Attorney General files case requesting Supreme Court prevent dissolution of smaller political parties

The Attorney General has filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting it declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved following the ratification of the new Political Parties Act.

On March 2013, a similar case was filed by the attorney general requesting a writ of mandamus against the Elections Commission to prevent dissolution of those political parties which failed to maintain the required 10,000 members as stipulated in the Political Parties Act.

Following the case, Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction against the Elections Commission ordering it to withhold the dissolution of political parties that did not have the required membership.

During the hearing of the new case filed as an ex parte case on Wednesday, state attorney Ahmed Usham contended that there were legal issues with the Political Parties Act.

Usham argued that although the constitution states that a fundamental right could be limited only through legislation, the state was not of the view that the right to association and form political parties be limited as strictly as stipulated by the act.

He added that political parties were also separate legal entities under both the political parties’ regulation that was in place prior to the enactment of the new act, and therefore would have conducted commercial transactions and hired employees.

Therefore, dissolution of political parties Usham argued, would compromise the rights of several groups of people.

He also contended that requirement of specific number of members in a political party varied from country to country, but countries with larger populations than the Maldives had a lower minimum requirement for party membership.

Though the case is being heard as an ex parte case, tourism magnate Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam’s Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) also intervened in the case.

Speaking during the hearing, MDA’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed contended that following the enactment of the Political Parties Act, several rights of the political party had been compromised.

He also said that the requirement of 10,000 members was too large compared to the population of the country.

Hameed contended that the bill’s stipulation that newly formed political parties would have a three month period to gain membership, while existing parties did not have the same opportunity, was unfair.

The MDA also requested the Supreme Court declare that existing smaller political parties would not be dissolved according to the law.

Today’s hearing was heard by the full seven member bench of the Supreme Court, and concluded without mention of a further hearing on the matter.

Passage of the bill

The Political Parties bill was passed on December 2012 however, President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) is among those set to be dissolved – refused to ratify the bill and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration in January.

On March 5, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the bill was forced into law, overruling the presidential veto. Out of the 67 members present during the vote, 60 voted in favour of the passage of the bill while six voted against the bill and one MP abstained.

Article 11 of the law states that at least 10,000 signatures are needed to register a party with the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to monitor that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

Immediate dissolution of smaller political parties

Following ratification, President of the Elections Commission (EC) Fuad Thaufeeq stated that the commission’s interpretation of the act suggested that political parties that did not have a minimum of 10,000 members could be abolished immediately.

He stated that once the act was gazetted, the commission was of the view that smaller political parties would immediately be dissolved. However, he said the EC’s legal team was currently reviewing the act and would make a decision based on its report.

“Our legal team is currently reviewing the law before it actually is enacted. That the bill has passed with such a strong majority means that the commission will make all the necessary arrangements to begin enforcing the law,” he said.

He added that the law gives the Elections Commission additional powers to regulate and discipline political parties, and powers to take action against parties violating the law.

Despite several parties facing being dissolved, Thaufeeg said that he hoped to see several parties registered under the new law.

Following the enactment of the act, several smaller political parties including President Waheed’s GIP, his Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), MDA and religious conservative Adhaalath Party criticised the Act, stating that they would take the matter to the Supreme Court and seek invalidation of the bill.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lack of international cooperation could force MDP to militancy: MP Ali Waheed

Following high-level visits by the Commonwealth and United States Embassy this week, a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP claimed the party will resort to militancy if the international community does not do more to help restore democracy in the Maldives.

The United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Michele J Sison arrived in the capital Male’ today (March 26). Earlier this week (March 24), the Canadian Special Envoy for the Commonwealth, Senator Hugh Segal met with the Maldives parliamentary Committee on Government Oversight.

Parliament Oversight Committee Chairperson and MDP MP Ali Waheed implored the international community to take immediate, decisive actions to help restore democracy in the Maldives.

He explained militant and radical forces – which included presidential candidates – within the Maldives were becoming more powerful.

“The current situation within the country is going from bad to worse and heading towards chaos. Everything is politicised,” Waheed said.

“Umar Naseer is militant, but the international community are promoting more diplomatic candidates like [DRP] leader  Thasmeen Ali, who is failing.

“Why can’t they see this reality? The security of the Indian Ocean region and the Maldives is threatened,” he exclaimed.

MP Waheed also claimed that the MDP will resort to behaving like the militants if the international community does not provide help to ensure free and fair elections in September.

“MDP will not give away our presidential candidate [former President Mohamed Nasheed]. We already gave the government away because of the coup.

“MDP urges diplomacy and dialogue, but will but will step toward radicalism. MDP will be like the militants if the international community does not take action. MDP will be on the ground if Nasheed is not on the ballot paper. We will fight to the last drop [of blood].

MPs are very concerned the international community will continue to only focus on diplomatic discussions, which appear to be failing, claimed MP Waheed.

“We cannot wait for more talk. Nothing is moving, it has been ‘stuck’ since the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report.

“We urge them to act now. Inclusive elections are the way forward. We call on other countries to help find a solution,” MP Waheed implored.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor further explained the MDP’s frustration to Minivan News.

“With the relative passivity of the international community on pending issues such as CoNI, action on errant forces and judicial reform, taken together with the ‘bash up’ attitude of mutineers towards MDP members, emotions are naturally bound to be heightened.

“[Therefore] the party top echelon would provide leadership, especially as it looks like the MDP shall have to go it alone towards elections,” said Ghafoor.

During the Parliament Oversight Committee’s meeting on Sunday, MPs briefed the Commonwealth’s Canadian Special Envoy, Senator Segal on the events surrounding February 2012’s controversial transfer of power, the current political situation in the Maldives, and the police services’ impunity from prosecution.

