Rising extremism could threaten Maldives’ tourism industry: report

Religious conservatism and extremist violence have been increasing in the Maldives over the past decade, while incidents of Maldivians joining overseas jihadist groups are becoming more common, according to a report published in the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel, a publication based out of the West Point military academy in the US.

The article entitled The Threat from Rising Extremism in the Maldives, observes that growing religious extremism and political uncertainty could result in more violence and negatively affect the nation’s tourism industry, which would be “devastating” to the Maldives.

“This has coincided with a number of violent attacks on liberal activists and other citizens who have expressed outspoken support for moderate religious practices,” the report notes.

If current trends continue “extremist incidents may rise, with violence targeted against the country’s more liberal citizens,” it states.

According to the report, five key factors have contributed to the growing extremism and violence:

  • the encouragement of  “more hard line Islamist elements in the country” during the 30 year autocratic rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom;
  • political uncertainty;
  • an increasing number of people seeking education in foreign madrasas;
  • grassroots radicalisation through civil society and political parties;
  • escalating extremist incidents of violence and involvement with jihadist groups.

“The country has already suffered one terrorist attack targeting foreign tourists, and a number of Maldivians have traveled to Pakistan’s tribal areas to receive jihadist training. Moreover, evidence exists that jihadists tried to form a terrorist group in the country in 2007-2008,” the report states.

The study recommends that Maldivian political and religious developments be followed closely.

Encouraging of hard line Islamic elements

Islam was introduced to the Maldives in the 12th century and subsequent religious practices have been the “moderate, more liberal form of the religion”.

“Yet, during Gayoom’s three decade autocratic rule, the Egyptian-trained religious scholar enacted a number of measures that, at least inadvertently, encouraged more hard line Islamist elements in the country,” the report concluded.

“From imposing a ban on Christian missionary radio to apprehending migrant service providers for allegedly preaching and practicing their own religion, Gayoom’s regime initiated an era of state-backed religious intolerance and radicalisation in the Maldives.”

The Protection of Religious Unity Act, passed in 1994, mandated that no other religion but Islam could be practiced.

In 1996, Gayoom constituted the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, renamed the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in 2008, to preside over religious affairs in the Maldives.

“This body of clerics pressured the government to carry out moral and cultural policing of alleged “anti-Islamic activities”,” the report states.

For example, in 2008 the Ministry requested police “ban nightclubs and discotheques for New Year’s Eve celebrations because they were contrary to Islam”.

“By the end of Gayoom’s time in office in 2008, the dress code for women had grown increasingly conservative, and more and more men grew out their beards,” the report states.

Women now dress more conservatively with fewer brightly colored clothes. Instead they “increasingly wear black robes and headscarves and on more conservative islands such as Himandhoo, women wear black abayas and face veils,” it added.

Political uncertainty

The democratic transition “gave a greater voice to religious conservatives and those calling for the rigid implementation of Shari`a (Islamic law) in the Maldives,” states the report. “This became especially evident following the implementation of political reforms and the transition to multi-party democracy in 2008.”

The first democratic presidential elections in the Maldives were held in 2008, with Mohamed Nasheed defeating Gayoom in the second round with 54 percent of the votes.

However, the Nasheed administration was accused of defiling Islam by “promoting Western ideals and culture and restricted the spread of more austere Islamic practices,” the article notes.

This resulted in the December 2011 “Defend Islam” protests led by opposition political parties, religious groups, civil society organisations and thousands of supporters in the country’s capital, Male’.

These protests “unleashed a chain of events that culminated in a bloodless coup on February 7, 2012 that toppled the Maldives’ first democratically-elected government,” declared the study.

Appeal of education in foreign madrasas

Education in foreign madrasas has also contributed to growing extremism within the Maldives, with students “unwittingly attending more radical madrasas” and preaching these views upon their return.

“The offer of free education in madrasas in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is widely acknowledged as a core means of radicalising Maldivians locally, with well-meaning parents sending their children off on scholarships to ‘study Islam’,” the report states.

Following the 2007 terrorist attack in Male’s Sultan Park, “Gayoom himself warned of this problem”.

“Maldivians are influenced by what is happening in the world. They go to Pakistan, study in madrasas and come back with extreme religious ideas,” the report quoted Gayoom as saying.

