Category: Politics

Fifteen suspected drug kingpins loose, President reveals

Some 15 suspected drug kingpins arrested on charges of drug trafficking are loose in society and “there’s no way to even know when they will face trial,” President Mohamed Nasheed revealed in his weekly radio address on Friday.

Speaking from Dhidhoo in Haa Alif Atoll during a tour of Thiladhunmathi, President Nasheed expressed concern with suspects in high-profile cases released from detention while they were awaiting trial.

“Since the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) can only press charges after the investigation is complete, a long period [spent on investigation] provides the opportunity to influence witnesses, change their testimony and produce false testimony,” he explained.

Among other main challenges for securing convictions, said Nasheed, “it is also a problem when scientific and other kinds of evidence has no weight due to the absence of rules or guidelines to assess evidence presented to trial and the crime is not proven in major cases.”

Moreover, he continued, suspects arrested with large amounts of cash were not required to account for the money while Criminal Court judges often issued inconsistent rulings in similar cases.

As drug-related cases are heard only by the Criminal Court in Male’, Nasheed observed that a large backlog of cases was pending and “[suspects] have the opportunity to repeat the offence until the trial date”.

He added that it was important to amend the law to allow island courts to try local drug dealers.

The Criminal Court meanwhile issued a two-page press release the day after the President’s remarks dismissing criticism of the courts as having “no legal weight” and stating that “trying to shift the blame to another every time you are faced with something is not responsible.”

The constitution assured all citizens the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the Criminal Court statement noted, “therefore all should believe that everyone brought before the court on suspicion of committing a crime cannot be detained and that everyone who faces criminal charges cannot be found guilty.”

The court also noted that lower court rulings, court orders and verdicts could be appealed at the High Court.

“The court does not consider the seriousness of the allegations against a person,” it reads. “The court considers the evidence presented against the person. Submitting evidence is not something the court does. What the court does is assess and weigh the evidence presented.”

The Criminal Court referred to article 49 of the constitution, which states that, “No person shall be detained in custody prior to sentencing, unless the danger of the accused absconding or not appearing at trial, the protection of the public, or potential interference with witnesses or evidence dictate otherwise. The release may be subject to conditions of bail or other assurances to appear as required by the court.”

The court also reiterated a recurring complaint that according to court records a number of suspects brought before the court had previously been sentenced to long jail terms and “no authority of the state could prove that even one of these people had been released to society on a Criminal Court order.”

Top six

Speaking to islanders of Dhevvadhoo on May 2, 2009, President Nasheed said that the identities of the top six drug dealers in the country were known to the government.

However, he added that the arrests would be viewed as politically-motivated because they included members of the opposition. Nasheed’s remarks were made a week before the parliamentary elections.

Press secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News at the time that arresting the six would effectively stop the supply of narcotics into the Maldives.

Of the six, who were responsible for “budgeting, importing and distributing” drugs, some had fled the country, he said, and Interpol had been notified.

Meanwhile, according to police statistics, the number of reported drug-related cases declined in 2010 from 2,484 in 2008 and 2,366 in 2009 to 1,618 last year. The Drug Enforcement Department (DED) investigated and forwarded 844 cases for prosecution.

However overall conviction rates were low – of the 17,854 cases closed in 2010, 3323 were sent to the PGO. Of these, 1108 were sent back and 776 ended in convictions. Only 75 convictions were recorded from cases begun in 2010.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court is politicised, says Ibra, threatening protests

Advisor to the President and former member of the Special Majlis constitution drafting committee, has raised the possibility of Maldivian Democratic Party-led protests against the seven Supreme Court judges after accusing the court of allowing itself to become being politicised.

‘’There is one thing we still need to get rid of. Citizens have decided who is in the executive branch, but the wishes of citizens are reflected in the courts,’’ Ibra said, speaking at an MDP rally last weekend.

Ibra claimed that in the time of former President Ibrahim Nasir the courts and the executive were separated and had no influence on one another.

‘’However, today the courts have been slowly politicised to the point where they issue press releases [on political matters],’’ he said, referring to a statement issued by the Supreme Court attacking him for criticising the institution and calling for people to stand up to the judiciary.

‘’If the courts are involved in politics, then the citizens have to go and set things right in the courts,” Ibra said at the rally.

The last time Ibra criticised the Supreme Court, the court issued a press release saying that his speech violated the constitution and principles of democracy, and that it could lead to havoc and unrest.

Ibra then sued the Supreme Court for defamation, lodging a case with the Civil Court, but it was rejected.

Speaking to Minivan News last week, Ibra said that the reaction from the Supreme Court and the Judicial Services Commission was tantamount to an admission of guilt on their part, and that ‘’they think that courts can’t be criticised, that they shouldn’t be touched. ‘’

‘’Many think that if you say something against the Supreme Court they can summon you the next day and sentence you to jail,’’ Ibra told Minivan News. ‘’People don’t know what the limitations of power are. Part of my making this case against the Supreme Court is to convince the public that you can criticise the Supreme Court and remain a free man.’’

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Adhaalath out of sight, out of mind?

