Politics – Page 344 – Minivan News

Comment: Human Rights Day 2012 marks exclusion and imposition of government by force

As we look back on this week’s celebration of Human Rights Day 2012, it is important to recall what, beyond the pageantry and back-slapping, this day really stands for.

During the 30-year long dictatorship of President Gayoom, those of us who longed for a fair, just and democratic Maldives would mark Human Rights Day by wearing secretly-printed t-shirts to mark the occasion – printed in stealth, worn in stealth. We took this risk (open advocacy of human rights and political reform was liable to end with a jail-term) because Human Rights Day was, we believed, important – a moment to remember that the outside world stood steadfastly behind our hopes for a better future.

It is therefore difficult, in 2012, not to feel a sense of disappointment – even shame – at what Human Rights Day has become, at least for Maldivians.

Human Rights Day 2012 goes under the banner of “inclusion and the right to participate in public life”.

Over recent days we have heard the UN Resident Coordinator encourage people to play an active role in public life and to hold public servants accountable (no word, however, about securing accountability for the systematic human rights violations that have occurred since February). We have heard the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives warn us that enjoying human rights should not be taken as an excuse to break the law (an unusual message for a national human rights institution to focus on – but not entirely a surprise). We have heard the Commonwealth Secretary-General remind the government (more in hope than expectation) that those responsible for gross human rights violations following February’s coup – mainly police officers guilty of beatings and torture – must be held accountable.

And yet, these platitudes come against a background wherein, in 2012, the majority of Maldivians who voted in 2008/9 have been disenfranchised; wherein those of us who want a new election in order to reassert our fundamental right to choose our government are being routinely beaten, arrested and tortured, wherein members of parliament who have sought to protest against the death of our democracy are being hounded, threatened and chastised as infidels; wherein the presidential candidate of the Maldives’ largest party is being manoeuvred into prison by the ancient regime; wherein the man who stands accused of torturing many over his 30 years of dictatorship announces he is likely to be a presidential candidate, again, and wherein our corrupt and immoral judiciary is openly attacking parliamentary prerogative and the constitutional separation of powers in order to protect those guilty of sexual harassment, and to protect the government from democratic scrutiny.

How is it possible that the UN, the HRCM, and our friends in the international community can let this year’s Human Rights Day pass without any mention of the dismantling of our democratic rights; without any suggestion that in 2012 we have lost, for the foreseeable future, our right to participate in public life and to determine, freely, our government; and without any meaningful call for those who have had their rights violated in 2012 to receive justice and redress?

For those of us who weep for the lost promise of our young democracy; for those of us who flinch at every new injustice heaped upon us; for those of us who wish our former friends in the international community would stand-up for the rights and principles that they purport to uphold; Human Rights Day 2012 will be remembered as nothing more than an empty shell.

Not even worthy of a hidden t-shirt.

Eva Abdulla is an MP in the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

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

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP requests parliament look into alleged police cover-up of bystander’s death

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) filed a motion Wednesday (December 12) asking parliament to look into the death of Abdulla Gasim Ibrahim, accusing the Maldives Police Service of a cover-up.

Leaked CCTV footage released in early December threw into dispute the official police account of 43-year-old Gasim’s death. Police had initially stated that he had died due to injuries caused in a motorcycle accident, while the footage appears to reveal that a police officer had some involvement in the incident.

In the footage, a police officer is seen attempting to stop a speeding motorcycle suspected of being used by thieves to flee a crime scene. Using his baton, the officer in the footage appears to hit out at the vehicle’s driver, causing him to lose control of the bike that then collides with Gasim’s motorcycle.

The MDP has submitted a motion to the parliament asking the Committee on Oversight of the Executive to look into the matter, and hold those responsible accountable.

“The police have not shared details of the actual events with either the family or the public. The video footage that was leaked shows that things happened in a way absolutely contrary to the initial reports. That is why we have submitted the motion and asked the parliament to look into this and make the authorities answerable to this,” MDP MP Mohamed Aslam said.