Grassroots radicalisation

“The contemporary Maldivian political environment favors radical and political Islam taking root in Maldivian society, especially when political parties and civil society increasingly take refuge in religion,” the report states, citing Maldivian academic Dr Azra Naseem.

In 2010, new regulations prohibited “talking about religions other than Islam in Maldives, and propagating such religions through the use of any kind of medium.” The Ministry of Islamic Affairs published this legislation under the Protection of Religious Unity Act of 1994.

However, the report found that the “major force behind more austere religious practices in the Maldives is the Adhaalath (Justice) Party (AP), which has controlled the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, with Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed as its current minister”.

Given that the AP supports strict implementation of Shari’a Law, the party has “outspokenly argued that music and singing are haram (forbidden) and called for an end to the sale of alcohol at the country’s hundreds of luxury resorts,” said the report.

In February 2013, Saeed warned that “various Christian organisations and missionaries are strongly involved and active in our society because they want to ‘wipe out’ Islam from the Maldives”. He subsequently started a campaign against Christians and “Freemasons”, the report stated.

Two non-government organisations (NGOs), Jamiyyathu Salaf (JS) and the Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM), are considered religiously conservative Salafists who “work with the country’s political parties to further the cause of Islamism in the Maldives,” the report stated.

Extremist incidents

Extremists have directly targeted Maldivian liberal intellectuals, writers and activists, the study notes.

“On January 3, 2011, assailants attempted to kill Aishath Velezinee, an activist fighting for the independence of the country’s justice system, by stabbing her in the back in broad daylight,” said the report.

Velezinee is a whistleblower that in 2010 identified members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who were “conspiring with key political figures to hijack the judiciary and bring down the country’s first democratically-elected government,” the report added.

The study found that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs was “at least indirectly encouraged extremism” by initiating “crackdowns” on media outlets for anti-Islamic content.

The blog of prominent free speech and religious freedom campaigner, Khilath ‘Hilath’ Rasheed, was blocked in 2011. A month afterward, Rasheed’s skull was fractured when 10 men attacked him with stones during a peaceful rally he organised in Male’.

Rasheed was arrested a few days after the incident and jailed for 24 days for participating in the rally.

In June 2012, Rasheed was nearly killed “after extremists cut his throat open with a box cutter”.

“After the attempt on his life, Rasheed named three political leaders—Islamic Affairs Minister Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, Adhaalath Party President Imran Abdulla and Jumhooree Party lawmaker Ibrahim Muttalib Shaheem – as being indirectly responsible for the attempt on his life,” the report states.

Later in 2012, the moderate religious scholar and lawmaker, Afrasheem Ali, was stabbed to death at his home in Male’. He was considered an Islamic moderate who was “outspoken in his controversial positions,” reads the report.

In February 2013, “a reporter for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned Raajje TV station, Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed, was beaten unconscious with an iron bar while riding on a motorcycle near the artificial beach area of Male’,” the study added.

Previously, during the 2011 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), protesters “intolerant toward other religious and cultural symbols” damaged monuments gifted to the Maldives by Pakistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka.

Islamic radicals on February 7 2012 also vandalised archaeological artifacts in the National Museum that were mostly ancient Hindu and Buddhist relics, destroying 99 percent of the evidence of Maldivian pre-Islamic history.

Jihadists

“In April 2006, a Maldivian national, Ali Jaleel, and a small group of jihadists from the Maldives attempted to travel to Pakistan to train for violent jihad in Afghanistan or Iraq,” the report reads.

While his first attempt was unsuccessful, Jaleel did eventually travel to Pakistan and “launched a suicide attack at the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in Lahore in May 2009.”

In September 2007, Islamic extremists committed a terrorist attack in the Maldives aimed at the tourism industry.

A bomb exploded in Male’s Sultan Park and wounded 12 foreigners. The three men arrested and later jailed for the bombing confessed that their goal was to “target, attack and injure non-Muslims to fulfill jihad,” states the report.

A month following the bombing, the investigation led to Darul-Khair mosque on Himandhoo Island. However, “some 90 masked and helmeted members of the mosque confronted police, wielding wooden planks and refusing to let the police enter,” said the report.