“He was very shocked,” claimed MP Waheed.

According to MP Waheed, the Commonwealth has pledged to give all the support necessary to bring back democracy and push for a solution regarding [the presidential candidacy of] Nasheed.

“We hope the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) will seriously consider these things and discuss them,” he said.

“We thank the Canadian government and asked the Senator to pass along a letter to the Prime Minister. We requested he meet us and really keep an eye on the situation here,” he added.

The US Embassy stated the visit by Ambassador Sison today was routine.

“The Ambassador is in Maldives as part of our normal bilateral relationship. She will meet with government, military, and civil society leaders,” said embassy official Christopher Elms.

International commitments to reform

The Commonwealth has played a key role in terms of the international community’s stance towards the Maldives, particularly following the controversial transfer of power in February in which the present government came to office.

Commonwealth Secretary General’s Special Envoy to the Maldives, Sir Don McKinnon, visited the Maldives in January 2013.

“A key objective of Sir Donald’s visit will be to discuss efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and processes in Maldives, and how the Commonwealth can further assist in this regard,” said Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma in a statement.

McKinnon’s visit followed the publication of a report in August 2012 by the Commonwealth-backed CoNI into the controversial transfer of power on February 7 2012. The report concluded that there was no mutiny by police or the military, and that former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation was not made under duress.

During McKinnon’s visit the MDP accused the Commonwealth Secretariat of being complicit in a “systematic government cover-up designed to subdue testimonies from key witnesses to the coup d’etat”.

In December 2012, the Commonwealth said it would work with the Maldivian government to push ahead with strengthening and reforming “key public institutions” as it reiterated calls for “inclusive and credible” presidential elections to be held next year.

In a statement issued December 7, Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma said the intergovernmental organisation would continue to work with international partners and Maldivian authorities on a programme of reform and “practical collaboration”.

Meanwhile, the US delegation that visited the Maldives in February this year gave no “definitive answer” to political issues raised by former President Mohamed Nasheed, the MDP has said.

Nasheed informed the delegates that the present government had failed to act upon the recommendations made in the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) report, claiming there had been a “lack of effort” to reform the judiciary.

However, MDP Spokesman Ghafoor said the US delegation were unable to answer the issues raised by Nasheed, and that their interest was focused on the implementation of free and fair elections later this year.

In April 2012, the US government pledged US$500,000 (Rf7.7 million) for an elections programme to assist Maldivian institutions in ensuring a free and fair presidential election.

The European Union (EU) declared this March that it would be “difficult” to consider the Maldives’ upcoming presidential elections credible unless former President Mohamed Nasheed is allowed to contest.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has highlighted “free, fair and credible” elections as the “best course” for overcoming political uncertainty in the Maldives.

In a statement issued this March, Singh – referring to last year’s controversial transfer of power – noted that “there have been unfortunate problems in the Maldives after the February 2012 event.”

The Elections Commission of India (ECI) and the Elections Commission of the Maldives (EC) agreed on a roadmap for cooperation this March that includes jointly developing an assistance project to enable free and fair elections later this year.

During the protests that erupted during Nasheed’s stay in the Indian High Commission this February, the UK issued a statement calling for “inclusive” presidential elections as well as calm and restraint.

“During FCO Minister Alistair Burt’s recent visit to Maldives, he said it was vital that the country move decisively towards free, fair and inclusive Presidential elections. He also stressed the importance of all parties being able to participate in elections with the candidate of their choice. It is important for all parties to avoid taking action which could lead to doubt over the integrity of the electoral process and contribute to continuing instability,” the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated.

At the time, the UN Secretary General’s office stated that it was “monitoring the developments with concern”, and urged “all political actors to exercise restraint, renew their commitment to the constitution and work toward creating conducive conditions for fair, peaceful and inclusive elections.”

“All parties contesting the September 7 presidential elections should be able to field the candidates of their choice in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution,” the UN stated.

Many of these prominent international actors initially supported the legitimacy of President Waheed Hassan Manik’s government following the controversial transfer of power February 7, 2012.

The CoNI report that followed six months later was welcomed at the time by the United Nations, Commonwealth, and United States.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP, MDP oppose amendments to “take power” from local councils

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has said it would not support any measures that “take power” from local councils after parliament today voted to reject amending the Decentralisation Act.

DRP Deputy Leader Dr Abdulla Mausoom said that while the party might consider some “balancing measures” to enforce controls on councils to combat political bias, it would not favour efforts to curb their powers.

The claims were made as parliament today rejected an amendment to the Decentralisation Act that proposed a number of changes, including dissolving councils which rejected the legitimacy of any serving government.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said the vote reflected increasing support even among government-aligned parties for decentralised governance, despite what it alleges are continuous “politically motivated” attempts to undermine local councils.

Government-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed had proposed the decentralisation amendments, which were rejected by 30 MPs today in parliament. According to local media, 13 MPs were in support of the proposed amendments.

Local news service Sun Online reported that the proposals contained nine amendments to the act, that would also grant the government stronger control over municipal councils including their right to lease land and lagoons.

MP Rasheed was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Council powers

Dr Mausoom said the DRP did not support the proposed amendments, believing that local councils at island and municipal level needed to be empowered and improved, rather than weakened.

“The DRP will not support taking away their powers,” he said.

Addressing the challenges facing decentralised governance across the Maldives, Dr Mausoom claimed that the distribution by councils of already limited resources to their constituents was in certain cases being impacted by political bias.

He contended that some councils had been reported to provide services and resource along party lines, possibly requiring in future some form of measures to ensure all members of the public were being treated equally.

Dr Mausoom denied DRP dominated councils may be favouring their own members however, while praising the overall majority of councillors for how they were conducting their duties.