The motion was submitted by Mohamed Aslam and supported by MPs Ilyas Labeeb and Mohamed Rasheed – all from the same party.

Police Integrity Commission (PIC) President Abdulla Waheed stated today that he was out of Male’ on an official trip and was unaware of case proceedings at the moment.

Meanwhile PIC Director General Fathimath Sarira, speaking to Minivan News on December 3, has stated that the commission had previously received the footage and an investigation was nearing the point of conclusion.

Gasim’s family has said they have received no updates to date on how the case was proceeding either from the PIC or the police.

“I don’t know what else we can do. [police] are elusive and very slow, which is why we keep calling back. All I want is justice,” Naseema Khaleel, Gasim’s wife previously stated.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Vice President Ahmed Tholal was not responding to calls at the time of press.

The MDP and former President Mohamed Nasheed had previously also released statements condemning the alleged cover-up of the incident, calling on Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take responsibility for the matter.

“I am shocked and appalled by the leaked video, which appears to show a policeman hitting a motorcyclist in the head with a baton, which led to the death of an innocent bystander,” Nasheed stated at the time.

“Under [President Mohamed] Waheed’s administration, we are seeing a return to the thuggish brutality of Maldives’ authoritarian past. I implore the international community to pressure the Waheed government to immediately and impartially investigate this case, to bring human rights abusers in the security forces to book, to cease its harassment of opposition members, and hold early elections so democracy can be restored.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Parliament tables no-confidence motion against Defence Minister in defiance of Supreme Court injunction

Parliament announced today that a no-confidence motion filed against Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim has been tabled despite a Supreme Court injunction ordering parliament to halt pending no-confidence votes.

The People’s Majlis secretariat revealed that Defence Minister Nazim has been given the required 14-day notice and his ministry also duly informed by Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Article 101(a) of the constitution states, “At least fourteen days notice of the debate in the People’s Majlis concerning a motion under article (a) shall be given to the concerned member of the cabinet, and he shall have the right to defend himself in the sittings of the People’s Majlis, both orally and in writing.”

The move comes in apparent defiance of an injunction or stay order issued by the Supreme Court to halt conducting no-confidence votes through secret ballot, pending a ruling by the apex court on the constitutionality of the secret vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Parliament’s Counsellor General Fathimath Filza were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

The injunction (Dhivehi) was issued in a case filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim ‘Wadde’.

Waheed contended that secret votes were unlawful as article 85 of the constitution states that the People’s Majlis or any of its committees “may decide to exclude the public and the press from all or any part of the proceedings if there is a compelling need to do so in the interests of public order or national security.”

Waheed requested the Supreme Court specify the constitutional measure to determine a two-third majority of parliament – required to impeach the president – and to declare that the Majlis decision to approve a secret ballot was unconstitutional.

On December 3, parliament voted 41-34 to approve amendments to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence votes to impeach the President and remove cabinet members through secret ballot.

MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) joined the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to vote the amendment through.

The no-confidence motion against Defence Minister Nazim was submitted by the MDP earlier this month on the grounds that he misused his authority as acting Transport Minister by using the military to influence termination of commercial contracts.

The MDP has also submitted a no-confidence motion to impeach President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

The no-confidence motion against Nazim was filed with the signatures of 17 MPs, according to the Majlis secretariat.

Under article 101(a), “A motion expressing want of confidence in a member of the Cabinet may be moved in the People’s Majlis, under the hand of at least ten members, specifying the reasons.”

“Challenging separation of powers”

In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court also issued an injunction ordering parliament not to appoint a new member to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pending a ruling on the legality of parliament’s dismissal of the CSC’s former chair, Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

Fahmy had filed a case contesting the legality of his removal from the independent institution on November 20 on the grounds that he had allegedly sexual harassed a female employee.

“What is at stake is the supremacy of the parliament as the representative of the people. By its actions, the Supreme Court is challenging the separation of powers that underpins the constitutional basis of governance,” MDP MP Eva Abdulla told Minivan News yesterday.