Although the Maldivian army eventually established control, “The stand-off resulted in a number of injuries, and one police officer had his fingers cut off.” In November, a video of the mosque confrontation was posted on the al-Qa’ida-linked alEkhlaas web forum by a group called Ansar al-Mujahidin with the message “your brothers in the Maldives are calling you,” the report states.

Evidence suggests that three Maldivian jihadists planned to establish a terrorist group in the country around 2007-2008 and send members for military training in Pakistan.

“At least one of these individuals did in fact travel to Pakistan, as Yoosuf Izadhy was arrested in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency in March 2009, along with eight other Maldivians,” states the report.

In 2009, then-President Nasheed warned that “Maldivian people are being recruited by Taliban and they are fighting in Pakistan,” quotes the report.

“Despite its reputation as an idyllic paradise popular among Western tourists, political and religious developments in the Maldives should be monitored closely,” the report concludes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President “unaware of any illegal activities” as Artur brothers investigation continues

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has told local media he was not aware of any danger posed by the presence in the Maldives of two Armenian nationals identified as the Artur brothers, as police continue to investigate the duo’s operations locally.

Controversy has surrounded the presence of Margaryan and Sargayan Artur in the Maldives, primarily based around concerns over their alleged links to criminal activities in Kenya.

On Tuesday (April 2), parliament passed an extraordinary motion concerning the presence of the two foreign nationals in the Maldives, expressing concern that an alleged connection between certain cabinet ministers and the two men posed a “direct threat to national security”.

The President’s Office has maintained there is little information about the nature of the two foreign nationals’ business interests in the Maldives, claiming that the uncertainty about them extended to the exact pronunciation of the Artur name.

Asked about the controversy today, President Waheed told reporters he received no intelligence so far linking the Artur brothers to any criminal activity in the country, adding that much of his knowledge on them was based on local media reports.

“I know that they are in Maldives. I’m also looking into it,” he was quoted he told local media after returning to Male’ from an official visit to Kuwait.

“I didn’t know that they were engaged in any illegal activities,” President Waheed stated, after admitting the government were told by authorities of the brother’s presence in the country earlier this year.

Investigations

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad said that while police were currently in the process of investigating the activities of the Artur brothers in the Maldives, there was no information linking the two foreign nationals to any criminal operations in the country.

Police spokesperson Hassan Haneef told Minivan News that police investigations were continuing to determine if the two foreign nationals had been conducting any illegal activities in the country.  He added that no details into a “critical” ongoing case could be given at present.

However, a BMW car belonging to a company called ‘Artur Brother World Connection’ and registered for use in the Gaafu Dhaalu area was reportedly seized by authorities in Male’ today.

Haneef previously confirmed that police were aware of the Artur brothers presence in the Maldives back in January. He said authorities had contacted “relevant government authorities” at the time to inform them of the Artur brothers’ alleged links to drug trafficking, money laundering, raids on media outlets, dealings with senior government officials and other serious crimes in Kenya.

Minivan News understands that relevant authorities, including the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF), Ministry of Home Affairs, and the President’s Office were officially informed in January of the presence of the Artur brothers, even as Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb signed a letter seeking residency permits for the pair.

Import business

Local media reported that a company registered locally as the “Artur Brothers World Connection” has secured an import license and brought goods into the country after the tourism ministry had granted both men a foreign investment permit.

“We have learned that they had imported some goods under that license. We haven’t been able to determine what those items are. It is not something the Ministry keeps track of. We have to find that out from the customs,” Finance Minister Ahmed Mohamed told Haveeru.

Immigration Controller Mohamed Ali has previously told local media that Artur Sargasyan left the Maldives on Sunday (March 31). Sargasyan first entered the Maldives on a tourist visa in August 2012 and returned again in October, Dr Ali said.

Meanwhile, photos of the Arturs in the company of Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim emerged on social media last weekend, apparently taken during the Piston Motor Racing Challenge held on Hulhumale’ between January 25 and 26.

One photo showed Artur Sargsyan next to Adheeb and Nazim, while another has him apparently starting one of the motorcycle races at the event, which was organised by the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF).

Another image showed Sargsyan at the red carpet opening for the Olympus Cinema.

Denials

Defense Minister Nazim and Tourism Minister Adheeb have denied any involvement with the pair.