“Some MDP and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) councils are dong very well, but others are biased in their work,” he added.

A few months after the formation of local councils back in 2011, former opposition and state figures expressed concern to Minivan News that general inexperience among local councillors and obstruction by the government of former President Nasheed had led to some significant teething problems for the decentralisation process.

“Ridiculous” amendments

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor today claimed that while a number of MPs aligned to the present government had continued to try and reverse decentralisation, the DRP was more openly supporting councils against “ridiculous” amendments such as those proposed by MP Riyaz Rasheed.

Hamid alleged that the DRP had in the past “not believed” in decentralisation that was introduced following inaugural local council elections in 2011.

However, he claimed there had been an apparent change in policy since a split within the DRP that saw a number of members including its founder and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom break away and form the PPM, which now holds the minority leadership within parliament.

Speaking following today’s parliamentary vote, Hamid said that despite the amendments being rejected, other government-aligned parties were constantly working on legislation that would reverse decentralisation introduced following inaugural local council elections in February 2011.

“They are trying to reverse what we have gained,” he claimed. “[When decentralisation was passed] we got about 60 percent of what we wanted for these councils. The DRP had a huge majority back then and made life very difficult for us. They were able to overturn our plans for financial decentralisation.”

Hamid said he believed the present DRP members, which include former senior members of former President Gayoom’s autocratic government, had shown there was support for retaining local councils.

However, he accused government-aligned parties of backing a “constant number” of amendments to the Decentralisation Act that directly target opposition-led bodies such as Male’ City Council (MCC).

‘Usfasgandu’ issue

The MCC has notably been locked in legal wrangling with the Housing Ministry over the last 12 months concerning its ability to lease an area of land known as “Usfasgandu” to the MDP for use as a staging ground for protests and other activities.

Usfasgandu was handed back to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) by Male’ City Council earlier this week.

The area was cordoned off by police in January after the High Court issued a warrant requesting the area be kept under police custody until it reached a verdict on the case.

Male’ City Council leased the Usfasgandu area to the ousted ruling party in March 2012, prompting repeated attempts by the government to reclaim the area on the grounds it was being used for criminal activity, including the practice of black magic.

The MDP had moved to the area after a previous protest camp at the tsunami monument was dismantled and completely repainted by police and military on March 19, 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Tourism Ministry to use commercials and street performances to attract Chinese tourists

The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture has revealed new plans to promote the Maldives to Chinese tourists through commercials showcasing the country’s culture.

The announcement follows a succession of international campaigns that threaten to damage the reputation of the Maldives’ tourism industry, both in China and traditional European markets.

Earlier in March, calls for a tourism boycott of the Maldives exploded across Chinese social media networks after allegations of discrimination against Chinese guests became widely circulated.

The tourism industry suffered another potential blow last week, when the online petition website Avaaz.org received over one million signatures in protest of the sentencing of a 15 year-old rape victim to 100 lashes for the offence of fornication.

In response to the negative press, Deputy Tourism Minister Mohamed Maleeh Jamaal told local media on Tuesday (March 26), that the ministry is currently preparing a number of activities to promote the country to the Chinese market.

According to the Maleeh, the ministry is preparing two commercial segments to be aired on Chinese national broadcaster, CCTV.

“The programs will show Maldives tourism, culture, traditional talents such as boat construction, and other themes that display the beauty of Maldivian culture and so on, Maldives resorts and their natural beauty, underwater footage, it’ll be excellent for the channel,” Maleeh was quoted as saying in SunOnline.

In addition to the commercials, the deputy tourism minister revealed that plans are currently underway to stage street performances in four different cities in China.

Maleeh claimed that the programs will work to the country’s advantage and will significantly promote Maldives tourism in China.

“Street performances are to be played in four different cities, and we will be meeting with at least 2000 agents, and even if we can attract about 20 news reporters from each city, it is large number, it will have a large effect on tourism,” Maleeh was quoted as saying.

According to Maleeh, the ministry has initiated a number of new efforts in order counter the widespread negative publicity circulating against tourism in the Maldives.

Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Deputy Tourism Minister Mohamed Maleeh Jamaal were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Campaigns will damage both tourism and economy: Maleeh

On Sunday (March 24), Maleeh told local media that recent campaigns calling for tourists to boycott the Maldives would damage both tourism and the country as a whole.

Maleeh claimed the petition launched by Avaaz calling for the Maldives government to end the practice of flogging was really an attempt by the opposition to damage the country’s economy for political gain.

The petition, which has been signed by more than 1.2 million people, was launched after the Juvenile Court sentenced a 15 year-old rape victim to 100 lashes for a separate crime of fornication.

“When they started the campaign, they were clearly aware of the president’s stand, as well the attorney general’s stand on the matter,” Maleeh said, according to SunOnline.

“Looking back, a 14 year-old was given the same sentence during former President Nasheed’s presidency and nobody seemed to have talked about that. This whole deed is an attempt to defame the country’s tourism industry and [damage the] economy,” he said.

Cup noodle discrimination

Earlier this month, dismissed Chinese employees of the Beach House Iruveli resort – formerly Waldorf Astoria – posted allegations on the Chinese forum Tianya that guests from the country were receiving inferior treatment to Europeans, despite paying the same prices.

The staff alleged that this discrimination extended to removing kettles from the rooms of Chinese guests, to prevent them from making instant noodles in their rooms and thereby forcing them into the resort’s restaurants.

The resort has since denied the claims, stating that it had “removed damaged kettles from rooms as part of routine maintenance due to the fact that these kettles were damaged by guests by cooking food.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court Judge asked me to file case against Nasheed, alleges sacked Human Rights Minister

Sacked Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed has sent a letter to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain requesting that he investigate a Supreme Court judge, whom she alleged requested that she file a case against former President Mohamed Nasheed in a bid to prevent him from running for presidency in the 2013 presidential elections.