In its stay orders, the Supreme Court referred to article 144(b) of the constitution, which states: “When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction, a court may in connection with a declaration pursuant to the article make any order that is just and equitable, including an […] suspending the declaration of invalidity (of a statute, regulation or action due to inconsistency with the Constitution) for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.”

Meanwhile, Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, contended in his blog yesterday (December 12) that the Supreme Court did not have the legal or constitutional authority to issue the injunctive orders against parliament.

Moreover, the Supreme Court “does not have the power to even accept those cases,” he wrote.

Article 88(b) of the constitution states: “Unless otherwise specified in this constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the People’s Majlis shall not be questioned in any court of law.”

Nasheed argued that decisions made by parliament could not be challenged in court except in instances clearly specified in the constitution.

The purpose of article 88 was to prevent parliament’s decisions being challenged or overturned, Nasheed said, as in the absence of such a clause the Supreme Court would become a “People’s Appeal Majlis” with supremacy over the house of elected representatives.

“If every decision of the People’s Majlis is appealed at the Supreme Court in the manner that any judgement by the High Court can be appealed at the Supreme Court, then there is no difference between the People’s Majlis and the High Court,” Nasheed wrote.

This was against the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution, Nasheed said, which vested legislative powers in parliament and clearly specified instances where its decisions could be challenged at court.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

STELCO takes Male’ City Council to court over ‘permit conflict’

The State Electric Company (STELCO) has filed a case with the Civil Court requesting it invalidate Male City Council’s (MCC’s) decision to disallow issuing permits to the company.

In a statement released Wednesday (December 12), the state electricity provider stated that the lawsuit was filed because the MCC had blocked the company from providing some of its services, resulting in disruption for customers in the capital.

The disallowed permits are needed to provide electrical services to properties around the capital.

STELCO argued that MCC’s decision lacked any legal grounds and it therefore requested the court to decide if the decision was valid or not. It also requested the court invalidate a letter sent to STELCO by the MCC informing it of the decision, so that it could resume its services.

Speaking to Minivan News following the lawsuit being filed, MCC member Ibrahim Shujau said that the council had not yet been officially informed of the case and had only been made aware of the matter through media reports.

Shujau claimed that STELCO was releasing statements that were misleading and did not convey what had really happened.

“The Housing Ministry informed us to stop providing permits stating that the Ministry itself would carry out the issuing of permits. We told them under the Decentralization Act, it was our responsibility in giving the services. But they gave a deaf ear to our concerns,” He explained.

The Male’ City Councillor also alleged that STELCO was carrying out its operations in breach of national laws, therefore, the MCC had on numerous occasions advised them not to disregard these laws.

However, Shujau said that STELCO’s failure in heeding its request had meant that the council had to halt services provided to the state electricity provider. He added that the MCC would only resume providing permits if the state electricity provider came back within “the boundaries of law”.

Shujau alleged that Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muizz had been responsible for the dispute in an attempt to defame members currently serving in the MCC ahead of the next local council elections.

“I would not let [Housing Minister Muizz] fail the city council, I would fight against it, even single handedly if required to,” said Shujau.

Managing Director of STELCO, Dr Mohamed Zaid was not responding to calls at time of press.

The dispute

The Row between STELCO and the MCC escalated this week after the state-owned company held a press conference on December 10 to express concern over the council’s decision to disallow issuing permits to them.

At the press conference, STELCO Deputy Managing Director Mohamed Latheef said that the company had been informed by the MCC that it was to temporarily cease providing services such as digging up roads in the capital as of December 5.

According to Latheef, the dispute began when STELCO started providing electricity to several locations in Male’ without the permission of the city council. He argued that properties in concern had been previously taken from the city council by the Housing Ministry.