Speaking to Minivan News this week, Adheeb reiterated that he had no personal links with the Artur brothers, whom he said had now left the country on his recommendation.

According to Adheeb, the Artur brothers had previously invested in the country through a registered joint venture company with members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Adheeb said he “advised them to leave peacefully and they agreed to sort out their visa and leave. They have now left.”

Parliamentary motion

Submitting a motion to parliament on Tuesday about the Artur’s presence in the Maldives, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz Fahmy raised concerns about their alleged connections with ministers Nazim and Adheeb.

“The Artur brothers are a direct threat to national security since they are – true to their old style and from the experiences of other countries – directly linked to the top government officials including Mr Mohamed Nazim who is both the Defense Minister and the acting Transport Minister, as well as Mr Ahmed Adheeb who is the Tourism Minister,” Fahmy told Minivan News.

Fahmy said the Artur brothers were believed to have carried out “all sorts of serious illegal activities internationally” and that the Maldives “is incapable of handling these notorious conmen from Armenia. They are capable of taking local criminal gangs to different heights.”

Fahmy explained that immigration laws do not permit entry into the Maldives if the visitor is “even suspected” of being involved in human smuggling or trafficking; may be [considered] a national threat, or otherwise may commit crimes against the state.”

“Given all these facts – and that the Artur brothers are  world-infamous for carrying out criminal activities of this sort – they were allowed into the country and seen publicly with top government officials,” Fahmy added, alleging that the pair have three meetings with Adheeb and Nazim on Hulhumale’ and on Club Faru.

The extraordinary motion passed with 27 votes in favour to 10 against.

Meanwhile, Kenyan media has this week media reported that the brothers’ practice of publicly ingratiating themselves with senior government officials appeared not to have changed.

“The Arturs’ mode of operation where they show up in the company of top and well-connected government leaders appears to have been replicated in the Maldives. Their presence in the Maldives comes days after ousted leader Mohammed Nasheed expressed fear over his life,” reported Kenya’s Daily Nation publication.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP dismisses prospect of power-sharing coalition

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

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

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

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

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

Coalitions result in weak governments: Nasheed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common political ideology not political positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elect one political ideology, not a mixture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint venture regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development safeguards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Picnic island”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sea turtle killing threatening Maldives’ dolphin-safe tuna certification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dolphin safe certification threatened

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I will lead Maldives out of a failing democracy, we don’t want a phobiocracy”: PPM presidential candidate

The newly elected presidential candidate of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Abdulla Yameen on Tuesday night delivered his first address to supporters following the conclusion of the primaries.

“Our motto is ‘nation first’”, Yameen stated. “Any other parties who genuinely want to join us can come knock on our door anytime. You are welcome at any time, whether it be day or late at night.”

“I am not trying to be elected President for want of a castle. I don’t want such a palace. It is also not with the intention of challenging competitors. This is why I’m telling my opponent in the party itself, too, to stop competing with me. I do not intend to compete with anyone. I am here to fight the battle of solving the many issues our country is facing now,” Yameen said.

“I want to repair the damaged social fabric of this country. I want to bring Maldives out of this failing democracy, save it from the impeding dictatorship and establish a modern democracy as facilitated by the systems set in place by our Constitution. We do not want a phobiocracy. We want development and modernisation.”

While the losing candidate who contested against Yameen, Umar Naseer, held his own rally on Monday night, PPM announced Tuesday’s rally to be “the first gathering held by the party after the primaries”.

The statement was made after Naseer aired serious allegations against Yameen during Monday night’s rally, accusing him of a variety of offences including forming alliances with drug cartels, vote buying and various other forms of corruption.

Meanwhile, the party’s council released a ruling after an emergency meeting held Tuesday afternoon, ordering Umar Naseer to offer a public apology for the comments he had made and for holding a gathering ‘against the party’s regulations’ before the commencement of Wednesday night’s official rally.

The council further ruled that should Naseer fail to put forward an apology within the assigned duration, the council would take further disciplinary action against him.

Umar Naseer was not responding to calls at the time of press. Local media has meanwhile reported that he refused to comment on the matter.

Playing in defence

“Many attacks have come at me from inside and out. I do not wish to defend myself, but I will make some comments here for your sake, as you should know the character of the person to whom you have pledged support,” Yameen told the crowds.