The former SAARC Secretary General’s claims follow the High Court’s rejection of a petition filed by her and a team of lawyers, requesting the court look into the legality behind the controversial transfer of power that took place in February 2012.

The High Court rejected the case on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter. Saeed was later quoted in the media saying that she would file the case at the Supreme Court.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru on Monday, Saeed said that although her intention was to file the case at the Supreme Court, it was highly unlikely that justice would be served at the court.

This, she claimed, was due to the fact that her case had a strong connection with former President Nasheed’s alleged illegally obtained resignation, and that a judge on the Supreme Court bench had expressed to her that he had personal scores to settle with Nasheed.

According to Saeed, the said judge had personally instructed her on what cases she should file against the former President. Saeed alleged the instructions were given at a meeting held in the judge’s house at his request following Nasheed’s resignation.

Supreme Court Judge issues instructions to file cases should be filed against Nasheed

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

In March 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the removal of the eight presidential appointees in late 2008 by incoming President Mohamed Nasheed – who replaced the eight with his own appointees – was unconstitutional and ordered the state to compensate the MPs for salaries and allowances due for the remainder of the last parliamentary session.

Following the ruling, the state was ordered to pay approximately MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) for each of the eight Gayoom appointed MPs, totalling up to MVR 4 million (US$ 311,284.05).

Another suggestion included refiling a case filed by Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar in 2008 against Nasheed. This case claimed that Nasheed was convicted and sentenced for theft – a ‘Hadd’ offence under Sharia’ law – in similar bid to bar his candidacy in 2008 Presidential elections.

However, the Supreme Court on October 2008 declared that Nasheed was eligible to contest the election and that Nasheed was not sentenced on a Hadd offence.

Saeed declined to reveal the name of the judge but said he was “involved” in the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the legitimacy of the controversially-formed Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

In December 2012, the Supreme Court declared that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court – created by the Judicial Services Commission – was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The court’s legitimacy was declared by a majority of four out of the seven member Supreme Court bench.

Judges Abdulla Saeed, Ali Hameed Abdulla, Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi voted in favour of the court’s legitimacy, while Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Judge Abdulla Areef and Judge Mu’uthazim Adnan had dissenting views. Judge Adam Mohamed – also president of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), responsible for creating the court and appointing the judges in the Nasheed trial – cast the deciding vote.

Saeed on Monday claimed she was yet to receive response from the Chief Justice regarding the complaint.

“I have no knowledge as to whether that case is either considered or whether it is being looked into,” she said.

Saeed claimed that the specific judge must refrain from hearing any case linking with former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation and transfer of power in 2012, including the case she intends to file at the court.

“Judges should refrain from personal interests and bias; his rulings should be impartial. So, when a judge specifically speaks of preventing a specific person from getting elected to president, that means that he is biased,” Saeed said. “That is grossly inconsistent with the principles of justice.”

Speaking to local TV station Raajje TV on Monday evening, Saeed claimed that she only decided to talk about the matter after what happened with the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

“After realising how unfair it is for a judge like that to sit in the bench and decide the case regarding Hulhumale Magistrate Court, which is so closely related to Nasheed’s trial, I decided to speak out in public. Otherwise, I would have taken this to grave, and never mention it,” Saeed told the local TV station.

The judge who wanted to settle scores with me should be found and removed: President Nasheed

Following Saeed’s allegations, former President Mohamed Nasheed said that Judicial Service Commission (JSC) should find the judge which Saeed was speaking of, and remove him from the Supreme Court bench.

During a campaign rally held at Henveiru ward of Male City, Nasheed said that it was pointless for Chief Justice to talk of the judiciary while having knowledge of such discrepancies within the courts.

“The [Chief Justice] must look into this. A judge sitting in his court room is asking a lawyer to file a case against a President. When he is given a letter regarding such discrepancy, he should look into it. It is important that the JSC find who this judge is and dismiss him. He is not fit to be a judge,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed further said that Maldivian laws do not allow biased judges to sit in courts, and repeated his call for judicial reform.

“Neither the law nor the public wants a judge who often picks sides, distances himself and deliberately disregards the rules of justice in settling matters to remain as a judge in the court room,” he said.

The “noble Jihad”

However, on Sunday both Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and JSC President Adam Mohamed both claimed that “nobody can meddle with the Supreme Court”.

Both the Supreme Court judges contended that nobody could change the Supreme Court bench or remove a Supreme Court judge unless the position became vacant as per the law.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” Justice Faiz said at the time.

Meanwhile Adam Mohamed also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: It’s the judiciary, stupid

This article was first published on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

We had information that on 8 February Mohamed Nasheed would close other courts in the Maldives, send all judges home, and acting on his own, would establish a Judicial Reform Commission. From then onwards, it would be this Commission that would appoint all magistrates. ~2013 Presidential Candidate, Umar Naseer (PPM).

I learned about President Nasheed’s intention to establish a Judicial Reform Commission—or in whatever name it maybe—only after the government changed.

– 2013 Presidential Candidate, Abdulla Yameen (PPM)

We don’t know for sure whether Mohamed Nasheed was planning to form a Judicial Reform Commission on 8 February 2012 or not. But, leaders of the National Alliance, especially PPM, have made it clear what motivated them most to be out on the streets protesting until Nasheed’s government ended was the prospect of Nasheed making changes to the judiciary.

Many ‘intelligence-based’ reasons were offered  for the National Alliance’s opposition to the expected changes: Nasheed’s Judicial Reform Commission was going to be totally under his control; it was a way for Nasheed to usurp judicial power; it was Nasheed’s means of destroying the judiciary.

