have received 350 re-registration forms from the EC on Tuesday, and 150 forms on Wednesday. Having sent them to police promptly, we have heard from them that 11 of the forms have been rejected. We haven’t reviewed the report, nor asked for specifics, therefore we can’t say whether these forms have been rejected due to issues with the fingerprint, or some other issue,” she stated.

“As this is a matter related to the election, it is the EC that will decide on how to proceed with the matter. We have sent them the forms and the police report. It is their responsibility to follow it up and decide what to do about it,” Fareeda said.

Meanwhile, the police released a statement on Tuesday stating that they had completed the fingerprint verification process of 350 forms sent in by the DNR. The statement does not mention finding any irregularities in the forms.

Minivan News was unable to contact police media officials or the EC secretary general at the time of press.

Fingerprint verification

Although the Supreme Court ruling issued on September 13 orders the EC to verify fingerprints on re-registration forms through the DNR, Fareeda stated that the department does not possess the capacity or the resources to conduct the process.

The DNR therefore sends the forms they receive from the EC on to the police, who carry out the verification process.

While police routinely fingerprint those arrested and the DNR fingerprints those issued new ID cards, no institution in the Maldives has the capacity to verify fingerprints on the scale of a national presidential election.

The police initially said on October 14 that with the capacity they have, it would take them five minutes to verify a single fingerprint. As each re-registration form has fingerprints of four different people – the voter, the bearer who submits the form and two witnesses – each form would then take 20 minutes for verification.

However, on October 23 – 9 days after the initial statement – police announced that they have “increased capacity” to the level where they can verify five fingerprints in one minute, which amounts to 75 form verifications in an hour.

A statement on the police website quotes Assistant Commissioner of Police Hussain Adam as stating that the institution has increased capacity by deciding that, in addition to the automated verification system, police will also manually verify fingerprints.

He explained that manual verification meant that “fingerprint experts” will judge the legitimacy of a fingerprint by looking at it with the naked eye.

“There are certain things in every person’s fingerprint that need to be counted. This can be done by experts just by looking at it with the naked eye. We have decided to use this approach. It can be done,” he stated.

The Jumhooree coalition has maintained that they need at least five percent of the re-registration forms to have the fingerprints verified, while the Progressive Party of Maldives continues to demand that ten percent be verified.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Criminal Court sentences MP Hamid to six months for non-compliance with court summons

The Criminal Court has sentenced Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor for not complying with the court summons in a case where he was charged for refusing to provide a urine sample to police.

Criminal Court Spokesperson Ahmed Mohamed Manik today confirmed that the court has sentenced Hamid to six months in prison.

“He was sentenced for not complying with the court orders,’’ he said. ‘”The other case where he is charged for not giving the urine sample will continue.’’

Hamid’s lawyer and former deputy prosecutor general Hussein Shameem today told Minivan News that he had not officially received information about the court verdict but that he had heard it through the media.

‘’In the past eight years no one was sentenced to six months in a case where a person failed to comply with court summons,’’ he said.

Shameem said that normally the court sentences for not complying with court summons were a fine of MVR75 or a four month jail sentence.

He said that he will decide on appealing the case after he gets the court verdict officially.

According to Shameem, the court could sentence Hamid to an additional one year if it finds him guilty of the original case where he was charged for denying a urine sample to police.

Meanwhile, Hamid has issued a statement on the MDP’s website saying that he was not provided with an official requisition form as is required under article 7 of regulations on procuring, transferring, and testing urine samples and that he was not instructed to provide a urine sample as per regulations.

‘”At the hearing of the case held on 9 October 2013, the prosecution (state) lawyer had repeatedly failed to respond to my lawyer’s query whether I was instructed to provide a urine sample through an official requisition form as per regulations,’’ Hamid said in the statement.

“Therefore, this is an irrelevant and unsubstantiated case of political predation by the Maldives Police Service, the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Criminal Court, in direct contravention and disregard to official procedures and laws.’’

He said that he had been attending the court according to the summons until 23 October, when there had been a parliament sitting scheduled meaning he was unable to attend, sending a letter to the court informing it of such.

Hamid said that the court did not respond to his letter.

