Category: Politics

PG assures Election Commission it will be protected

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office has today assured the Elections Commission (EC) that it will do all it can to ensure the constitution is upheld after receiving a complaint regarding the behaviour of the security forces.

The PG issued a statement acknowledging receiving the EC’s complaint that the security forces had ‘hijacked’ the EC the evening before the scheduled second round of the presidential election.

In a statement the PG’s office assured the EC that it would take any action necessary to carry out its responsibilities as stated in Article 233(j) and Act Number 9/2008 15(j) to uphold the constitution, laws and rights of the people.

On September 27 when police were surrounding the EC building, commission President Fuwad Thowfeek told Minivan News “We will not be able to hold elections without support from the police. The police will stop any election preparation activity.”

Thowfeek said the EC members had been met by two officers “to get our assurance the preparation activities have been stopped.”

Special Operations (SO) police surrounded the EC secretariat with orders from Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take over the building and ballot papers.

The police barricade followed a Supreme Court order calling on the security forces to prevent anyone from disobeying a previous injunction to delay the second round of presidential elections.

The injunction was issued after the the Jumhooree Party (JP) filed a case at the Supreme Court alleging that there were major issues with the voter registration and requesting to cancel the first round of the presidential election and to delay the second round.

On October 8, the Supreme Court annulled the first round of the election and ordered the elections commission to hold the first round again before 20 October.

The EC has announced the re-vote will take place on October 19, leaving voters less than 24 hours to re-register due to the upcoming Eid holidays.

EC member Ogaru Ibrahim Waheed has today resigned, reports local media, though the reasons for his departure are not yet known.

On the evening in question, the police cordoned off the area around the EC and ordered journalists at the scene to leave. One EC official told Minivan News, on condition of anonymity, that staff were not being allowed to enter the building.

The PG’s office said that the case alleged security forces had obstructed the legal duties of an independent commission established under the constitution. It stated that the office was now discussing the matter with the EC.

Shortly after its acknowledgement that conditions were not appropriate for a free and fair polls, the EC filed a report with the police following multiple death threats received by its staff.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President condemns PPM’s bid to annul Nasheed’s candidacy, suspend printing of ballot papers

The President’s Office has “condemn[ed] efforts by individuals to stop former President Mr Mohamed Nasheed from running for Office of President of Maldives.”

“[President Waheed] believes this is not the time to engage in efforts to obstruct or bar candidates from going through the electoral process. It will not help resolve the already volatile political situation in Maldives,” the President said.

The statement follows the filing of a petition at the Supreme Court against the Elections Commission (EC), challenging the candidacy of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate and former President Nasheed.

The Supreme Court petition filed today (October 10) states as grounds for stripping Nasheed’s candidacy his “outright criticism towards Islam and imposing Islamic Sharia’ in the Maldives” and his criticism of the judiciary.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Council Member Ibrahim ‘Wadde’ Waheed and President of the ‘Madhanee Iththihaadh’ (Civil Alliance) Sheikh Mohamed Didi filed the case.

The parties to the case have requested the court issue an injunction to order the Elections Commission to suspend its efforts to print ballot papers.

In an about-turn, however, the PPM has officially said the party is negotiating with ‘Wadde’ Waheed to have the case withdrawn, arguing that he had not consulted with the party leadership.

“The international community is calling for an inclusive free and fair election which all candidates are allowed to contest. We know from the language used in their statements that their remarks point to one specific individual. With the filing of the case, this issue has taken international limelight,” PPM Council Member – daughter of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – and State Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon told the press today.

The move comes shortly after the Supreme Court annulled the first round of Presidential Elections, following a petition filed by the Jumhoree Party (JP) contesting that the entire electoral process had been flawed due to discrepancies and irregularities amounting to a “systematic failure”.

The Supreme Court – in a four to three decision – annulled the poll citing electoral irregularities, despite unanimous positive assessment of the polling by more than a thousand local and international election observers.

The majority ruling cited a confidential police report submitted to the court claiming that 5623 votes were ineligible. The report has not been made public and the legal counsel of the Elections Commission was never given the opportunity to present a counter argument.

The three judges who had dissenting views raised doubts as to the credibility of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, while also challenging the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case.

“Devious attempts”

Minivan News understands that the Supreme Court petition filed by Didi and Waheed requests that the court declare Nasheed not be allowed to contest in any election held in the country.

MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy – who is himself being prosecuted for criticising the courts – told Minivan News on Thursday that the petition was a “very dirty” attempt by their rivals to invalidate a candidate who had the demonstrable support of at least 45 percent of the people.

“These people are trying to finish through the court things that should be decided through the vote of the people,” said Minivan News.

“All these devious attempts tell one story. They have realised the huge defeat they have succumbed to, even before the elections. So now, their only hope it seems is to destroy the democratic values of this country, and try to contest in this election unopposed,” he added.

During a short press briefing given today after meeting the German Ambassador, Nasheed told the press that the lawsuit was not intended simply to bar him from the presidential poll, but also to ground the entire election.

“They are seeking the injunction to prevent printing of the ballot papers to delay the election as names of all candidates would be in the ballot paper,” Nasheed told the media.

The Elections Commission has previously said that no candidate would be allowed to withdraw their names even if they had decided not to contest, citing the Supreme Court’s annulment verdict which only ordered a repeat of the voting process, and not the filing of candidacy.

The former president has reiterated that, despite all efforts made to delay the elections, his MDP would go on to easily win the election.

“My opponents are advocating to bar anyone from opposing them – myself – from contesting in the presidential election. They are attempting to disallow political parties from contesting in the election, to ensure that credible elections never take place.”

“They are trying to override the highest order of the country, which is the people, and give that to the police and the military,” Nasheed said, speaking in a campaign rally on Wednesday evening in Faafu Atoll.

Nasheed’s candidacy was formally accepted by the Elections Commission in mid-July.

Nasheed and the MDP noted the politically-motivated earlier attempts to obstruct him from contesting the election, pointing to the presence of political opponents on the JSC including a rival presidential candidate.

That trial – into the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed – subsequently stalled at the high court level, after the Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef issued an injunction.

A day later the JSC suspended Shareef for what it claimed was an unrelated matter. His suspension was this week upheld by the Civil Court.

Annulment of candidacy

Should today’s PPM case be accepted by the Supreme Court, it would constitute a second attempt to bar Nasheed from contesting in a presidential election.

In October 2008 the JP’s Youth League leader Moosa Anwar filed a similar petition contending that Nasheed was not eligible to contest in the 2008 presidential election as he had been convicted for theft, which is a Hadd offence.

However, the interim Supreme Court ruled in favour of Nasheed, declaring that he was eligible to contest in the election whilst also rejecting the claim that Nasheed had been sentenced for a Hadd offence.

Earlier in March, former Human Rights Minister Dhiyana Saeed alleged that a Supreme Court judge had instructed her to file a case against Nasheed in a bid to prevent him from running for presidency in the 2013 presidential elections. Following the request, Saeed sent a letter to the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain requesting him to investigate the matter.

Among the suggestions given by the judge, Saeed claimed at the time, were filing a case concerning Nasheed’s decision to remove eight members of parliament appointed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, prior to the ratification of the constitution.

Another suggestion given by the judge, Saeed alleged, was to refile the case filed by Anwar in 2008 against Nasheed.

Likes(1)Dislikes(1)

Translation: Supreme Court verdict on Jumhooree Party vs Elections Commission

Following is an unofficial translation of the judgment (Dhivehi) delivered by the Supreme Court on October 7, 2013 annulling the first round of the presidential polls in the case filed by the Jumhooree Party against the Elections Commission alleging electoral fraud. The 4-3 majority decision of Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Abdulla Saeed, Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Ali Hameed Mohamed annulled the election result.