Truth of the matter is all parties in the National Alliance would have been opposed to judicial reform in whatever form it came.

To regard all attempts at reforming the judiciary as undue interference is to believe that the existing judiciary is as should be—independent, just, equal. This is far from the truth. To begin with, an overwhelming majority of current judges were sworn in extra-constitutionally, in violation of Article 285 which demands new, higher, ethical and professional standards from judges. As former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) member Aishath Velezinee exposed, the Commission colluded with authoritarian loyalists to dismiss Article 285 as ‘symbolic’.

Ignoring the constitutional requirement for a complete overhaul of the judiciary has allowed unqualified, unethical and downright criminal individuals to remain on the benches long past the constitutional deadline. Neither the Executive nor the Majlis took appropriate action to stop the oath-taking then; nor have they taken any steps to remedy the situation since. Many of these judges — spread out across low, higher and highest courts — were appointed by, and continue to be under the influence of, pre-democracy leaders. Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed (Ablow Ghaazee) is the icing on the authoritarians’ unhealthily large share of the judicial cake.

His removal and any other change in the carefully engineered set-up would mean less protection for those facing serious torture and fraud charges dating back to the dictatorship. The PPM-led National Alliance protests, seen this way, can be described as intended to ‘protect the judiciary’ from reform rather than keeping interference at bay.

It is now over a year since the National Alliance’s protests saw out the end of the country’s first democratically elected government. If judicial independence is what the protests were about, tackling the problems head-on would have been the new government’s first priority. On the contrary, every effort has been made to sustain the status-quo which preceded Nasheed’s drastic decision to have Abdulla Mohamed arrested.

“I thought he [Abdulla Mohamed] should be released, but I don’t think he should be allowed on the bench until all investigations pending against him have been satisfactorily investigated,” Dr Waheed, the current president said in his CoNI testimony.

Yet, Abdulla Mohamed is not just on the bench, he is back as Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, the main man sitting over the trial of Nasheed for his arrest. Indeed, reinstating Ablow Ghaazee was the first order of business for the new regime. Presidential Candidate Gasim Ibrahim (JP) [who, ‘incidentally’, is also a member of the JSC], meanwhile, dismissed UNSR Gabriella Knaul’s recommendations for judicial reform as lies and levity.

The government’s reaction to all such recommendations has been to either ramp up nationalistic rhetoric and play the sovereignty card, willfully ignore the expert advice, or both.

As noted in the UNSR report, ‘all branches of the State and all institutions have a role to play and responsibilities regarding the consolidation of democracy.’ But, sadly for the Maldives, it is not just the executive failing in its responsibilities towards judicial independence, but the Majlis, too, seems unable (or unwilling) to appreciate the absolute indispensability of judicial independence for regaining democracy.

MPs like Mahloof and Nihan of PPM who so ‘valiantly’ fought on the streets of Male’ to ‘protect the judiciary’, for instance, have yet to raise any judicial reform issues in parliament. Apart from a few individual MPs advocating for reform on other platforms, the Majlis as a collective body has been actively negligent of its duties towards the judiciary.

Otherwise, by now, it would have held the entire JSC accountable for dismissing Article 285 of the Constitution as symbolic. MDP MPs, and others, should have pushed not just for the removal of Gasim Ibrahim from the Commission, but every member of the JSC that colluded in the decision to violate the Constitution.

Long before Majlis summoned Speaker Abdulla Shahid to ask about the Hulhumale’ magistrate court, it should have asked him to explain what he saw, witnessed and participated in while in the JSC that allowed Article 285 to be deemed irrelevant. Even when the Parliamentary Oversight Committee had Shahid in front of them last Tuesday, not only did it fail to ask him about his role in the dismissal of Artical 285, it also failed to interrogate him on how the Hulhumale’ Court bench was illegitimately appointed by the JSC on his watch. “I was not present at the meeting,” is not a reason for absolving any JSC member, Speaker of Parliament or not, from responsibility.

The constant failure by the Majlis to hold JSC accountable for its crimes against judicial independence suggests: a) it is incompetent; and/or b) it colluded with the JSC in violating Article 285 of the Constitution.

All MPs, no matter what party affiliation, must collectively exercise the right and responsibility of the Majlis to hold the JSC accountable, and to work towards redressing Article 285, and all that needs done to ensure we have the kind of judiciary envisaged by the 2008 Constitution on which the Maldivian democracy is based.

Without judicial reform, it is hard to see how the upcoming elections could be free and fair nor how life after elections could be democratic.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in international relations

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(2)Dislikes(1)

“When cats are elected they will fight”: Maldives’ plight caused by citizens electing self-interested MPs, says Ibra

The former chairman of the committee responsible for drafting the 2008 Constitution has said the country’s current crisis is the result of Maldivian citizens electing self-interested parliamentarians.

The Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) released the 2012 Majlis (Parliament) Watch report on Sunday (March 24). The report was launched by Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, former chairman of the Special Majlis Drafting Committee.

Ibra emphasised that parliamentarians must represent public welfare and national interests foremost and “not exploit their official positions,” as clause 75 of the Constitution specifies.

However he said most parliamentary decisions are influenced by individual, business, and political party interests.

Responsibility for MPs’ prioritising their self-interests above Maldivian citizens’ well-being should be placed with the Maldivian people who elected these “shadowy figures,” Ibra declared.

“I would say the current plight of this country is down to the failure of the 77 parliament members to take note of Article 75 of the constitution. When casting votes in parliament they are thinking what is the best thing for me? How can more political power be given to the person who secures business opportunities for me? How can an Article be written to make it easy for me? I’m not referring to a particular party but to everyone,” Haveeru quoted Ibra as saying.