Majlis refuge

Parliament yesterday brought an amendment to its regulations, allowing MPs to attend parliamentary sittings and voting even if they are convicted of a criminal offence.

A total of 10 people were taken into police custody on November 16 after police raided and searched Hondaidhoo with a court warrant. Officers alleged they found large amounts of suspected drugs and alcohol upon searching the island.

In August this year Criminal Court Media Official Ahmed Mohamed Manik told Minivan News that the PG had charged MDP MPs Abdulla Jabir and Hamed with smuggling alcohol into the country and consuming alcohol.

Jabir and Ghafoor were also both charged with objecting to urine testing and possession of cannabis.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiza were also charged for objecting to take a urine test, said Manik.

Additionally, the son of former President Nasheed’s Special Envoy, Mohamed Hamdhoon Zaki,  has been charged for trafficking illegal drugs into the country – the penalty for which is 25 years and can be fined up to MVR10million.

On 24 October, the Criminal Court issued a warrant to arrest and summon Hamid to the court, but the MP took refuge in the parliament building on the same day meaning police were unable to arrest him.

Article 11 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act states that an MP cannot be summoned to court when Majlis sittings or parliamentary committee hearings are scheduled.

The parliament has also scheduled a no-confidence motion against Prosecutor General [PG] Ahmed Muiz for being biased and also for not fulfilling his legal duties in taking action against police and military officers who violated the law on February 6 and 7, 2012, after the Commission of National Inquiry’s (CoNI) report found that officers had violated the laws.

The issue has been now scheduled to next Monday after the PG told the parliament that he needed more time to respond to the no-confidence motion.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ambassadors warned of international restrictions if no president by November 11: Nasheed

Foreign ambassadors have warned of international restrictions on trade and financial transactions if there is no president-elect by the end of the current presidential term on November 11, former President Mohamed Nasheed said at a press briefing yesterday (October 30).

To avert such a scenario, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate suggested two solutions: the Supreme Court should review its judgment to annul the September 7 presidential election, or one of the two rival candidates should withdraw his candidacy “for the sake of the nation and Islam” ahead of the fresh polls scheduled for November 9.

“Ambassadors of foreign nations that I meet are now saying very openly that if there is no president-elect by November 11 they would have to take action under their normal rules or procedures,” Nasheed said.

A nation without an elected president is considered a dictatorship and prone to instability and unrest by the international community, he added.

Nasheed referred to financial sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe on troubled states such as Sudan and Myanmar.

If similar sanctions are imposed on the Maldives, Nasheed said the country would face difficulties in both importing essential goods, such as oil, medicine and foodstuffs, and continuing to export fish to Europe.

“If we cannot hold an election, we will be forced to conduct all business transactions overseas with cash,” he continued, as restrictions would apply to transactions through foreign financial institutions and banks.

“We are concerned because we can see Maldivians having to bear this burden. We are concerned that our rivals, even under these circumstances, are trying to stop the election and maintain the coup government,” said Nasheed.

The European Parliament in Strasbourg this week heard calls from UK MEP Charles Tannock to apply “maximum pressure”  to reverse what he described as a “judicial coup” in the Maldives.

Rival candidates only considered discussions to conclude the presidential election before November 11 after parliament “with a comfortable majority” passed the MDP’s proposal for the speaker of parliament to assume the presidency in the absence of a president-elect, Nasheed contended.

On the day parliament adopted the MDP resolution, he continued, the PPM and JP “realised that the coup government cannot be maintained even if they obstruct the election.”

“Even when we went to the Elections Commission, we all knew very clearly that it was unlikely that both rounds of the election could be held before November 11 while abiding by the Supreme Court guidelines,” Nasheed said.

Two options

Nasheed stressed that either a Supreme Court review or a candidate’s withdrawal was necessary to ensure a victor in one round to conclude the election by November 11.

As it was the Jumhooree Party that sought annulment of the September 7 election, Nasheed urged the party’s candidate Gasim Ibrahim to file a case at the apex court requesting a review of its decision.

“We are now at the mouth of a pit, on the edge of a razor blade,” said Nasheed, describing the consequences of repeated election delays.

Asked if either candidate had responded to his appeal for one of the pair to withdraw, Nasheed said he was hopeful but could not say he got “a clear answer.”