Read story on election annullment

Read summary of Dissenting Opinions

Read Minivan News’ courtroom observations

Majority verdict:

Thus, upon consideration in a legal and judicial view of the arguments made by the complainant as well as the Attorney General of the Maldives and the Progressive Party of Maldives who had intervened in the case filed at the Supreme Court of the Maldives by the Jumhooree Party; the guidelines given to the Elections Commission in the Supreme Court case 39/SC-C/2013 regarding improvements in the arrangements for the presidential election held in the Maldives on September 7, 2013 as well as the principle of legality; the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives; the law number 11/2008 (Elections Act); the evidence submitted in the case as well as the expert report compiled by an expert forensic team assigned by the Supreme Court to compile a report needed for the trial concerning the evidence; and the standards in article 170 of the constitution to be followed for public referendums and various elections:-

And since the case submitted by the Jumhooree Party requested annulment of the presidential election held on September 7, 2013 contending that a large number of citizens were deprived of the fundamental right of every citizen of the Maldives older than 18 years to vote in elections and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, due to the actions of the Elections Commission, which is given the responsibility by the constitution of making the arrangements fairly, without bias or partiality, to elect a president; [and contending] that the Elections Commission made arrangements for the election without accepting the cooperation and consultation offered by the National Centre for Information Technology and the Maldives Police Service based on information they had concerning the reforms the Elections Commission needed to enact to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, undue influence or corruption as stipulated in article 170(a) of the constitution; and [contending] that there was sufficient evidence to prove with certainty that the Elections Commission acted dictatorially in violation of the guidelines given in the Supreme Court case 39/SC-C/2013 with the intention of benefiting a particular party:-

As it is clearly stated in article 26(a) and (c) in chapter two of the constitution that every citizen of the Maldives 18 years of age or older has the right to vote in elections, and in public referendums, and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; as article 69 of the constitution states that no provision of the constitution shall be interpreted or translated in a manner that would grant to the state or any group or person the right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set out in this constitution; as article 65 of the constitution, referring to chapter two of the constitution that outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of Maldivian citizens, states that, “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this chapter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court to obtain a just remedy,” and where the rights of a person, a group or community has been adversely affected by administrative action, every such person, group or every person who may be directly affected by such action has the right to submit the matter to court.

And article 113 of the constitution states in clear language that the Supreme Court shall have sole and final jurisdiction to determine all disputes concerning the qualification or disqualification, election, status, of a presidential candidate or running mate or removal of the President by the People’s Majlis, and that such a decision by the Supreme Court shall be the final word; as article 145(c) states that the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law; and as article 20(b) of law number 22/2010 (Judicature Act) states in clear and unambiguous language that it is obligatory upon the executive, the People’s Majlis, the judiciary, members of independent institutions, state institutions, persons in state posts, the security services comprising of the police and military, and all citizens to obey decisions of the Supreme Court,

The [Jumhooree Party] case is in regard to a dispute referred to in article 113 of the constitution concerning the election of a presidential candidate, and as article 113 definitively states that only the Supreme Court has the authority to settle such disputes, there is no legal or judicial basis to disagree within the region where the constitution of the Maldives holds sway that making a judgment in the case submitted by the Jumhooree Party and resolving the dispute concerning the election of a president is a constitutional responsibility within the special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the constitution:-

As the Elections Commission that made the arrangements for voting in the first round of the presidential election mandated by the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives in the year 2013 is an impartial independent institution formed under article 167 of the constitution; as it is the responsibility of the Elections Commission to ensure the proper exercise of the right to vote, and to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption; and as it can be clearly seen from article 17(2) (6) and (7) of law number 8/2008 (Elections Commission Act) that it is the responsibility of the members of the commission to promote rule of law, protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, to not commit any act either directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate or a political party, to not commit or participate in any act or express any opinion that might cast doubt on the independence of a member, and not commit any act that might cast doubt on the independence, freedom and impartiality of the commission – the arrangements for the presidential election held on September 7, 2013 were made in violation of the compulsory guidelines given to the Elections Commission in the Supreme Court case 29/SC-C/2013 as the guardian of the laws and the constitution of the Republic of Maldives; and as a result of the actions of the Elections Commission regarding the election, which broadly facilitated fraud, undue influence and corruption, 773 persons were allowed to vote despite conflicting ID card numbers, 7 persons whose names were not were not on the list were added to it manually with a pen, 18 persons voted despite the DNR [Department of National Registry] registry showing they were deceased, 7 children voted according to the registry, 3 persons voted twice, 225 people voted despite not being given ID cards under their names because their records were considered “repeated” in the DNR, 2830 people were allowed to vote despite their permanent addresses not matching, 952 people voted despite their names not matching, 7 people voted despite their names not being in the DNR at all, and records showed that the ID card numbers of 819 people did not match in the printed voter registry because of the carelessness of elections officials who noted it down after they had voted; as it can be seen that a large number of Maldivian citizens were deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote and as there was opportunity for one person to vote more than once; and as there is no legal or judicial basis to consider that the proper exercise of the right to vote as required by article 170(a) of the constitution was fully ensured in the aforementioned election, based on the witness testimony heard in this case, the clerical evidence, and the expert report compiled by the expert forensic team assigned by the Supreme Court regarding the evidence, [the Supreme Court rules] that presidential election held on September 7, 2013 is a void election that lacked legitimacy, and orders the Election Commission and other relevant state institutions to make arrangements for the first round of the presidential election required to be held in 2013 by the constitution under the following [guidelines];

(1)        The Elections Commission and relevant state institutions should jointly make arrangements to hold the election required by the constitution to be held in 2013 in adherence to the guidelines provided in this judgment before October 20.

(2)        If a second round is required in accordance with the law and the constitution, the Elections Commission and relevant state institutions should jointly make arrangements to ensure a second round of the presidential election before November 3, 2013.

(3)        Make arrangements for voting to ensure that all citizens who turn 18 years of age by the date of the election required by the constitution to be held in 2013 is able to freely and fully exercise the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to vote in accordance with the rules or guidelines stated in this judgment.

(4)        Accept the Department of National Registration’s database as the main source to determine eligible voters in terms of age, and ensure that children under the age of 18 and the deceased are not included in listing eligible voters.

(5)        Ensure that voting in all electoral districts in the Maldives and abroad is based on the latest list that includes the voter’s name, permanent address and ID card number and [that the list] has been agreed upon as valid by the Elections Commission, candidates or their representatives, and [ensure that] no other list will be used in any electoral district either in the Maldives or abroad.

(6)        Ensure that all persons who register following the announcement for voter registration will not have their names changed to a different district when they are divided into the voting districts, and [ensure that] the list does not include the names of any persons other than those registered to vote in that district.

(7)        As those registered in the Male’ municipality special register are legally considered residents of Male’, and since there is no real reason to register [them] in a house in a particular ward or constituency of Male’ to vote in the presidential election, [the Elections Commission should] make arrangements for all persons in the Male’ municipality special registry who have been changed to houses to vote in specially designated ballot boxes [for those in the special registry].

(8)        Ensure that no one will be allowed to vote twice, and that every voter will be issued one ballot paper, and appoint all officials with the knowledge of candidates or their representatives to ensure that all officials in voting districts are safe from allegations of supporting or representing a particular political ideology or candidate.