“I swear upon Allah that none of the things I have been alleged of doing can be proven against me. I am here with much more stability than that. If I had such actions on my conscience, I would not have stepped out for public service.”

“Just so as to offer consolation for you all, I am saying this. I am not a rich man. I do not own apartments in other countries. I do not control gangs. I am not involved in the illegal drug trade. I do not have even a small connection with the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali,” Yameen said.

“I would like to add that for the sake of our party, let us stop making allegations like this. We are far more responsible and well-established to be making comments of this nature.”

“Most democratic primaries ever held”: Gayoom

PPM Party Leader former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom addressed the hundreds of party supporters at the rally, stating that the recently concluded party primaries were “the most responsible, free and fair, transparent primaries ever held by a political party in the country to date.”

“Both candidates who competed in the primaries showed high competitiveness in the spirit of democracy,” Gayoom stated.

“These historic, free and extremely fair primaries were won by Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayyoom. I congratulate him in your name and mine,” Gayoom continued.

“At the same time, Umar Naseer, who could not win the primaries, also contacted me via phone after the results were announced. He said to me that he accepted the results, and extended congratulations to Abdulla Yameen. He further said he believed the primaries had proceeded in a very fair manner. Naseer also said that the campaign office he had built was from that moment on gifted to PPM, and hence I would like to thank him for the democratic example he has displayed with these actions,” he stated.

Both Gayoom and Yameen have claimed that the party has 31,000 “genuine” members now, and called on the members to each find two new members by the end of May.

“This is not difficult. If we each get two more members, we will soon have 93,000 members and with a little more effort we can easily achieve 100,000,” Gayoom said.

“Our party has the highest number of genuine members now. By that I mean that all 31,000 of our members have submitted complete details of themselves to authorities, including even their fingerprints. The other parties have not done so,” Gayoom alleged.

Official figures on the Elections Commission website show that PPM currently has 22,383 members, with an additional 1671 forms awaiting clearance.

“Our loyalties should be to the party, not to Maumoon”: Gayoom

“Our party always acts in accordance with law and regulations, and it must continue to do so,” Gayoom said. “All party members must follow the party’s regulations. No one is above these regulations. We are obliged to act in accordance with the regulations, or else people will start acting as they please, which would lead us astray from our objectives.”

Gayoom referred to the breaking up of his previous party Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) into factions, stating that he had made a stand for Umar Naseer when DRP had tried to dismiss him from the party in breach of their regulations.

“I stood up for his rights, but then DRP started acting towards me in a very demeaning manner. They went on TV and said they did not need me, my advice or opinions. And so, I had to leave that party. This is an experience I have had related to the importance of following regulations.”

“Article 69 of our regulation states clearly that all PPM members must pledge allegiance to the presidential candidate. We cannot say that we will support him if he acts in any particular way. That is simply not an option,” Gayoom said.

“Our loyalties should not lie with an individual. It should not be pledged to a certain Maumoon, or to anyone besides Maumoon. It should be towards the party itself, with our policies and principles,” he stated.

Furthermore, Yameen called out to Naseer to work with him to lead the party to further successes.

“We were able to win 17 of 20 recent by-elections. This is because of the strength of having worked together, which is why I call out to Umar Naseer to come work with us,” Yameen said.

“The primaries were a test of character of the whole party and its individual members,” Yameen said. “We must not let any weakness seep into the party. Our brother Naseer, who was unfortunate this time and lost the primaries, must also display his test of character now. Our party is larger than any of us individuals,” he continued.

“My biggest strength is that our fountain of wealth, fountain of experience, party leader Gayoom, is here to guide me and our party and lead us. This is my ultimate happiness,” Yameen stated.

Autism Awareness Day

With April 2 declared Autism Awareness Day and marked widely throughout the Maldives, many speakers at the rally pledged support to families with autistic patients.

“Today is the internationally marked day for families with autistic kids to raise awareness in countries of the challenges that they face. Thus, in commemoration of this day, I really wish to extend my heartfelt sympathies, love and support to such children, and so I have now done that,” Gayoom stated.

Presidential candidate Yameen said in his speech, “This is the Autistic Day, isn’t it? If one is not autistic, whichever way one looks, one would doubtless see the development that has been brought to this country in the 30 years.”