“As the nature of the services provided by this company are such that we require the assistance and cooperation of the municipal service provider of the state, and because Male’ City Council has currently ceased providing its services, the subsequent result is that the company is now unable to provide certain public services,” he said. ”Some of the services that require the permission of the city council include digging street sides, laying cables and certain tasks that require the roads to be closed off.”

Latheef claimed the company had held several discussions with the council, the most recent of which took place Sunday (December 9). However, the MCC was said to have remained unwilling to reverse their decision.

STELCO Engineer Ibrahim Naashid in the same press conference said that the state-owned company was receiving about 15 requests per day to connect electricity, but was unable to do so as a result of the city council’s decision earlier this month.

“On an average, we were unable to provide electricity service to 15 parties in the last three to four days. However, not all premises require the digging of roads to provide electricity cables, so we have provided electricity to some premises through our distribution box that have been previously installed. But if digging the road is required to provide the service, it is impossible to give the service now,” he told the press.

Naashid explained that the company was required to obtain a permit from the city council to lay cable even in an emergency power outage, resulting in huge difficulties for the company in the present situation.

“Earlier, it is possible for us not to immediately get a permit from the city council in an odd time like midnight hours, but we do inform their supervisors and those responsible in maintaining the roads. If it’s a difficult time like midnight hours, we carry out the work and inform them the next day,” he explained.

However, Naashid affirmed that the company would still carry out its work in providing their service to the people in case of emergencies regardless of the views that the city council may hold.

Male’ City Council’s response

In a response to STELCO’s claims, the MCC in a letter seen by local media warned the state-owned electricity provider that it would take “harsh” action if any service was provided to the “people” without its permission.

The city council said STELCO was failing to abide by laws and regulations, as well ignoring two different letters sent to the company advising it to comply with such requests. The MCC stated that it had not received any response to its letters.

The letter signed by Deputy Mayor Shamah Rasheed and addressed to Managing Director of STELCO Dr Mohamed Zaid stated that it was the responsibility of the MCC to enter into agreements with parties and carry out business transactions. The MCC said such transactions were to be carried out in accordance with policies set by government authorities that outline the provision of basic services such as water, electricity and sewerage services to the people as stipulated under the Decentralization Act.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

“Yameen and myself are the two likely candidates in PPM primary”: Umar Naseer

Interim Deputy Leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has said that he and Parliamentary Group Leader MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom are the most likely candidates to contest the party’s primary elections scheduled for February 2013.

The presidential Primary of the PPM is scheduled to take place after its congress. Since its formation in October 2011, the government-aligned PPM has postponed its national congress on three occasions, despite having a charter of regulations stipulating that a congress must be held within six months of registration.

In October this year, local daily Haveeru reported that that the party cited “political turmoil” as the reason for the delays.

Naseer’s remarks about standing in the upcoming party primaries comes at a time when current interim leader of PPM, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, has also highlighted the possibility of his running for re-election.

Both Naseer and Yameen Abdul Gayoom was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom told Indian newspaper The Hindu yesterday (December 11) that he may consider contesting in a presidential election presently expected to be held in August or September next year.

“Things change very frequently. So I am keeping my options open,” Gayoom was quoted as saying. “[If I run] it won’t be out of my choice, if ever, it will be out of compulsion. Because I feel I have served the country for 30 years and I feel it is up to other people [now].” Gayoom reiterated that he preferred not to run.

Speaking to local Newspaper Haveeru about the comments, Umar Naseer said that Gayoom had the right to contest for re-election in the next presidential elections – a decision he believed would make the country’s former autocratic ruler the “obvious top candidate” to finish the race.

“I would definitely back Gayoom if he is to contest the elections. He is our ‘ace of spades’. You cannot say that the ace of spades is not the ace of spades,” he said.

Naseer suggested that if Gayoom ruled out his intention to “come back to power”, it would undermine potential public excitement ahead of the primary vote.

“If he says he won’t contest the elections that would mean the ace of spades becoming two of diamonds, doesn’t it?” he added.