(9)        Ensure that reports on the voting process in every district are compiled after completion of voting in the presence of representatives of candidates to ensure that the report is compiled without fraud or falsehood, omit or mark the names of people who did not vote in that district, ensure that the number of people who voted is not higher than the list of voters, and ensure that the report is compiled in the presence of representatives of candidates to assure that the people who voted in the list are those registered to vote in that district.

(10)   The Elections Commission and relevant authorities should make it illegal for any person (including officials) who enters the polling station to carry phones, handbags, files or any item (excluding pens) that could be considered to infringe upon the rights of candidates and ensure that no such action took place.

(11)   Ensure that a verified second list identical to the voters list in every district is placed in the district available for public viewing.

(12)   The Elections Commission together with the security services should ensure secure arrangements for printing new ballot papers with adequate security features appropriate for the election to be held before October 20, 2013 under the constitution, transferring ballot papers from one place or island to another, maintaining security for ballot papers, and maintaining security for ballot boxes after voting.

(13)   The latest token number issued to voters must be announced every 30 minutes to voters [waiting in queue], the relevant official should note the token number near the person’s name on the list while marking the name of the person after he or she has voted, and impartial officials must be appointed to ensure that no person’s name is marked twice and that two token numbers are not listed near the same name.

(14)   In order to ensure that arrangements for the presidential election required under the constitution are made in accordance with the compulsory guidelines given to the Elections Commission in this judgment, [the Elections Commission should] consult with other state institutions within no more than 72 hours of this judgment to ensure that [the necessary] arrangements will be made.

(15)   To minimise the possibility of a person being registered to a different district illegally without his or her knowledge, the Elections Commission should not accept re-registration forms or the forms submitted by a third party that does not include the name, address, identity card number and fingerprint of the person requesting re-registration, the person submitting the form as well as [the same information of] two witnesses. To ensure that [incomplete forms are not accepted], the Elections Commission should publicise a list including the names of those re-registered, the new district they have been registered to, their names, addresses, and ID card numbers.

(16)   As the aforementioned expert report revealed that a high number of foreigners who should not have had access to the Elections Commission server and database had regular access to it, the Elections Commission’s server and full IT system should be reformed and improved in accordance with the professional opinion of the National Centre for Information Technology and other relevant state institutions to assure confidence [in the server and IT system].

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein and Abdulla Areef

The Jumhooree Party requested the annulment of the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, claiming the Elections Commission violated the Constitution, Elections laws and the Supreme Court verdict number 2013/SC-C/39, violated fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution to every citizen and requested the Supreme Court to declare it a right for every presidential candidate to receive the registry of individuals of who had voted from the Elections Commission, and requested the voter registry be invalidated, claiming the registry was not accurate as it was not compiled in accordance with relevant laws and guidelines noted in the Supreme Court’s verdict 2013/SC-C/39.

We note the following with reference to the testimony and evidence presented by the complainant, defendant and those who intervened in the case, the Maldives’ constitution and Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act), and Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act).

1. The complainant, Jumhooree Party, has noted the following in contending the existence of irregularities in the “Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013”:

  • 669 dead people noted on the Department of National Registration’s list are included in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 41 individuals who were not 18 years of age by 07 September 2013 had changed their date of birth and are registered as 18 years old in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 102 individuals are repeated twice (due to possessing double ID cards) in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 1818 individuals who did not have valid ID cards and therefore were not included on the Department of National Registration’s list were included in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 1187 individuals who are on the Malé Municipality Special Roster were registered in houses without the owner’s permission and are registered on the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013. The Election Commission does not have the authority to do so.
  • In compiling the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013, attention was not paid to find out and list the Maldivians who live abroad (this does not include Maldivians who registered to vote abroad)
  • Among people who have the right to vote but were not listed on the voter registry, some were allowed to vote, while others were not.
  • Upon arriving at the polling station, some individuals found votes had already been cast in their names, however, these individuals were allowed to vote again
  • The ballot papers used in the presidential election on 07 September 2013 lacked strong security features and hence allowed for inauthentic ballot paper copies. This will affect the election outcome
  • With reference to the points noted above, the Jumhooree Party believes 2630 people who do not have the right to vote were allowed to vote in the presidential election held on 07 September 2013

2. Although the Jumhooree Party filed this suit under Article 113 of the Constitution, with reference to the points noted below, it is clear this complaint relates to the voter registry as per Article 170 (b) of the Constitution. The Jumhooree Party has asked:

  • For the list of individuals who have voted in the presidential election of 07 September 2013 be made available to all candidates
  • To invalidate the Voter Registry contending the registry was not compiled in accordance with the constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict 2-13/SC-C/39
  • For the Presidential Election of 2013 be invalidated
  • To issue an injunction ordering the Elections Commission not to proceed with elections unless it corrects the wrongs raised by Jumhooree Party and abides by guidelines put forth in the Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39

3. The following points are noted with reference to relevant constitutional articles, Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act) and Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act):

  • Article 171 (a) and (b) of the Constitution states that voting in all public elections or public referendums conducted by the Elections Commission, shall be by secret ballot and that immediately after the close of the polls, the presiding officer who is appointed by the Elections Commission shall, in the presence of such candidates or their representatives if present, count at the polling station the ballot papers of that station, and record and publicly declare the votes cast in favor of each candidate or question in public referendum
  • Article 172 (a) and (b) states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court and the manner for dealing with any challenge submitted pursuant to article  (a) shall be provided for in a statute on elections

4. Article 62 – 65 of the General Elections Act states the manner with which any challenge submitted pursuant to Article 172 (a) shall be dealt with.

  • Article 64 states any individual may file a complaint at the High Court if election laws are violated, or if they are unhappy with the Election Commission’s decision in an election complain.
  • Article 63 states that any individual who has the right to vote, candidates standing for election, political parties, authorized observers and monitors have the right to file election related complaint.
  • Article 64 (a) (b) (c) states that if a petition is submitted to the High Court, it must be accompanied by reasons, details and evidence and submitted within 14 days of the announcement of official result.
  • Article 65 (a) states a court should annul the election in a specific geographical area and order a revote only in the area if the court finds undue influence, bribery to influence voting, or violation of the General Elections Act and subsidiary laws

5. The following is noted with reference to Act no 11/2008 that was passed pursuant to Article 170 of the Constitution. The Act states that the Elections Commission responsibilities and powers include conducting, managing, supervising, and facilitating all elections and public referendums, ensuring the proper exercise of the right to vote, and to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption and holding and declaring the results of those elections and public referendums within periods prescribed by law

  • Article 4 of the General Elections Act states the Election Commission must conduct, manage and supervise all election
  • Article 2 of the General Elections Act states that the Elections Commission must prepare and maintain a voter registry
  • Article 9 (a) (b) (c) of the Act states that the Elections Commission must update the voter registry with most recent information and publish the voter registry in the government gazette with voter names, sex, and permanent address, 45 days before an election, and on that same day the registry must be published in a public space in every inhabited island, and ensure access to any individual who wants to see it and must publicize the place where the registry is published
  • Article 10 (a) (b) (c) and (b) states that political parties and any individual who is above 18 years of age, regardless of whether they are included the voter registry, have the right to complain over information included or not included in the registry and if such a complaint exists they must submit a complaint in writing to the Elections Commission within ten days of the voter registry being published in the government gazette, and the Elections Commission must review the complaint within 5 days of the end of the 10 days, and inform the party who raised the complaint of the decision and the reasons for the decision, and must revise the voter registry accordingly and publish the new voter registry in the gazette and also make the revisions in the voter registry lists published in public.

