Court refuses whistleblower’s evidence in JSC professional negligence case

The Civil Court has refused to hear additional evidence offered by a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who alleges that the JSC is withholding information in the ongoing professional negligence case against it.

The Civil Court decision was based on the grounds that any information obtained by a member of the JSC in their official capacity cannot be used for any other purpose than that of executing their official duties.

JSC member Aishath Velezinee applied for leave to enter the proceedings as a third party, saying that the JSC had not made full disclosure in its submissions to the court on the professional negligence case brought against it by Treasure Island Limited earlier this month.

“Aishath Velezinee applied to enter the proceedings in her capacity as a member of the JSC and the additional information she has offered was also obtained as a member of the JSC”, Judge Nihayath said.

Referring to the JSC Code of Conduct, Judge Nihayath said, this meant Velezinee could not share the additional information with the court.

To do so would be to breach the JSC code of conduct, Judge Nihayath said, as it would mean that Velezinee was revealing the information for a purpose other than the execution of her official duties.

In reply, Velezinee said that by sharing the information with the court she would be executing her responsibilities to the nation and to the State. The duty of the JSC, she said, is to serve the people.

Judge Nihayath granted Velezinee the right to appeal, were she dissatisfied with the ruling.

Treasure Island Limited is suing the JSC for failing to execute its responsibilities by neglecting to investigate three complaints it made to the JSC in 2009, alleging professional misconduct by two judges – Judge Ali Naseer and former Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy.

At the time Treasure Island made the complaints to the JSC, Justice Fahmy was the Commission’s deputy chair. He later went on to become its Commissioner before being replaced by Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla in early September this year.

The cases in which Treasure Island alleges misconduct by the judges involve some prominent figures of the tourism industry, including the Ministry of Tourism, and a sum of money amounting to over a million US dollars.

The JSC denied the allegations of professional negligence at the first hearing on 7 October 2010, saying that the complaints made by Treasure Island Limited against the two judges were outside of its constitutional mandate.

The JSC is an independent institution with the Constitutional mandate to oversee the judiciary, investigate complaints against it, and taking disciplinary action if required.

The JSC also told Judge Nihayath at the hearing that it had the power, granted by the Constitution, to ignore any complaints that it deemed were neither valid nor genuine. The complaints made by Treasure Island Limited fell into this category, it said.

The JSC has not investigated any of the 118 complaints submitted to it this year, and the commission’s complaints committee has not met for five months.

Treasure Island refused the offer of an out of court settlement by the JSC at the hearing, saying it would prefer the court itself to make a decision on the matter.

The hearing is now scheduled for 26 October next.


6 thoughts on “Court refuses whistleblower’s evidence in JSC professional negligence case”

  1. If velizinee (vel) can intervene the case, why not the individual members of the parliament can intervene the case of Cabinet Ministers to be held in Supreme court.
    Lack of knowledge may lead to sway the membership.

  2. JSC is to server the people and state under its mandate and has not authority above it and JSC members has no authority to exercise above the JSC mandate and particularity in individual cases. If we are to confuse the authority and service of Independent institutions such as JSC, other than the mandate given by the law then we will be in chaos. JSC or JSC members are not directly accountable to the people so must not confuse or deviate from law. Thus if there is injustice then it must be resolved through the court because ultimately courts must uplift and enforce rule of law and justice in the system.

  3. Systems are made of people. So systems will not serve people if the people in the system do not want to.

    I can understand Vel, and I know she does not compromise her integrity. It might be risky to her career if she is true to herself. Vel, find a way around it. Stand for what is right but be wise.

    It seems to be all these commissions are made to protect a corrupt system. Or are people in it too scared or too greedy

  4. Yasin Fikry: You should really read before you jump on the DRP bandwagon. Velizinee said that the JS Commission was with holding iformation - a commission to which she is a sworn member.

  5. Velizinee is an appointed member, im just talking about the elected members.
    I think JSC is an asset of velizinee which was inherited from her family's wealth. haha


Comments are closed.