“I am certain that Gasim’s question will be, ‘why me?’ The answer is because you are the most sincere,” he said.

In lieu of a candidate dropping out of the race, Nasheed said the second option was for the Supreme Court to review its judgment and allow the second round to take place on November 9.

If none of the two scenarios came to pass, Nasheed expressed confidence of winning the election on November 9 “in one round” against the PPM and JP candidates.

“In my view, the Maldivian people’s patience has run out because of the efforts to stop the election from taking place. Fishermen can’t go fishing. People can’t leave on a holiday or for medical treatment overseas. And the campaign activists do not want in the slightest for their lives to return to normalcy,” he said.

Nasheed questioned the sincerity of the JP and PPM’s request for the Elections Commission to conclude the election before November 11 as both parties were insisting on following the Supreme Court guidelines whilst calling for Dr Waheed to remain in office.

Nasheed emerged the front-runner in the annulled September 7 election with 45.45 percent of the vote followed by Progressive Party of Maldives candidate Abdulla Yameen who polled 25.35 percent, necessitating a second round run-off.

Business tycoon Gasim narrowly missed out in a place in the run-off election with 24.07 percent of the vote and contested the results at the Supreme Court alleging widespread electoral fraud.

Meanwhile, at a press conference yesterday, JP Deputy Leader Ilham Ahmed emphatically dismissed Nasheed’s calls for Gasim to withdraw, calling instead for Nasheed to step back for the good of the nation.

“There is a fear that Islam will disappear if you [come to power]. There is a fear that there will be bloodshed here caused by introduction of other religions. There is a fear that you will sell of the nation’s assets,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Man arrested for vandalism of Indian High Commissioner’s Car

The police have arrested a 22 year-old suspect in connection with the vandalism of the Indian High Commissioner’s Car on Monday (October 28).

The police obtained a warrant from the Criminal Court to arrest the man, but have not provided any further details on the case. The case is being investigated by the Serious and Organised Crime Department.

The rear window of High Commissioner Rajeeve Shahare’s car was smashed on Monday evening whilst parked outside of the High Commission in Male’.

A statement released by the Indian High Commission described the attack, noting that a police officer was observed by High Commission security staff as witnessing the attack but failing to react.

“The Indian High Commission security guards observed on the close circuit TV that the culprit purposefully approached the Indian flag car, pelted two metallic objects at the car one of which smashed the rear windshield, and ran away thereafter,” said the statement.

“It is evident that there was malicious intention to cause damage to the property and perhaps to the occupant of the car. Importantly, the High Commissioner was in the car just a few minutes before the attack,” it continued.

The President’s Office on October 29 assured that such “cowardly” attacks against foreign diplomatic personnel and property would not be tolerated.

“The close and friendly relation that exists between the Maldives and India is based on mutual respect, understanding and reinforced by a shared vision of a better future for our people,” it said.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also expressed concern over the attack on the diplomatic vehicle.

“The Ministry wishes to call on all members of the public to refrain from activities that might undermine the close friendly relations that exist between Maldives and its close and friendly neighbours,” the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday (October 29).

The Maldives’ traditionally close ties with India have come under increasing strain under the current government, with the cancellation of a deal to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport  in December 2012 the most contentious issue.

The 25-year, US$500million, lease signed with Indian infrastructure company GMR was terminated after a long and at times xenophobic campaign from government-aligned parties.

The campaign sparked a diplomatic row after President’s Office spokesman Abbas Adil Riza accused Indian High Commissioner D.M. Mulay of being a “traitor and enemy of the Maldives and the Maldivian people”.

The President’s Office quickly distanced itself from these remarks. Both men have since left their posts.

GMR is currently seeking US$1.4billion in compensation in a Singaporean court of arbitration – a figure greater than the Maldives’ annual state budget.

On February 15 this year, the Indian government revoked a special quota afforded to the Maldives for the import of aggregate and river sand, resulting in a weakening of the construction sector in 2013.

The Indian High Commission itself became the scene of political drama as former President Nasheed temporarily sought refuge inside the diplomatic mission after police attempted to arrest him to ensure his appearance in court.

Following Monday’s attack, the Maldivian Democratic Party described the rhetoric of the past few months as “hate mongering targeting Indian officials.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)