6. Jumhooree Party submitted five lists as evidence to prove that the Elections Commission’s Voter registry was not compiled in accordance with the constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39. However, the sources from which the information obtained for these five lists are not known. These lists are 1. A list of dead people present on the Voter registry (669 individuals) 2. A list of individuals who were not 18 years of age in the Voter registry (41 people) 3. Individuals whose names were repeated twice on the Voter Registry (204 names) 4. A list of individuals who were not issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration (1818 names) 5. A list of individuals who had registered at addresses without the knowledge of the owner of the address (1187 names). The Elections Commission submitted lists of those who had voted in the first round of the presidential election held on 07 September 2013 for all 470 ballot boxes (796 booklets) on orders of the Supreme Court. Jumhooree party’s five lists and the Election Commission’s list of those who had voted were given to a Maldives Police Services expert team consisting of document examiners of the forensic services directorate, computer forensic analysts and technical staff for comparison. We note the following from the expert report compiled by the Maldives Police Services:

  • When the list of the 41 underage voters noted by the Jumhooree Party was matched with the DNR database, 32 of the 41 were found to be underage, but information for the remaining 9 could not be confirmed. The registry of individuals who had voted shows 12 of the 32 had voted in the presidential election of 2013 held on 7 September 2013.
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 669 dead people included in the voter registry was compared with the Voter Registry, 637 of the 669 were found on the Voter registry. Of these 637, 14 individuals were found to have voted in the presidential election of 2013 held on 7 September 2013. Of these 14, two individuals voted with identity cards other than those issued to them
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 204 repeated names was compared to the Voter Registry, 174 entries were found on the Voter Registry. Of these 174, 22 individuals’ information due to repeated permanent addresses had been noted as repeated entries in the Department of National Registry. However, none of these people were found to have cast repeated votes
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 1818 individuals who had not been issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration was compared with the Department of National Registration’s database, it was found that 1637 of the 1818 were not issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration (the remaining 181 people’s information was not found). Of the 1637, 207 individuals were found to have voted in the presidential election and 96 of the 207 voted with ID cards numbers that were different to that included in the list published in the gazette
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 1187 individuals on the Voter Registry who had registered at addresses without the owner’s consent was compared with the DNR database, 1186 individual’s records were found, of these 44 are believed to have voted in locations other than their place of domicile, and 1115 of 1186 are found to have voted, however, 1159 of those who voted did not vote in any other ballot box than the one they registered to vote in
  • In instances where there were discrepancies in information of voters between the voter registry and the DNR database, the information was corrected with a pen as per the DNR information, and these individuals were allowed to vote. However, this did not allow for repeated voting in the Presidential Election 2013 held on 07 September 2013
  • 7 individuals were added by pen to the Voter registry on 7 September 2013 and were allowed to vote. However, as per the list of those who had voted on 7 September 2013, these seven votes were not repeated. With reference to the points noted above, there are 473 votes that may affect the first round of the presidential election 2013. In addition to these irregularities, there are other discrepancies noted in Maldives Police Services’ forensic report. The Elections Commission must revise these discrepancies in order to maintain public trust and ensure elections are held as per the Constitution and election laws

7. The plaintiff and those who provided witness statements asked for anonymity. There were clarifications to be made in the 14 anonymised witness statements. However, since such clarifications may have violated the anonymity of the witnesses, such questions were not asked. Further, the secret Maldives Police Services document submitted by the Attorney General’s Office submitted to court did not provide a right of response to the defendant. Hence these witness statements and the secret documents have not been counted [in this opinion].

Given, Article 172 (a) of the constitution states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or a public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court,

Given the Majlis has passed a statutory elections law (Act 11/2008) as per Article 172 (b) of the constitution which states the manner for dealing with any challenge shall be provided for in a statute on elections, and as Article 65 (a) of Act 11/2008 with reference to Article 64 of the same act states a vote in a specific area may be annulled and a revote ordered in that area if the court decides there is undue influence in an election in that specific area,

Given official results of an election can only be annulled only in the specific area, specific ballot box or boxes, in which undue influence has occurred as per Article 65 of Act 11/2008 (Elections Act), there is no room to annul the votes of the 211,890 people who voted in the 2013 Presidential Election held on 7 September 2013.”

Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan’s Dissenting Opinion

The Jumhooree Party requested the Supreme Court – under Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 10 (b) and 11 (a1-3) of Act no 22/2010 (Judicature Act) –  annul the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, claiming the Elections Commission violated the Constitution, Elections laws and the Supreme Court verdict number 2013/SC-C/39, violated fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution to every citizen and requested the Supreme Court to declare it a right for every presidential candidate to receive the registry of individuals of who had voted from the Elections Commission, and requested the voter registry be invalidated, claiming the registry was not accurate as it was not compiled in accordance with relevant laws and the Supreme Court’s verdict 2013/SC-C/39.

The defendant in this lawsuit is the Elections Commission. The Maldivian State, and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) intervened in the case. However, the MDP later left the case.

I note the following with reference to the Constitution, Act no 08/2008 (Election Commission Act), Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act), Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act), testimony provided by the Jumhooree Party, testimony provided by the Elections Commission, testimony provided by third party interveners, documents submitted to court, the answers provided to judges, and procedural aspects of this case.

  1. The Jumhooree Party has three requests
    • Declare the handover of the list of individuals who voted in the Presidential Election of 2013 be a right afforded to every presidential candidate
    • Declare the voter registry unlawful as it was compiled in violation of the Constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 and invalidate the registry
    • Declare null the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, and order the Elections Commission to proceed with elections only in accordance with the Constitution, Elections laws, Supreme Court Verdict no 2013/SC-C/39, and after correcting the wrongs noted by the Jumhooree Party
  2. As Article 172 (a) of the Constitution states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court, and with reference to Article 10, 64 and 65 of Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act), it is known that the Jumhooree Party’s petition’s jurisdiction lies with the High Court, and the aforementioned laws detail the manner in which such a challenge may be dealt with in a court of law, and that the Jumhooree Party submitted such a petition to the High Court and the High Court issued a final verdict in the case
  3. When examining the Jumhooree Party’s claim that the Voter Registry was not compiled in accordance with the Constitution, the relevant election laws and Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39, I note that the Elections Commission prepared a registry of all individuals who have the right to vote as per Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) and published the registry in the government gazette on 30 May 2013, and as per Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) the registry was revised and published for a second time in the government gazette on 21 July 2013. Article 8 through 12 of Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) clearly states that the Elections Commission must prepare and publicize the Voter Registry, allow revisions to the registry, allow individuals to re-register in instances where they are not present in their place of domicile at the time of voting. With reference to testimony and documents provided to this court, it is evident the Elections Commission followed all the procedures outlined in Article 8 through 12 of Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act)
  4. The Supreme Court case no 2013/SC-C/39 was submitted to the court on 22 August 2013, and a verdict was issued on 02 September 2013, and the verdict was supported by a majority of the Supreme Court, and the verdict was issued five days before the presidential election to be held on 7 September 2013. Hence, when the Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 was issued, very little time remained for the presidential election on 7 September 201
  5. Point five of the Supreme Court Verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 states: “while it is certain that none can deprive a person of age, his right to cast his vote pursuant to Article 26(a) of the Constitution, upon scrutiny of submissions of the parties at the proceedings and the evidence tendered with reference to the allegation of the applicant that the Elections Commission had failed to verify the accuracy of the voter registry forms required for the Voter Registry to be compiled for the upcoming elections of September 7,2013, with specific reference given to the circumstantial evidence tendered i.e. selected forms from among the complaint forms material to this application themselves, the Justices find no avenue may be allowed for compromise of any constitutional right guaranteed to the people. Article 170(b) requires the Commission to compile, maintain, edit when necessary the Voter Registry for all public elections and referendums and this duty of maintaining this Registry with the registration of voters who wish to vote at places other than their place of domicile is a positive one which falls upon the Commission. This is essential to ensure that the competitive Presidential Elections impending do not end in circumstances of violence and hatred. Functions such as the duty to ensure that those temporarily impeded from exercising their voting rights owing to Registry irregularities at places of their domicile are catalogued and allowed to rectify the respective irregularity after normal polling hours and the duty to ensure that no one but eligible voters enter the voting premises are all duties which the Commission need necessarily undertake. These duties further include ensuring all eligible voters have the unimpeded opportunity to cast their vote at their respective places of domicile and that to ensure that all registered under the Malé Municipality Registry as legal residents of the capital city, to be able to vote in determined locations in the capital unless registered to vote elsewhere. The Commission shall also ensure positively pursuant to Article 170 that the election that is held throughout the country will be administered based on the final list issued by the Elections Commission and that the copy of this Registry is issued to the benefit of the Candidate’s representatives and lastly, that there is no reference of any kind or nature towards any other document for such purpose. The Commission shall ensure all such procedures towards guaranteeing the integrity of the impending elections, all as positive constitutional duties entrusted upon them under Article 170 of the Constitution.” It is evident the Elections Commission carried out orders noted in the Supreme Court’s verdict no 2013/SC-C/39
  6. I do not accept some of the evidence presented to court. A secret document the defendant was not given the right to respond to was submitted. (I am unable to provide more details on this note because of the secret nature of the evidence presented.
  7. The plaintiff was not able to present credible evidence to annul the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013. With reference to the Constitution, election laws and Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39, I do not believe the irregularities noted in the report comparing the access log of the computer software, Ballot Progress Reporting System, used by the Election Commission on voting day, the voter registry issued by the Election Commission to the Jumhooree Party, the voter registry 2013 published in the government gazette, and the Department of National Registration’s database, are enough to annul the presidential election held on 7 September 2013
  8. Article 111 of the Constitution states a second round of the Presidential Election must be held within 21 days. Supreme Court verdict no 2009/SC-C/02 states “The constitution mandates that all state institutions ensure obligations which carry specific constitutional dates must be carried out within the specified timeline. The only lawful justification not to do so would be if events that are not within the control of man occur, such as natural disasters, war….” This verdict was a unanimous Supreme Court verdict and hence, all state institutions must carry out constitutional duties, as stated in the constitution within the time period stated in the constitution.