“During the last parliamentary elections we’ve all heard people saying they would even vote for a cat if it was the candidate from a specific party. So we are seeing the result of that today. When cats are elected they will fight,” he added.

Parliament Watch 2012

MDN’s Executive Director, Humaida ‘Humey’ Abdulghafoor, emphasised that parliament’s main priority should be service to the people and discussed the report’s main findings.

“MDN is not privy to the same information as Ibra. We try to be very objective in what we say, do, and how we present the [Majlis Watch] report,” stated Abdulghafoor.

“We advocate Majlis members serve responsibly as representatives of the people. They should have a clear idea of the lives and livelihood needs of their constituents.

“MPs should monitor the main needs of their constituencies, ask important questions, and highlight issues that relate to the lives of their constituencies. Based on these needs, MPs should prioritise the most relevant legislation that reflects what the people would like to see,” Abdulghafoor added.

Some of the main issues highlighted in the MDN report are in regard to challenges parliament has faced following the controversial transfer of power last February.

“We acknowledge that 2012 was very difficult for the Majlis. Their work has been slowed due to pending issues, which are a reflection of the challenges faced over the last year,” said Abdulghafoor.

“In some months, such as March and August 2012, the number of [committee] meetings were far lower than anticipated. Also, parliament halted for several days in March, because quorum was not achieved,” she added.

Abdulghafoor also discussed how meaningful legislation is often delayed at the committee stage and takes a “number of years” to become law. She stated that MPs must work together to “accelerate and overcome” obstacles that impede the law-making process, so to meet the urgent needs of Maldivian citizens.

“The number of bills submitted was also significantly lower [than expected], because the government is the largest source of bills. After February 7 2012, the government was not able to submit legislation, because the executive (President Waheed Hassan Manik) didn’t have a representative in the Majlis,” she stated.

“In other words, there were no sitting Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) party members in parliament. To accommodate this challenge, parliament had to change their regulations, which didn’t occur until October,” Abdulghafoor further explained.

Free elections require civic education

MDN also highlighted parliamentarians’ responsibility to create civic awareness among their constituents and ensure elections are legitimate and free from corrupt practices.

“We are advocating for Maldivians to use their vote responsibly to ensure elections are inclusive, free and fair,” Abdulghafoor stated.

“Political parties have a huge responsibility to recruit members ‘cleanly’ as well as inform party members what civic participation entails and what [democratic] political processes are – openness and clarity.

“The recent reports of registered deceased people are a stain on the reputation of the political party,” she declared.

The Elections Commissions (EC) said it has noticed a surge of discrepancies on membership forms submitted by certain political parties including forged documents, forms with false information and even forms filed under the names of dead people.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The culture of flogging in the Maldives: a systematic abuse of human rights

The Maldives is a tourist paradise, crowned the World’s Most Romantic Destination during the World Travel Awards in 2011. But while a popular destination for couples around the globe, it takes a radical paradigm shift when it comes to its own citizens.

Under the 2008 Constitution the Maldives is a ‘100 percent’ Muslim country, with a justice system based on a hybrid of common law and Islamic Sharia.

Although the country does not implement many of the ‘Hadd’ or penalties prescribed by Sharia law, including amputation and stoning, it does practice some selective punishments.

One such penalty is the implementation of flogging for a number of crimes including, but not limited to, fornication outside of wedlock.

In recent days, global media attention has been drawn to the case of a 15 year old-girl convicted of fornication and sentenced to flogging, despite her history of alleged sexual abuse dating back to 2009.

Minivan News has spoken with a number of locals about their experiences with flogging, and the societal impact it has had in the past.

Faheem*, a 47 year old former court official in a small island in the North of the Maldives, shared his experiences in regard to related cases.

“In my 10 years serving as a court official during the 90’s, I have witnessed many people being subjected to public flogging. Although we are, in fact, a Muslim nation, most of these sentences were for cases of extra marital sex,” Faheem said.

“The majority of those who did get flogged were women. Although Islam specifically states that once a culprit has endured the ‘Hadd’ he or she is completely washed of their sins, society does not seem to see it in that way.

These women are tainted for life and forever looked down upon. There were a couple of men too, but the islanders did not react in the same way against the men. They seem to be more easily accepted back into society, their sins are generally forgiven or forgotten in time,” he explained.

“We usually used a paddle, and there were then, like now, specific regulations which the flogger had to adhere to. But there is one particular case that has stayed in my mind, and although I was not directly involved in it, I have always remembered it with a pang of guilt,” he continued.

“The magistrate at the time, Ghazee Zubair, was involved with a woman from our island. Then one day he had to preside over a case against this woman, who had been brought in front of him for charges of extramarital, consensual sex with yet another man,” Faheem said.

“I remember islanders talking about whether he would be impartial in his judgement. He was, to a point. Yes, she was sentenced to flogging. But, the appalling thing is that while all others got the paddle, she was given a hundred lashes with a cotton handkerchief,” Faheem said.

While the paddle is commonly used in the implementation of flogging, it has been replaced with less harsher tools in some cases.

Hussain Haleem, a former court official, said in the past there have been instances where objects such as peacock feathers have been imported for the sole purpose of flogging a woman belonging to the country’s elite, or a single lash with a string of 100 rosary beads, each bead counting as a separate lash. Haleem, however, added that there had been cases in the other extreme, where the flogger has used far more force than is required, causing serious physical harm to the person sentenced.

Court officials attempt to gather a crowd of onlookers when the sentence is being implemented, in a bid to increase the shame of the sentenced persons. People standing around the court building, or waiting to file documents or cases, are frequently asked to join the crowds.

Shame and humiliation

Ibrahim*, a 44 year-old civil servant, talked about growing up as the illegitimate child of a woman who had been flogged.