Yamin’s comments, though applauded at the  rally, were criticised in social media as being offensive and insensitive.

Responding to criticism and demands for an apology, PPM Spokesperson Ahmed Mahloof initially tweeted “Yameen’s comments on autism are being twisted by MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) members after watching our rally and not being able to digest it.”

He then tweeted an apology on behalf of Yameen, stating “Yameen apologises if there was any misinterpretation of his comments with regard to autism.”

Yameen has since released an official statement on Wednesday, echoing Mahloof’s allegations of political opponents distorting his words and apologising if there was room for misinterpretation.

He also pledged to advocate for the rights of persons with special rights, and offered assurance that such persons will be given equal opportunities in the instance that PPM wins the September 7 elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ministers fail to attend parliament committee hearing on proposed pork and alcohol ban

Government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Shifag Mufeed has heavily criticised President Mohamed Waheed Hassan and his ministers for failing to cooperate with parliament.

Shifag made the remark while speaking during  parliament’s National Security Committee on Wednesday, during the committee’s review of a bill proposing a nationwide ban on sale of pork and alcohol.

In October 2012, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashad submitted the bill, which was accepted to parliament in a narrow vote in which Speaker Abdulla Shahid cast the deciding vote after it reached a stalemate, with 24 votes on either side.

The former MDP MP who defected to PPM claimed that it was evident that President Waheed did not approve of his cabinet ministers appearing before parliament and parliamentary committees, which the MP claimed was essential in a system of separated powers.

“Evidence suggests that the head of state of this country does not intend to cooperate with the parliament,” Mufeed claimed.

He contended that all the parties in parliament aside from the opposition MDP were working very hard to defend the government and ensure its survival until the scheduled 2013 Presidential Elections, but said the government had found little time to appreciate the work of the parties.

The Fuvamulah MP’s remarks followed the failure of several cabinet ministers to appear before the parliamentary select committee in relation to its review of the bill concerning banning of sale of alcohol and pork.

Parliament had requested presence of Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – who is set to face a no-confidence motion on April 8 – Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Minister for Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed.

Members of the National Security Committee claimed parliament had requested the ministers to appear before the committee on three different occasions, but said they were yet to receive any form of communication in response.

The bill

Presenting the bill, MP Nazim Rashad argued that the import of haraam (prohibited) products violates article 10(b) of the constitution which states that “no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives.”

“We often hear rumours that people have alcohol at home in their fridge, available any time. We’ve heard that kids take alcohol to school to drink during their break. The issue is more serious than we think, it should not be ignored,” Nazim told the house.

The consumption of intoxicants and pork products are prohibited under Islamic law, although these products are available to foreign tourists in the country’s resorts – including those run by Maldivian resort owners.

In response to the December 23 coalition‘s campaign to protect Islam, which saw a number of these tycoons publicly back allegations that the party was ‘anti-Islamic’, the MDP government announced it was considering banning the import of pork and alcohol products.

After being asked in January 2012 for a consultative opinion over whether the Maldives could import pork and alcohol without violating the nation’s Shariah-based constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on the grounds that the matter did not need to be addressed at the Supreme Court level.

The Court did note, however, that pork and alcohol have been imported under provisions of the Contraband Act and that there is a regulation in favor of the trade. As no law has declared the regulation unlawful, the import of pork and alcohol is indeed legal, the court claimed.

At the same time, the country’s constitution prohibits the enactment of any laws “contrary to the tenets of Islam”.

Debate

During the preliminary debate on the bill, former Chairperson of MDP, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi called for debate over the sale of alcohol to tourists in local guest houses, in a bid to promote mid-market travel to local islands.

She further argued that the issue of alcohol needed to be “clarified” and “addressed”.

“If this is a religious issue, that is if Islam bans sale of alcohol, it should not be sold in the Maldives as we are a 100 percent Islamic nation. If the sale is allowed, then the question to ask is whether alcohol is needed for the tourist trade to flourish,” she said.

She added that if alcohol proved to be a vital element in the tourism sector, then the sale of alcohol should be allowed for “registered places” to which a permit is given to accommodate tourists including resorts, safari boats and guest houses.