With reference to the aforementioned points, I do not see it necessary to issue a ruling on Jumhooree Party’s claims.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldivian Democracy – Where to from here?

“Maldives can never have stability through elections which has opposition Maldivian Democratic Party presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed’s name on the ballot”

“We will not hand over [power] through an election, [we] will not hand over even if he gets elected”

“Election fraud should be investigated and the election commissioner should resign”

– Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed

These are not political statements. This is not political discourse. This is not democratic discourse. We call ourselves a democracy – a young democracy. But these statements are the symptoms and early warning signals of a failing democracy.

Failing democracy

There are different versions and theories on what a ‘true democracy’ is, even though I believe that term is flawed to the core. No system is perfect and a ‘true democracy’ is too ambitious an aspiration to be realistically achievable. At the same time, democracy is also not just giving everyone above 18 a right to vote and a right to represent.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) runs an annual survey for a ‘Democracy Index’, which rates various sovereign countries across the world on how effective they are as democracies. They rate countries on five arameters which are commonly accepted as relevant for judging the strength of democracies: 1) Electoral process and pluralism; 2) Functioning of government; 3) Political participation; 4) Democratic political culture; 5) Civil liberties. While this annual ‘Democracy Index’ typically covers around 160 – 165 countries across the world, the Maldives is not ranked. One can go through the details of this index here and build their own perspective on how well are we doing on this.

My summary view on the state of Maldivian democracy based on an assessment of these parameters is that we are a democracy on ventilator, desperately gasping for life. The statements by a vice presidential candidate highlighted above are a reflection on the sanctity of our electoral process, rather the lack of it. No only this, ours is a democracy where the Supreme Court decides on the sanctity of electoral process based on a ‘secret report’ by the police without even giving a chance to the Elections Commission, or anyone else, to see the report – let alone comment on it. At the same time, one only needs to see through the various actions of the current government to see that we clearly fail on the parameter of functioning of government, with the rampant corruption and decisions that are typically taken under the influence of one of the president’s allies or the other.

President Waheed has been sanctioning millions of dollars’ worth of favours to the people who put him in power – £5million payments to Grant Thornton to stop corruption investigations against Abdulla Yameen, and the arbitrary 99-year lease extension for Mamigili airport are just a couple of cases in point. The recent decision by Waheed’s cabinet to sell MACL shares in the course of a week, while being totally silent on the valuation or process for sale as well as the role of the Majlis or the privatization board in the same is a further example of absolute failure of governance, which is marred by corruption, in our democracy.

Civil liberties, or the lack of them, is the most significant problem for us today. None of the media houses are independent since their owners are aligned with one political party or the other – a case in point is a recent headline in a national electronic newspaper which said “Nasheed ‘doesn’t have time’ for second round presidential debate” while referring to the cancellation of MBC’s presidential debate. Brutal crackdowns on anti-government protestors are a norm of the day and tolerance for the opposition view is totally amiss from governance.

As for a democratic political culture, our country is being run by a ‘president-by-chance’ who has no popular support and who has been totally inept at maintaining public order, largely because he represents the old order and vested interests who brought him to power. It is only political participation that is the last remaining hope for the Maldivian democracy, and I am proud to say that we may be one of the best in the world on this parameter, but I fear we are starting to view our democracy in this very narrow perspective.

Constitutional void or civil disobedience or much more?

It is apparent from the discussion above that Maldivian democracy is faced with a number of challenges that threaten its very existence. What started in February 2012 was a political turmoil. Where we are at today is a constitutional void – where no one knows who has the power on which matters, and everything is a question of interpretation of the constitution. The more worrisome aspect, after this Supreme Court judgement on validity of elections, is where do we go from here?

Whether the Supreme Court had the power to cancel the second round or not is still in question – the executive was only too happy to implement its orders anyhow without regard to the powers of the constitutional institutions such as the elections commission. Whether they were right in annulling the first round, on the basis of a report the existence of which is in question, is an even bigger question. Parliamentary supremacy is a bit of an unknown concept in our democracy and anyone and everyone seems to challenge it based on their convenience – be it challenging the position of the speaker, or validity of seats of opposition MPs, or the simplest of things like not destroying the audio systems just to stop the other side from making their case.

The questions are many and there are no clear answers. Can the elections commission ensure a free and fair election with the high level of control that has now been given to the Maldives police? Will the Maldives’ police, who are led by a man recently reprimanded by integrity commission for his anti-Nasheed activism in the forces, really allow a free and fair election? Will any election in which Nasheed wins, despite any odds, be conceded as a free and fair election? What will deter the losers of the re-election from running to the Supreme Court again pleading some other kind of foul play and getting the elections annulled once again? Will Nasheed supporters accept a defeat calmly and with grace, without crying foul play, having received 45 percent votes in the annulled elections? Now that the sanctity of the electoral process has been undermined significantly, what is the way out of this situation?

Using undue influence over the Supreme Court to play with the electoral process is not an acceptable answer for one side of the political spectrum. Disqualifying the most popular candidate from contesting the elections or not letting him take power – even if he wins the election and possibly even a re-election – is clearly not a plausible answer for the other side. This is a stark conflict and everyone is getting involved. Even the MNDF is getting politicised and polarised, along with the customs, air traffic control, and resort employees. That this conflict will only escalate further is increasingly likely and the recent arson attack on pro-opposition Raajje TV is an early warning signal of how bad things can get, if not checked in time.