Umar Naseer previously contested the 2008 presidential election under the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) and was defeated after winning just 1.39 percent of the vote in the first round – a total of 2,472 votes. Following the defeat, Naseer at the time refused to support another candidate.

President Waheed

Local media and senior politicians have previously speculated that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan could also be a potential PPM candidate to stand in next year’s general elections.

However, Gayoom, in his most recent interview with the Hindu newspaper, suggested that such a development could only happen if the president joined his party.

Gayoom has previously welcomed the prospect of President Waheed competing in a primary for the party’s ticket.

“The president, or anyone else, can join PPM if they want, and if they win the [party’s] primary, they will become our presidential candidate,” he said at the time.

PPM Deputy Naseer has himself echoed similar sentiments about the possibility of the president standing for the PPM whilst speaking at a rally in May. The comments were made despite previous statements that President Waheed would not stand for re-election.

“Second term”

President Waheed himself, in an interview given to the Hindu, said that he was “contemplating” running for a “second term” in office, but said that a final decision on the matter would be taken at a later date.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed – who defeated Gayoom in the 2008 presidential election with 54 percent of the vote to Gayoom’s 45 percent – said at a rally last month that he believed President Waheed will become PPM’s presidential candidate with Gayoom’s backing.

Nasheed alleged that his former vice president held secret consultations with the PPM figurehead before the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7.

“Dr Waheed has been scheming with President Maumoon for about two years, that I know of,” he said. “Sometimes in an uninhabited island in Baa Atoll, other times in Alivaage [Gayoom’s former residence]. They have been discussing and talking in different places. Anyone who thinks of carrying out a coup d’etat will know that one thing you need for it is a disloyal vice president.”

Uncertainty remains over what potential plans President Waheed may have for the elections presently scheduled for next year.

President of the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) Sheikh Imran Abdulla has previously called on all government-aligned political parties to unite and back a single candidate, preferably President Waheed as an ‘umbrella-candidate’.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Supreme Court orders halt on parliamentary appointment of new CSC head

The Supreme Court today released a temporary stay order requesting parliament not appoint a new President to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) until the judiciary concludes a case submitted by former CSC head Mohamed Fahmy concerning his removal from the post.

The court, in reference to the constitutional procedures that needed to be followed in cases of this type, said it was ordering parliament under Article 144(b) of the Constitution of the Maldives to temporarily halt any work related to the appointment of any person to the recently vacated post.

Article 144(b) states: “When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction, a court may in connection with a declaration pursuant to the article make any order that is just and equitable, including an order providing just compensation for any damage sustained by any person or group of persons due to any statute, regulation or action that is inconsistent with the Constitution; or an order suspending the declaration of invalidity (of a statute, regulation or action due to inconsistency with the Constitution) for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.”

The order was issued in response to a request for a temporary halt order made by Fahmy, who has submitted a case at the Supreme Court alleging that he had been removed from his post in an unlawful move by the parliament. Fahmy was represented in court by lawyer and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Council Member Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim.

Separation of Powers

Article 187(a) and (b) of the Constitution states that a member of the CSC shall be removed from office only on the grounds of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence, and a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis, and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office.

In accordance with this, Fahmy was removed from his post on November 20 through a vote in parliament over claims he had allegedly sexual harassed a female employee. The vote had been taken in parliament after members debated the findings of a report into the allegations, which was compiled by the Committee on Independent Institutions.

The 70 members who partook in the vote were split 38 for removing Fahmy to 32 against, with two abstentions.

Article 88(b) of the constitution states: “Unless otherwise specified in this Constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the People’s Majlis shall not be questioned in any court of law.”

Meanwhile, Department of Judicial Administration Director Ahmed Maajid defended the Supreme Court order, “In addition to Article 88(b) there is another clause in the constitution which says that the courts can look into any issues which breach human rights or the constitution. That is my personal view.”

Vice President of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives Ahmed Tholal said that the commission could not yet comment on the matter as they had “just read about it in the news” and had so far not discussed it among the commission’s members.