“It was hard. Mother, who has since passed away, did not come from as elite a family as the man who they say is my father. She was the youngest daughter of a carpenter, a woman with no education, no money and no social status,” he said.

“As a teenage girl, she worked as a maid to help support the family. It was at this house where she worked that I was conceived. Of course, the man involved was rich and well, untouchable, even by the justice system.He denied any involvement and got off scott-free.

“I don’t refer to him as my father. I have never exchanged a word with him. My mother, however, was lashed. She told me that she herself had confessed, saying as per Islam, she deserved to get shamed, to bebeaten for her sin. Her family was so ashamed of her that she was turned out of the house.

“She lived till her late fifties alone, except for me. Growing up with a woman labelled undeservingly as cheap and honourless was not easy. This place is small and everyone calls me a bastard behind my back. That is probably why I have never learned to smile much,” Ibrahim said.

Twenty-six year-old marketing professional Fathima* spoke about how she felt forced to marry a man she was unhappy being with, to avoid the “societal ostracism” of being flogged.

“I was 22 at the time. Hassan, my boyfriend, was 30. We had been in a relationship for about six months and it wasn’t really working out. Hassan was too possessive for comfort, and I was looking for a way out of the relationship. And then, in the middle of all this, I became pregnant,” Fathima said.

“There was no one I could go to with the problem. My parents would have been outraged and I did not, rather I do not, have the courage to take the chance of being found out and flogged; of being banished to some island and losing everything, from my family’s acceptance of me to my reputation and this job I love. So, although things were already sour, Hassan and I got married in a rush,” she continued.

Fathima gave birth to a baby girl less than seven months into the marriage. She said the couple had the baby abroad for fear of being found out if they had stayed in the Maldives for the delivery. After a difficult and emotionally abusive marriage, Fathima filed for divorce a year after the wedding. She does not get any support for the child from the father, and is currently working as a single mother.

“I sometimes wonder if, compared to the hardships I am facing now, it was worth it to spend all my savings on the wedding and the trip abroad for delivery of my child. Hassan was of no help except for the name he lent to my child. I ask myself if it wouldn’t have been better to have just faced the shame of flogging back then.

“Who am I kidding? I don’t think anyone deserves such degrading treatment. Let’s be real. It’s something that the authorities ignore until an official complaint is made or someone ends up getting pregnant, but there is hardly anyone in this country who does not have sexual relations prior to, or outside of, marriage. It’s the hypocrisy I hate worst of all,” she said.

Punishment or repentance?

Usthaz Abdul Mueed Hassan, a graduate of Qatar’s Mauhadini Sanawi and Azhar University, said that in its true spirit, Islam holds repentance and forgiveness in higher regard than the implementation of Hadd penalties.

Mueed, who holds a state-issued permit to lecture on religious issues, spoke to Minivan News about the implementation of Hadd, while also commenting on the case of the 15 year-old rape victim sentenced to flogging.

“There is a verse in the Quran which comes in light of an incident in Quraish. The people of Quraish used to sell or give out their young females to guests they held in high regard, against the wishes of these youth. The verse was in response to questions that arose as to whether these youth would be considered sinners,” Mueed explained.

He referred to the conclusion of Verse 33 of Noor Surah in the Quran which reads: “But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them yet after such compulsion is Allah Oft-forgiving Most Merciful [to them].”

“In circumstances where a woman is forced into sexual relations, like in the instance of rape, Hadd will not apply to them. As in the verse I’ve quoted, Allah himself has forgiven them. None is above Allah. And since He has granted forgiveness, there is no more for us to do. It is very clearly stated so,” Mueed said.

“Anyone who reads these verses in the correct way and in their right order can clearly make out under what circumstances a punishment should and should not be given,” he said.

“Islam does not permit any Hadd to be delivered if there is any ‘Shubha’ [doubt] about the offence having been committed,” Mueed said, referring to sayings of Prophet Muhammad, as cited in the book Fiqh Al-Sunnah, Part II.

“The Prophet has also said that when seeking to implement Hadd on a person, if there is detected even the slightest reason to let it go without implementing the Hadd, then do so. He then says that this is because it is far better for the person in charge – be it a judge, a president or an Imam – to err in forgiving a person than to err in sentencing a person to any Hadd,” Mueed said.

“So even in the current case of the 15 year-old, if there is the slightest doubt – say for example, the girl is not fully mature and aware, or she is not explicitly aware that fornication is ‘haram’ (prohibited) – then it is better to not implement the sentence,” Mueed stated.

Mueed said that in Islam, proving offences like Zinah (fornication out of wedlock) beyond doubt is deliberately made to be difficult to achieve. Even if a person confesses to a crime, if he or she later denies it, then the Hadd cannot be observed, he said.

“For example, for this Hadd, there has to be four male witnesses with perfect eyesight who have seen the act occur at the same time, in the same manner. Four eyewitnesses being there is in itself unlikely, unless it is in a highly corrupted society and such acts are committed outside in public places. Furthermore, if three of them provide witness and the fourth ends up differing, then these three witnesses will be sentenced for ‘gazf’ (false accusation against a chaste and virtuous person of having committed fornication),” he continued.

“What is the reason for this to be made so complicated in Islam? It is to discourage implementation,” Mueed stated. “One must not take the literal, word by word, meaning of the Quran and Prophet’s sayings. We must interpret its words in the light of the true spirit of the religion and with reference to history.”

“For Hadd of Zinah to be sentenced upon a person, there are four requirements that must be met: the person must be of sound mind, must have reached puberty, must have committed fornication willingly without any compulsion and must know that the act of fornication is ‘haram’ in Islam,” he explained.