Where to from here in search of solutions?

A conflict where a large proportion of people with a political voice start looking at every action of the state with suspicion is mostly avoidable. No one likes conflict and certainly not a violent conflict. With everything that is going on in the rest of the world – in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere – no one wants a conflict in the much more peaceful Maldives. Given the polarised nature of this conflict, it is important for order to be established in the Maldives sooner rather than later. Leaving internal institutions in the Maldives to chance upon a solution after a prolonged conflict is not what is required at present and may even be counter-productive.

Clearly, the Maldives needs the international community’s support to ensure that this conflict is not prolonged and is resolved for good with this round of elections. Moreover, it is not in India’s interests to see any prolonged conflict in its backyard, for such conflicts allow an opportunity to other countries to start playing an active role where they have been largely absent till date. It is important for India to establish diplomatic supremacy once again in the Maldives.

Ever since the suspicious transfer of power in the Maldives in February 2012, Indian engagement in the Maldives has largely been reactive. It has been on the ‘back-foot’ since February 2012 with the rising anti-India voices from some quarters of the political spectrum. President Waheed went back on his word to the Indian prime minister in cancelling the GMR agreement, and the much prolonged ‘Nasheed-holed-up-inside-Indian-high-commission’ drama in February 2013 only exacerbated discord. India has reacted well to manage some of these situations, though Indian diplomacy has failed on a few fronts, particularly in failing to gauge the allegiance of the current government of President Waheed.

The current conflict in the Maldives provides a perfect opportunity for India to take charge of the situation. The re-election is an opportunity to set the Maldives in order and to define Indian diplomatic supremacy in the region. It has to play an active role in building domestic as well as international consensus on whatever is required to ensure that the re-election, now that everyone seems to have accepted it, is free and fair and actually results in a smooth and consensual transfer of power on November 11. The number of diplomatic options India has are endless, but just strongly worded statements don’t seem to be enough of a deterrent to the various political actors in the Maldives. On the other extreme, far-fetched options like an international peace-keeping force or any sort of ‘boots-on-ground’ is totally out of bounds as well. While some sort of economic sanctions are a plausible diplomatic action, these haven’t been much of a deterrent in many cases across the world.

A possible tourism-embargo will hit the various political actors involved in this conflict and would force them to tow the democratic line such that the starkly polarised domestic politics could be sorted out once and for all. This is a call that has been made by the MDP as well, and has been welcomed and criticized in equal measure by various people across the socio-political spectrum in the country. Having said that, it is such details of what and how that India has to play without becoming actively involved in the local politics and without taking political sides. India has to build international consensus on what carrots and which sticks need to be used to ensure that any dubious dealings no longer stymie Maldivian democracy.

Maldivian democracy is on life-support and it needs international help, especially from India, to help it come back to life again after the 11th November.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Observing the Supreme Court in action

The first round of the Maldives presidential elections – the second multi-party presidential elections held in the country since 2008 – came to a bitter end after the Supreme Court annulled the poll deeming it invalid, void from the outset and, as per the exact wordings of Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, “undermining the principle of Universal Suffrage”.

This article is based on direct observations of the proceedings of the Supreme Court case filed by the Jumhooree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC), in which the presidential election was annulled.

After succumbing to a disappointing third place finish at the poll despite a heavily financed presidential campaign, JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim and his party sought to annul the poll, citing “massive” electoral fraud amounting to a “systematic failure”, that would have otherwise put him at the forefront of the race to become the sixth president of the country.

Among the list of allegations upon which the party founded its case were the presence of deceased and underaged voters, and repeated or erroneous entries. This, they argued, paved way for their opponents, primarily the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to cast ineligible votes that impacted the “true outcome” of the poll.

To add weight to their claims, the party produced lists of entries in the voter registry which it claimed to be invalid – the source of which remains subject to doubt, with the party’s claims to have obtained the information through its private investigations, party call-centres, and hearsay statements from anonymous witnesses.

Following the submission of the evidence and inspection of the original voting list used by Elections Commission (EC) officials, the Supreme Court tasked a ‘Technical Team’ of police officers to compare the voter list against the allegations by the JP.

The Supreme Court, using the findings of the police’s ‘technical team of experts’ – who claimed the existence of some 5,623 instances of electoral fraud – annulled the elections in a four to three decision, contending that instances of electoral fraud highlighted by the police sufficed to prove a loss of legitimacy in the election.

The majority ruling was formed by Supreme Court Justices Adam Mohamed, Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Ali Hameed and Abdulla Saeed. Meanwhile, the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain, Justices Abdulla Areef and Muthasim Adnan had dissenting views in which they argued that there lacked sufficient grounds to annul the poll.

Controversy surrounding Justices

It is first worth highlighting the controversies that surround the four Justices who formed the majority ruling.

  • Justice Ali Hameed – who was formerly a High Court Judge prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court – is currently under both police and Judicial Service Commission (JSC) investigation for the sex scandal in which leaked CCTV footage allegedly taken during a stay in Sri Lanka depicted him fornicating with multiple European and Sri Lankan prostitutes. The videos went viral in both local media and on social networks, subjecting the judge to heavy public criticism. Meanwhile. a corruption case against Justice Hameed was forwarded to the prosecutor general on July 2013 for abuse of state funds.

  • Justice Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi was formerly a member of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) – whose leader Dr Hassan Saeed represented the Jumhoree Party (JP) in the case. Didi contested the 2009 parliamentary elections as a DQP candidate. Moreover, Justice Didi’s eligibility had been contested after it had been argued that he did not satisfy the requirements as prescribed by the law to sit in the Supreme Court, as he lacked the required seven years experience practicing law.

  • Justice Adam Mohamed – who is also the Chair of the judicial watchdog the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – stands accused by fellow commission member Shuaib Abdul Rahman of dictatorial conduct in the commission including an instance where he, as the chair of the JSC, outright refused to table a no-confidence motion levied against himself. He has also been subjected to criticism for the JSC’s delay in looking into Justice Ali Hameed’s sex-tape scandal and the controversial suspension of the Chief Judge of High Court over one year ago.

  • Justice Abdulla Saeed – who was the interim Chief Justice prior to mid 2010 – stands accused of making politicised statements, contrary to the law. Recently, opposition-aligned Raajje TV – which was destroyed in an arson attack this week – aired an alleged audio clip in which Justice Saeed described the opposition MDP candidate Mohamed Nasheed and his supporters as suffering from “yellow fever”, and that “by no means should Nasheed be allowed to become president”.

It worth noting that these four justices have joined hands to form the majority ruling in several controversial Supreme Court cases, most notably the overriding of a parliamentary removal in the sexual harassment case of former Chair of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy Hassan and the legitimizing of the controversially formed Hulhumale Magistrate Court – which is currently hearing the criminal trial of Nasheed.

Eviction of the Elections Commission’s lawyer

Back to the election annulment case. One of the most telling observations during the hearings was the attitude shown by these four justices – most notably Justice Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi and Justice Abdulla Saeed – towards the attorney representing the EC, Hussain Siraj, during the hearing in which concluding statements from the parties were heard.

Siraj was forced to appear as the senior counsel for the EC after the former Attorney General and President of the Maldives Bar Association, Husnu Al Suood, was ejected from the case for publicly challenging the constitutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s mid-trial order to suspend efforts by the EC to hold the run-off election.

Subsequently, the attorneys representing the opposition MDP – who had intervened into the case – were ejected on similar grounds, prompting the party to withdraw from the case altogether claiming that “justice had been denied”.