“If the objection to the sale of alcohol is on [religious] grounds, it should not be sold in places where Maldivians reside. But Maldivians do reside on resorts as employees. If we deny Maldivians the employment opportunities in the resorts, then the income from resorts will be restricted to those who own resorts, that would give way to increase in expatriate workers and foreign currency drainage,” she explained.

Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem – who voted in favour of accepting the bill – stated that as alcohol was banned under Islam, it was illegal in the Maldives to create laws and regulations concerning it.

Local resort and business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim – who owns the Villa Hotels chain and is one of the largest importers of pork and alcohol – abstained from the vote, along with fellow resort owners Abdulla Jabir and Ahmed Hamza.

Gasim was a central figure during the December 2011 demonstration, declaring that there was “no such thing as moderate Islam”.

“We don’t know there is a moderate, higher or lower Islam. We only know Islam, which is above all the religion. The only road we must follow is based of Allah’s callings,” the resort tycoon told the crowds.

According to customs records for 2011, Gasim’s properties – including the Royal, Paradise, Sun, and Holiday Island resorts, in 2011 imported approximately 121,234.51 litres of beer, 2048 litres of whiskey, 3684 litres of vodka and 219.96 kilograms of pork sausages.

Resort owner and leader of newly formed Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) Leader Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam voted in favour of accepting the bill, while Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed and PPM Parliamentary Group Leader and now Presidential Candidate Abdulla Yameen voted against accepting the bill.

Regulation permitting the sale of pork and alcohol in tourism establishments was passed by the Ministry of Economic Development in 1975. Parliament did not reject the regulation on the sale of pork and alcohol in 2009 following the introduction of the new constitution, thus allowing it to stand by default.

However the 2008 constitution explicitly states that no regulations against a tenet of Islam may be passed in the Maldives, in apparent contradiction of those laws allowing the import and sale of haraam commodities.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court judges file case against Chief Judge over suspension of Nasheed trial

Eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench have filed a case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef , for suspending the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed without allegedly registering the case in court.

The High Court on Monday ordered the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to suspend former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The stay order, signed by Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef, stated that the court was of the view that Nasheed’s ongoing trial must come to a halt until the legitimacy of the bench was established.

Following the decision, the Hulhumale-based magistrate court suspended all trials concerning the detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012.

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

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

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

This is the second such case filed against Judge Shareef by the other members of the bench.

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

He also said that the usual practice was that a person was asked to pay the charges only after the court decided to accept a case, and that therefore the order was issued after the court had registered the case.

Last year in June, seven High Court Judges lodged a case against Judge Shareef regarding similar conduct in which the seven judges accused him of tampering with decisions made by the majority of the High Court bench.

Other claims by the seven judges included assigning cases to judges arbitrarily, discriminating between judges in assigning cases and of not correcting these issues despite repeated requests.

The case is still pending in the JSC and Minivan News understands that no action has been taken against Judge Shareef so far.

In July 2012, the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), that Chief Judge Shareef had met officials from Malaysian mobile security solutions provider Nexbis – who was given contract to develop a border control system for the department of Immigration – in Bangkok.

Judge Shareef had returned home from a conference in Singapore after spending a week in Bangkok, where he was alleged to have met Nexbis representatives.

However, Nexbis denied that any such meeting took place, and filed a case in a bid to stop the ACC from publicly sharing information on the investigation while the matter was in court, and seeking an apology for the damage to its reputation.

Asking police to investigate the allegations made to the ACC, the High Court meanwhile stressed in a statement that “no individual Judge can simply influence a decision of the Court, as all cases in the High Court are presided by a minimum of three judges  and a ruling is only made by the majority of a particular bench.”

The accusations sent to the ACC were an “extremely irresponsible act with intentions to deceive and manipulate the truth,” the Court’s statement read.

Meanwhile, local media outlet Sun Online claimed that Judge Ahmed Shareef’s name was also included in the Judicial Reform Commission – a commission formed by presidential decree, which opponents of former President Mohamed Nasheed alleged that was to be formed to remove the existing lower courts and reappoint the judges.

However, the commission was never formed after President Nasheed suddenly and controversially resigned on February 7, 2012 which he maintains was forced.

Despite the new case filed against Judge Ahmed Shareef, no decision has been made to revoke the stay order issued by the High Court.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)