The religion-based political party Adhaalath Party, members of which largely dominate the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, has meanwhile stated that “No one has the right to criticise any penalties specified in Islam,” and that “criticising issues like this would encourage enemies of Islam, create confusion among the general public and open up opportunities for people who aim to stop the practice of similar penalties commanded in Islam.”

In a statement released in February, the party said “The purpose of penalties like these in Islamic Sharia is to maintain order in society and to save it from sinful acts. It is not at all an act of violence. We must turn a deaf ear to the international organisations which are calling to abolish these penalties, labeling them degrading and inhumane acts or torture.”

Corporal punishment is cruel, degrading, unacceptable: UN

Human Rights Advisor at the UN Country Office Safir Syed expressed concern over the implementation of flogging, especially in the case of minors, in the Maldives.

“It is unacceptable and against international standards. It is also important to keep in mind, apart from the physical trauma, the psychological effects the punishment may cause,” Syed said.

Stating that corporal punishment, including flogging, are explicitly prohibited under international law, Syed backed his statement citing from numerous UN standards and human rights mechanisms.

“While Article 7 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child add that ‘State Parties should ensure that no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age,'” Syed quoted.

Syed noted that in July 2012 the UN Human Rights Committee had called on the Maldivian state to “abolish flogging and explicitly prohibit corporal punishment in all institutional settings.”

Similarly, in 2007 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had expressed concern that corporal punishment is considered lawful as a sentence for crime and for disciplinary purposes, and called on the state to abolish the use of corporal punishment under such circumstances.

Syed also referred to the 2005 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, on the legality of corporal punishment under international law.

“The Special Rapporteur stated that any form of corporal punishment, be it flogging, amputation, etc, is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Rapporteur also said that States cannot hide behind domestic laws as justification for this violation of human rights obligations,” Syed said.

Meanwhile, an online petition by Avaaz.org calling on the Maldivian government to end the practice of flogging women and children for the crime of fornication has been signed by over a million people worldwide.

*Names changed at request

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as Maldives remains a democracy”: Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has said the current seven-member bench of the Supreme Court cannot be abolished and will continue to remain as the highest court of the country as long as the Maldives remains a democracy.

The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time where the Supreme Court has come under heavy criticism from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Last week following two controversial rulings issued by the court, the MDP’s National Council passed a motion calling on its parliamentary group to seek to abolish the existing Supreme Court bench and replace it with a new panel of judges, including foreign judges.

The party subsequently launched peaceful street protests last Friday against the court rulings. Protesters led by former President Mohamed Nasheed also called on the Supreme Court to refrain from undermining parliament and its decisions.

Speaking during a ceremony held at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Sunday to swear in five new Magistrate Court Judges, Justice Faiz Hussain contended that the only way a judge from the Supreme Court could be removed was if the judge’s position became vacant.

“By the will of Allah, the Supreme Court bench will prevail as long as the Maldives remains a democracy. The bench cannot be changed. A change to the Supreme Court bench can only be brought if a judge’s position becomes vacant,” he said.

The Chief Justice also called upon all the judges to not to fear what the “people from other institutions” say, and advised the judges to not let their emotional sentiments get in the way of fulfilling their legal duties.

He added that every person is entitled with the right to file a case at the court if the person feels that his rights had been compromised, and when the highest court decides on a matter, that decision will be final and binding, and cannot be changed.

Faiz Hussain also said that the court will look into cases filed with them, and the court process would not stop.  He added that while there remained the option to settle matters out of court, if a matter came to the court, it would look into that matter.

“A very noble jihad”, says JSC President Adam Mohamed

Meanwhile President of JSC and member of the Supreme Court bench Adam Mohamed followed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain in condemning the efforts of some parliament members to dissolve the court bench.

Justice Adam Mohamed contended that article 54 of the Constitution clearly states as to how a Judge can be removed from a court. Therefore, Mohamed said the efforts led by MDP MPs to change the bench through legislation were unconstitutional.

“While the constitution very clearly mentioning as to how a judge can be removed, It remains very clear that efforts to remove a sitting judge in contrast with the principle laid down in Article 54 of the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional.

The JSC President also called on state institutions to refrain from interfering with the work done by the courts or do anything that could “impact the fairness and impartiality” of the JSC.

“I call upon you not to forget the fact that you are carrying out a very noble jihad in the name of Allah in delivering justice to the people,” he told the judges.

Regarding the removal of judges, Adam Mohamed echoed Chief Justice Faiz Hussain’s remarks stating that claiming that a judge could only be removed by either retirement, resignation or if the parliament successfully removes the judge by a two thirds majority.

Every effort will be made to bring the necessary changes – MDP

During the MDP’s emergency national council meeting held last week, the motion proposed by MDP national council member Mohamed ‘Sanco’ Shareef – which concerned the removal of the existing Supreme Court bench – received unanimous support from all attending members, including former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“The Supreme Court is acting in such a fashion that it has now begun overtaking the powers of the parliament and in the process undermining the constitution of this country. [Therefore] this motion calls on MDP’s parliamentary group to make formal requests to parliament to immediately abolish the current bench of Supreme Court and establish a new bench that consists of honest judges.

“Also as the Maldives Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court having foreign judges, [this motion also calls] to seek qualified and educated judges from abroad,” read the motion (Dhivehi).

The meeting was called in following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn parliament’s removal of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan on sexual harassment charges, and a decision to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed during the meeting stated that it was more important that there be a proper justice established in the country rather than him being elected as President.

“To reform the judiciary and bring the justice system of this country into the right course is something I must do,” he said. “We will come out to the streets, we will protest. I will not take a single step back until the bench is replaced with better judges.”

Meanwhile, MDP’s Parliamentary Group and Parliament’s Majority Leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih assured the council that the party’s parliamentary group under his leadership would do everything at its hand to ensure the dissolution of the existing Supreme Court bench.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)