During the hearing in question, Siraj attempted argue that the injunction issued by the Supreme Court would contradict the constitutional provision prescribed under Article 111(a), which explicitly states that a run-off election must be held within 21 days of the first election should no presidential candidate obtain more than fifty percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court Justices Abdulla Saeed and Ahmed Abdulla Didi responded harshly, while Justice Abdulla Saeed questioned the capacity of Siraj to comprehend what the Supreme Court was doing with regard to judicial review.

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi stated that no one could speak on the legality of a decision made by the Supreme Court and that such an action could amount to contempt of court.

It was also observed that the Justices repeatedly disallowed Siraj from contesting the constitutionality of JP’s requests, while no such restrictions were placed on the JP’s legal counsel Dr Hassan Saeed when he made similar claims.

EC not given opportunity to respond to police report

As mentioned before, one of the fundamental documents upon which the Supreme Court’s judgement was based upon was the report produced by the technical team from the Maldives Police Service, who had cross-referenced the JP’s allegations against the voter list used by Elections Commission officials.

The existence of such a report by police was not formally announced until the justices starting using it as a reference point – despite it playing a pivotal role in forming the majority ruling of the Supreme Court.

As a result, the Elections Commission’s legal counsel was never given the opportunity to challenge or examine the findings of the police report, let alone produce a counter argument.

This was even mentioned in the dissenting view of Justice Muthasim Adnan. He stated:

“…Among the evidences produced [by the parties] included evidence that I do not consider as evidence, and a confidential report to which the parties to the case were not given the opportunity to respond to.”

However in precedents set forth by the Supreme Court, and given that it stands as the final authority to decide on all legal matters, there lies no way as to contest the court’s decisions.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Capital punishment inhumane, cruel and fails to prevent crime

The following is a joint declaration by Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, on the European and World Day against the Death Penalty, 10 October 2013.

Today, on the occasion of the European and World Day against the Death Penalty, the Council of Europe and the European Union reiterate their strong opposition to the use of capital punishment. They continue to underline, whenever and wherever possible, the inhumane and cruel nature of this unnecessary punishment and its failure to prevent crime.

Although we are encouraged by the growing momentum towards abolition of the death penalty worldwide, the resumption of executions and breaches of decades of moratoria in different parts of the world clearly mark the necessity to pursue our long-standing action against the death penalty, in Europe and worldwide.

Voices in favour of the death penalty within some parts of society, including in our continent, show that there is a continuous need to spell out why the death penalty runs contrary to the right to life and to human dignity.

Based on the fact that no execution has taken place on their territory for the past fifteen years, the European Union and the Council of Europe share the common overarching objective to consolidate the abolition within and beyond its borders. Protocols Nos 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as Article 2 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as today binding on the European Union, call for the death penalty to be abolished. In this context, we urge all European States which have not yet abolished the death penalty de jure in all circumstances, to do so by ratifying the relevant protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Council of Europe and the European Union regret the continuous use of death penalty in Belarus, the only country in Europe still applying it. We urge the authorities of Belarus to examine and explore all possibilities available in order to introduce a moratorium on executions as a first step towards abolition.

We welcome the extraordinary efforts of the cross-regional alliance that successfully led and guided the adoption, with an unprecedented number of votes, in December 2012, of the UN General Assembly Resolution on a Moratorium on the use of death penalty.

We would like to stress the symbolic and substantial importance of the 5th World Congress held in Madrid on 12-15 June 2013 and warmly congratulate the organisers, the four European countries which acted as main sponsors and the other European countries which contributed to the event. The extensive and diverse participation to this Congress clearly shows the worldwide tendency against the death penalty. The Council of Europe and the European Union will continue to work closely with all interlocutors, governmental and civil society, with a view to developing synergies towards universal abolition.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

October 19 election date “a huge victory”, Nasheed tells supporters

Former President Mohamed Nasheed rallied supporters last night during a large Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) gathering near the Tsunami Monument in Male’, relaunching its ‘ehburun’ (‘one round’) campaign after 11 nights of protests.

Thousands attended the rally, at which Nasheed hailed the announcement of an election date as a “huge victory” in the country’s “irreversible move towards democracy.”

Nasheed finished first in the annulled poll on September 7 with 45.45 percent of the popular vote, missing out on the ’50 percent plus one vote’ needed for a first round victory.

The Elections Commission has scheduled the new vote for October 19, noting that as a repeat of the first round, all candidates names would have to appear on the ballot as before.

The PPM was scheduled to enter a September 28 run-off against Nasheed before the Supreme Court opted to annul first round altogether. The 4:3 verdict hinged on a confidential police report – unavailable even to the Election Commission’s defence lawyers – supposedly claiming that 5,600 votes were ineligible due to errors such as address mismatches. The dissenting judges dismissed this evidence as invalid, noting only the claims of 473 ineligible votes – 0.2 percent of the total ballots cast.

“Our rivals wanted to arrest me for a long time. Our rivals want to dissolve the party system. Our rivals want to annul the presidential election indefinitely. Our rivals want the security forces to take over the Maldives’ government,” Nasheed told his supporters.

“Our rivals don’t want a democratic system in the Maldives, they do not want Maldivians to have the right to vote. They want to establish an authoritarian government again.,” he said.

With the first polls declared to be free and fair by all national and international observers, the MDP raised concern over the credibility of the order invalidating the first round of elections “by a Supreme Court bench tainted with allegations of corruption, and scandal.”

“The MDP is further disturbed over the Supreme Court’s comments allowing for an incumbent to remain as President despite the end of the Presidential term. The MDP does not believe that the Constitution allows for anyone to be President after the five year term which currently ends on 11 November 2013. Elections must be held to restore legitimate government and democracy in the Maldives,” the MDP said in a statement.

“The Election Commission stated that the only reason they halted the constitutionally stipulated second round of the Presidential Elections was due to a lack of cooperation by the security services and the Government, resulting in an environment non-conducive for free and fair elections.

“Thus, the MDP believe that the Supreme Court will entertain further spurious and vexatious claims as long as there is no interim arrangement allowing MDP a say in the affairs of the government,” the party added, but said it was “prepared for any election announced by the Elections Commission.”

“The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) firmly believes that all matters relating to the carrying out of Presidential elections must be decided upon by the constitutionally mandated Elections Commission,” the party stated.

“The MDP hopes that the elections takes place as soon as possible under the careful scrutiny of domestic and international observers.”

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has meanwhile announced that it is in discussions with both President Dr Mohamed Waheed and the Jumhooree Party (JP) regarding the fielding of a single candidate for the upcoming repeat of the presidential election.

“The PPM is a party that works with people. I know senior people are calling President Waheed and Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim. President Maumoon speaks to them,” the party’s running mate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told local media today.

“If you are for the nation and religion, the first thing you have to do is beat MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party],” said PPM presidential candidate Adbulla Yameen.

“Then decide on who comes to power. We will, God willing, win this election if everyone thinks about this and remains steadfast.”

The Supreme Court case was initially filed by the third placed JP after its candidate and leader Gasim missed out on the second round by 2,677 votes.

Speaking at a press conference yesterday, JP vice presidential candidate Dr Hassan Saeed also posited the idea of pooling support.

“We are trying to achieve results in a first round together with as many people as possible. There is talk among us to propose one candidate,” he told local media.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali has already announced that his party – the country’s third largest in terms of membership figures – will support Nasheed in subsequent polling.