Chair of the Committee on Independent Commissions Mohamed Nasheed, Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam were not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Supreme Court issues injunction to withhold no confidence vote on president

The Supreme Court has issued an injunction ordering parliament to withhold the impending no-confidence motions against both Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim and President Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

The ruling was made after a case concerning the legality of the no confidence motions had been filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer Mohamed ‘Wadde’ Waheed Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court in its injunction today ordered parliament to withhold the no-confidence motion until it could decide on the legality of the matter after looking into the “necessary constitutional principles that had to be followed”.

Earlier this month, Ibrahim filed the case in the Supreme Court contending that the parliament’s decision to make impeachment votes a secret ballot was unlawful.

Speaking to local media after filling the case, Ibrahim said that Article 85 of the constitution clearly articulates that a session of parliament can only be held in ‘closed doors’ only if the issue debated in parliament concerns the national security of the state and if not the sessions should be held open to public.

He said therefore parliament does not have the authority to come to a decision outside its jurisdiction laid down in the constitution and sought the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision.

No-confidence motion

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had proposed a no-confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed Hassan in October claiming that the police and the military had “brutalised” its supporters on February 8 under direct orders from the president himself.

The MDP also alleged that President Waheed had destroyed the sensitive economy of the nation and adversely impacting investor confidence in the Maldives.

Other reasons, the MDP alleged, included the failure of President Waheed’s administration to curb gang violence in the country, as well as his government taking a loan worth MVR 300 million (US$19.5 million) from the Bank of Maldives (BML) without prior approval from parliament – a violation of Public Finance Act and Public Finance Regulation.

The MDP subsequently proposed the amendment to parliamentary regulation which would pave the way for a secret ballot in the vote to impeach President Waheed. However, the first attempt, despite approval from parliament’s General Affairs Committee was defeated in parliament by 39 to 34 votes.

Parliament this month passed the amendment when it was again re-submitted and approved with a 41 to 34 majority. The approval was backed by two government aligned parties, the Jumhoree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Legality of two DRP seats

Meanwhile, Ibrahim has also raised doubts over the legality of the secret ballot decision, claiming it was passed by the votes cast by two DRP MPs Ahmed Nashiz and Ali Azim, whose seats he claimed were in question.

JP’s Policy and Legal Committee member Mohamed Haleem Ali had previously filed a case in the Supreme Court asking it to rule the concerned parliamentarians “unfit to stay in their elected seats” over the Bank of Maldives (BML)’s foreclosure on their loans.

“The Civil Court’s ruling number 935 of 2009 asks them to pay back the debts to BML. They didn’t. So I have submitted this case in accordance with subclause one of Article 73(c) and 74 of the constitution,” Haleem said at the time.

Subclause 1 of Article 73 of the Constitution of the Maldives states that a candidate for membership or a sitting member of the parliament would be disqualified if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as per court rulings.

Article 74 states that any question concerning the qualifications or removal of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.

Both MPs Nashiz and Azim were elected to parliament in 2009 general elections, the same year in which the civil court ordered them to pay the BML debts. The case was accepted by Supreme Court on December 10.

Supreme Court decision ‘void ab initio’: Ibra

Following the decision, former MP and Chair of Drafting Committee of Constitutional Assembly (Special Majlis) Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail stated that the decision was “void ab initio” (void from the beginning).

“They cannot suspend the decisions of the parliament. Parliament should not adhere to the decisions of Supreme Court,” he said.

“Parliament is free to conduct its business anyway they want to. Only the public can reprimand the parliament,” he added.

Counsel General of Parliament Fathimath Filza and Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid were not responding to calls at time of press.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In a previous bid, the Supreme Court issued an order quashing the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognize the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Supreme Court in the order stated that while the Maldivian constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” it added.

Speaking to Minivan News yesterday, Former Foreign Minister and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Dr Ahmed Shaheed identified the “pathetic state of the judiciary” as one of the key human rights concerns he believed needed to be addressed in the Maldives.

“[The judiciary] is not only corrupt, but also coming under the influence of radical Islam, even to the extent of violating codified laws of the Maldives and clear international obligations,” Dr Shaheed claimed yesterday.

“Disregard for rule of law has also meant that a culture of impunity is deeply entrenched, rendering many of the human rights of the people meaningless.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Government agreed to waive taxes for Nexbis, reveals Parliament’s Finance Committee

The Maldivian government agreed to waive taxes for Nexbis as part of the controversial border control agreement signed with the Malaysia-based mobile security provider, parliament’s Finance Committee has revealed.

The People’s Majlis secretariat explained in a statement yesterday (December 11) that the committee has sent a letter to President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik noting the findings of an inquiry to determine the possible financial burden on the state due to the Nexbis deal.

“The Finance Committee told the President that the ties and cooperation between state institutions necessary for the border control system was non-existent,” the Majlis press release read.

The Finance Ministry meanwhile informed the public accounts oversight committee on November 13 that it has yet to receive a copy of the border control agreement.

The committee observed that the government had “not considered” that tax exemption was within the legislative powers of parliament.

Moreover, the committee noted that “no government department has to date” initiated any effort to approve waiving taxes for the Malaysian company.

The Finance Committee also informed the President that the relevant government authorities lacked “authentic and valid information” of the border control project.

The committee further noted that the relevant authorities did not offer “adequate cooperation” in providing information for the inquiry.

In a letter to the Finance Committee on November 1, the Immigration Department explained that the border control system agreement was signed before the Business Profit Tax (BPT) came into effect.

However, the government agreed to exempt Nexbis from the tax with a final decision to be made by the Finance Ministry, the Immigration Department said.

Nexbis deal

Speaking at a rally last month, parliament’s Minority Leader MP Abdulla Yameen called on the government to “immediately” terminate the agreement with Nexbis and contended that the project was detrimental to the state.

The parliamentary group leader of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) also criticised the government’s “hesitancy” to cancel the agreement despite the Anti-Corruption Commission’s (ACC’s) findings of alleged corruption in the deal.

Local media meanwhile reported that the Finance Committee had decided during a closed-door session last month to instruct the executive to halt the project.

The decision would however have to be approved through a vote on the Majlis floor following consideration of a report by the committee.

In September, the ACC informed the committee that the deal would cost the Maldives MVR 2.5 billion (US$162 million) in potential lost revenue over the lifetime of the contract.

Following its investigation into alleged corruption in awarding of the contract to Nexbis, the ACC requested the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) press criminal charges against former Controller of Immigration Ilyas Hussain, brother-in-law of President Waheed.

Almost a year after the case was forwarded to the PGO however, no charges have been pressed against the former immigration chief to date.

The ACC alleged that Ilyas Hussain had abused his authority for undue financial gain.

Ilyas – a senior member of Dr Waheed’s Gaumee Ihtihad Party (GIP) – was transferred from the post under former President Mohamed Nasheed when the corruption allegations first surfaced.

His successor Abdulla Shahid expressed concern with both the cost and necessity of the project, calculating that with continued growth in tourist numbers, Nexbis would be earning US$200 million in revenue over the 20-year lifespan of the agreement.

Following Dr Waheed’s swearing-in as president on February 7, Ilyas was reappointed controller of immigration. He was however replaced in May with Dr Mohamed Ali and appointed State Minister for Defence.

Former President Nasheed meanwhile alleged in a rally last month that Dr Waheed’s GIP’s Deputy Leader Mohamed ‘Nazaki’ Zaki was complicit in any alleged corrupt dealings in his role as Ambassador to Malaysia.

“Before the [border control] system was established, before there was even a contract in effect, I later heard that equipment was kept in some warehouses in Male’,” he said, claiming that the warehouses were owned by Nazaki Zaki.

Nasheed added that he “agreed completely with Yameen” that the allegations should be investigated.