Thasmeen had entered the first round as President Waheed’s running mate, however the incumbent leader received only 5.13 percent of the vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

First round of new presidential election scheduled for October 19, with one day for re-registration

Additional reporting by Ahmed Nazeer

First-time voters, or eligible voters who wish to vote on Oct 19 somewhere other than their currently-registered location, must re-register.

Voter re-registration is open from 6:00pm-12:00am Wednesday Oct 9, and 9:00am-12:00am Thursday Oct 10. Forms are available at all island council offices, Addu City Council departments, diplomatic missions and at www.elections.gov.mv. In Malé forms will be accepted at the Elections Commission’s registration center on Handhuvaree Hingun.

Check your registration by SMSing 1414 ‘VIS ID#’, or call the hotline on the same number.

With the Elections Commission (EC) rapidly preparing to re-hold the presidential election’s first round October 19 in accordance with the timetable established by the Supreme Court verdict, Maldivians will have only 15 hours for re-registration.

The Supreme Court late Monday night (October 7) annulled the first round of the Maldives presidential election in a 4:3 decision. Citing a secret police report on alleged electoral irregularities, the court ordered fresh elections by October 20 with enhanced police and government involvement.

The Supreme Court verdict was issued despite unanimous positive assessment of the polling by more than a thousand local and international election observers, while the police report on which it was supposedly based has not been made public and was not shown to the EC’s defence lawyers.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the EC has decided to hold the presidential election on October 19, the commission announced yesterday.

“The commission is concerned and regrets the inconvenience that people might have to face because the election is close to the Eid holidays,” the EC noted.

Meanwhile, the government is preparing to shut down from October 11 until October 19 for the Eid al-Adha holidays.

In order to have the elections in the duration given by the Supreme Court, the EC can provide only one day for re-registration, said the commission.

The EC has appealed to all citizens who wish to re-register to do it as soon as the re-registration process is opened, which the commission announced would begin this evening.

Maldivians can re-register to vote from 6:00pm to 12:00am today and 9:00am to 6:00pm tomorrow, EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar told local media.

Individuals who do not re-register during the allotted period will remain registered to vote in the location finalised in the second round’s voter registration list, said Sattar.

The EC will be accepting grievances and complaints, however they will not be able to provide a specific window of time to do so, he noted.

According to normal procedure the EC is legally required to provide a time-frame for complaints to be lodged prior to the re-registration process, however the commission’s dates are restricted due to the Supreme Court’s verdict, he added.

Re-registration is necessary for those intending to vote at a polling station other than that listed with the Elections Commission, such as a worker based on a resort island or student in Male. Similarly, Maldivians residing abroad are also required to re-register in order to vote in the country of residence.

Presidential candidates

Presidential candidates who ran in the first round of polling September 7 will not be asked to re-file their candidacy and no new candidates will be allowed to compete in the election,  the EC Secretary General told local media.

Since presidential hopefuls cannot withdraw their candidacy, the order candidates will appear on the ballot paper will remain the same for the re-running of the first round.

“The candidates cannot withdraw their names once they are arranged [for the ballot paper],” said Sattar.

President Mohamed Waheed, who received 5.13 percent of votes in the September 7 election, has made no indication of a decision to change his participation in the re-run, Sattar noted. If President Waheed decides to recall his candidacy, the commission will make a decision after consulting with its legal department.

Waheed’s vice presidential running mate, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, announced yesterday (October 8 ) that he intends to maintain his new alliance with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) going into the re-scheduled presidential elections.

Thasmeen and his DRP announced their decision to support former President Mohamed Nasheed in the run-off, previously scheduled for September 28, days after Waheed received just five percent of the popular vote.

Repeat first round presidential candidates – in order of their ballot placement – are Gasim Ibrahim, Incumbent President Mohamed Waheed, Abdulla Yameen, and former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Election funds

The Finance Ministry had agreed to provide MVR 30 million (US$1,939,230) to hold the election, EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar told local media.

The commission’s calculations show that it will cost MVR 30 million (US$1,939,230) to print ballot papers, pay the officials and cover other costs, said Sattar.

The Finance Ministry had also agreed to provide MVR 27 million (US$1,747,575) for a second round runoff, if necessary.

The ministry will provide funds for the election as legally mandated, but some state-funded programs will have to be sacrificed to do so, Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad said yesterday.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

MNDF deny reports of injured suspect in Raajje TV arson attack being treated at military hospital

The Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) has issued a statement denying reports spreading across social media that a suspect injured in the arson attack on opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) aligned TV station Raajje TV was being treated at the MNDF military hospital.

On October 7, a group of masked men armed with machetes, iron rods and petrol stabbed a security guard, forced open a reinforced door and set fire to the station, destroying its offices and control room as well as cameras, computer systems, broadcasting and transmission equipment.

CCTV footage of the attack showed the masked individual lighting the blaze briefly engulfed in flame, shortly before a fireball blew the door off its hinges.

The MNDF statement said the military hospital treated three firemen who were injured while trying to control the blaze.

”Two of the firemen were treated for burn injuries they received to the skin area near their ear, due to strong heat from the fire,” the MNDF statement said. ”The third fireman was treated for the injuries he received from the strong heat and smoke.”

The MNDF said the third fireman was admitted to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) after he had breathing problems.

The MNDF also said it was very uncivilised to spread such news without clarification. The statement did not state to whom it was referring to.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the arson attack and criticised the Maldives Police Services’ failure to defend the station despite repeated requests for police protection.

“This criminal act is a direct blow to freedom of information and we deplore the attitude of the police, who failed to do what was necessary to prevent the attack although the head of TV station requested protection a few hours before it took place,” RSF said in a statement on Monday.

Meanwhile, Raajje TV quoted former president Mohamed Nasheed as alleging that Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb “had a hand” in the arson attack on the station, and called on investigation authorities to obtain a court warrant to gain access to the former’s text messages and phone calls.

Adheeb dismissed the allegations as false.

”I won’t be surprised even if he made bigger allegations,” he said. ”Nasheed is always lying like that.”

Adheeb accused Nasheed of working against him due to his condemnation of the MDP’s calls for a tourism boycott.

Eyewitness to Monday’s attack told Minivan News that the attackers arrived on motorbikes.

”First one motorbike with two persons came, they were covering their faces with masks and one of them were holding an iron bar. We first thought they were getting ready to attack a person but the guy holding the iron bar smashed the glass of the building and the other bikes arrived just as the guy smashed the glass,” said a witness.

”There were three wave motorbikes and one PCX motorbike. The other guys were wearing masks when they arrived, they looked very calm when they entered the place and we did not see what happened inside but we noticed that they were in a rush when they came out of the building,” he said. ”They all left the area on the bikes really fast.”

According to the eyewitness, he saw the bikes coming out to Boduthakurufaanu Magu from Kurangi Goalhi and when they left they went straight towards Henveiru from Boduthakurufaanu Magu.

Speaking at the parliament’s government oversight committee, Raajje TV CEO Akram Kamaluddeen alleged to MPs that the arson attack on Raajje TV was a state organised crime.

Akram Kamaluddeen and Deputy CEO of Raajje TV Abdulla Yameen did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

The security guard who was taken hostage and stabbed told local press that the assailants arrived 10 minutes after the staff of Raajje TV had left the station.

The Bangladeshi national guard told the papers that he was inside the building when the assailants came and they asked him to lead them to the floor Raajje TV was on, but when he refused they tied his hand and took him upstairs with them.

He told the papers that he was stabbed and attacked inside the control room of the Raajje TV station, and that after attacking him they left him inside the burning building with his hands tied.

According to the security guard he was able to escape because the group left the door open. He said he came outside and called his supervisor, before fainting and being admitted to IGMH.

CCTV footage of the attack:

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)