The border control system is now up and running at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), after a Supreme Court ruling in September in favour of Nexbis ended almost two years of efforts by the ACC to block the project.

Under the ‘build operate and transfer’ (BOT) agreement with Nexbis, the government is obliged to pay the security firm US$2 for every foreign passenger processed and US$15 for every work permit for the 20 year lifespan of the contract. Nexbis remains responsible for the upgrading, servicing and administration of the system.

Nexbis has continued to dismiss accusations of corruption within its deal with the Maldives government. The mobile security solutions vendor last year threatened to take legal action against any party in the Maldives alleging that the company was involved in corruption. Nexbis claimed at the time that the speculation over corruption in the deal was “politically motivated” and had “wrought irreparable damage to its reputation and brand name.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Gayoom may contest 2013 presidential election

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, interim leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), has signalled that he may run for the presidency in 2013.

Gayoom told Indian newspaper The Hindu yesterday (December 11) that he may consider contesting in a presidential election expected in August or September next year.

Gayoom however insisted that he preferred not to run.

Since its formation in October 2011, the government-aligned PPM has postponed its national congress on three occasions, despite the party’s charter or regulations stipulating that a congress must be held within six months of registration.

The party held its inaugural convention in October 2011.

In October this year, local daily Haveeru reported that that the party cited “political turmoil” as the reason for the delays.

Gayoom meanwhile told The Hindu that the party’s presidential primary will take place in February after the national congress currently scheduled for January 2013.

“Asked if current President Mohamed Waheed stood a chance to be nominated by PPM as its candidate for presidency, Mr Gayoom said that this can only be decided after Dr Waheed joins the PPM,” The Hindu reported.

Nasheed alleged that his former vice president held secret consultations with the PPM figurehead before the controversial transfer of presidential power on February 7.

In August, Waheed told the Hindu during a visit to Sri Lanka that he was “contemplating” running for office in 2013.

“What I have said is that our administration supports the earliest date for Presidential elections allowed under the Constitution. That in my mind will be July, 2013. I am hoping that the election will be at that time,” he was quoted as saying.

In the same month, former President Gayoom publicly welcomed the prospect of Dr Waheed competing in a primary for the party’s ticket.

In May, PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer told local media that Dr Waheed could potentially become the party’s presidential candidate. Naseer however claimed earlier that Waheed would not stand for re-election.

Naseer, along with PPM parliamentary group leader and brother of its interim leader, MP Abdulla Yameen, are the only two candidates that have announced their intention to compete in the primary.

Naseer has however said that he would not compete against former President Gayoom.

Dr Waheed meanwhile is currently leader of the GIP, which has no representation in either the People’ Majlis or local councils and just 3,170 registered members, according to the latest figures from the Elections Commission (EC).

By comparison, PPM currently has 17,111 members and is the minority party in parliament. The party has also won ten out of 13 by-elections held since its inception last year.

Speaking at a PPM rally last month, Gayoom urged senior leaders of the party to be mindful of the party’s unity during their campaigns for the upcoming primary.

At a press conference in September 2011, where the formation of the PPM was announced, Gayoom refused to rule out a presidential bid, stressing that he had not made a decision and would do so “when the time comes.”

“My answer is that the time [for a primary] has not come and we’ll know when it does,” he said after being asked repeatedly by reporters if he intended to run again.

On whether his role as leader of the new party contradicted an announcement in February 2010 that he was retiring from active politics, Gayoom said he made the decision based on the assurance that the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) would function “according to certain principles.”

Gayoom left the DRP to form the PPM following an acrimonious split within the DRP and a public spat with his successor and former vice-presidential candidate, DRP Leader and MP for Baa Atoll Kendhoo Ahmed Thasmeen Ali

“At the time and even up till yesterday, I was at the most senior post of one of the largest political parties in the country,” he said. “So how can it be said that the person in the highest post of a political party is not involved in politics? Up till yesterday I was in politics. Today I am forced to create a new party because of the state of the nation and because it has become necessary to find another way for the country.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)