The Adhaalath party has blown the popsicle stand, having declared defeat in its efforts to ‘reform’ the sinful government led by President Nasheed.

In the days leading up to its decision to leave the coalition, Adhaalath provided the public with what it considers a damning indictment of MDP-facilitated transgressions: invited Jews to preach Christianity in the Maldives; sent young Maldivians to a Christian seminary otherwise known as Christ College, Oxford University; and encouraged Maldivians to commit the haraam act of gambling by publicising the US Green Card Lottery.

Adhaalath’s departure from the ruling coalition, and the preceding days it spent in the headlines, provoked different reactions among different segments of society.

For some, the party and its departure are inconsequential. They have no political power, anyway. A substantial number of social media pundits think Adhaalath should be wholly exempt from mainstream media coverage. There are two primary reasons offered as support for this position: Adhaalath is too stupid to be worthy of attention or Adhaalath is too good (read too Islamic) to criticise. The inevitable conspiracy theorists, meanwhile, see media coverage of Adhaalath as evidence of a covert operation run (probably by Mossad) to discredit Islam in the Maldives.

Quite apart from the fact that no right-minded journalist would turn down the opportunity to cover displays of such gargantuan stupidity by politicians, there are many reasons for the public watchdog to keep a wary eye on this party.

A party of little consequence?

It is a mistake to assume that Adhaalath has no political power because it has few bodies in state institutions. Power is not exercised simply by those in government; and governing is not done merely by elected politicians. The power Adhaalath has is greater than the sum of its political seats – it governs by dictating faith and thus penetrates further into people’s lives than a democratic government can.

Consider this: the Constitution requires that every Maldivian citizen be a Muslim. Automatically, that puts every citizen within the legitimate reach of any authority that claims to know Islam best. It is this power to govern the conduct of every citizen through a supposedly privileged knowledge of ‘true Islam’ that makes parties like Adhaalath important. It is a power that is outside the boundaries of legislation and government policy, yet manages to carry the most legitimacy among the people.

Over the last few years, Adhaalath has positioned itself as The Religious Party. Given the emphasis that Islam places on truth and honesty, it is the most politically advantageous position that any political party can occupy in the Maldives today. People are daily disillusioned by reports of corruption at every level of government, and within communities. Two years of intensely partisan politics have created strife within previously harmonious communities. The decentralisation project is increasingly revealing itself to be deeply flawed with untrained local councillors and people clashing on a regular basis. The promise of ‘equal justice for all’ remains not just unfulfilled but is being intentionally ignored, there being neither political will nor courage to change the status quo.

Let there be truth

In uncertain times, people flock to those who can shepherd them towards certainty. Adhaalath’s position as ‘the only honest party’ is proving attractive to many disillusioned voters. The septuagenarian Gayoom’s recent political acrobatics was an added bonus for Adhaalath as disgruntled voters, unsure of which letter of the alphabet to choose from, signed up for the simplicity and straightforwardness of ‘Adhaalath.’

Gayoom’s ploy to stem the number of people leaving him by aligning himself with Adhaalath’s version of Islam backfired somewhat. For many Maldivians who regarded the right path to Islam as intertwined with the road leading to Gayoom’s favour, his endorsement of Adhaalath provided a way of leaving the increasingly erratic Zaeem without betraying their religious loyalties. It is a little wonder that Adhaalath boasted a bump in membership numbers in recent weeks.

For the minority who have been exposed to alternative ways of thinking, Adhaalath’s policies may appear formulated in an intellectual vacuum, and no doubt provides much cause for levity. For the majority, however, Adhaalath speaks the truth. It is a claim Adhaalath never hesitates to reiterate, invariably shoring it up with references to the Qur’an.

The power of such truth claims is evident in the religious right’s ability to convince the population of an entire island that they were about to be infiltrated by a group of Jews pretending to be philanthropic farmers, whose real aim was not the local cabbage patch but preaching Christianity. It would be a mistake to underestimate the power of any group capable of convincing a population that such a scenario is not just probable but imminent.

The known unknowns

The Maldivian people, like most people across the world, have been put through an ideological and political wringer in the last decade. Unlike most other countries going through the chaos of transition, however, a majority of the Maldivian population has been vastly shielded from the intense debates surrounding the enormous changes in the world’s political, economic and ideological landscapes.

Thirty years in which ignorance was used as a tool of governance would have that affect. The long cultural and educational stagnation has created a society in which a majority of people are incapable of critically engaging with the world around them. The democracy that flourishes in such a society cannot help but be different from a democracy that takes shape in a society more widely exposed to diverse views and opinions.

In the absence of alternative views, on what comparative basis can the majority question the policies Adhaalath advocates? After all, the leaders of Adhaalath can recite the Qur’an, often from memory, and always have handy a suitable interpretation of Hadith whatever the situation. When they have all the answers, what is there to question?

Among a population that is being directed to spend their lives preparing for afterlife, there is no authority greater than the one that offers them a straight path to heaven. Adhaalath has positioned itself to be just that.

For those who advise against scrutiny of Adhaalath – if not now, then when? After the first person is hanged for blasphemy? After the first woman is stoned? After all civil liberties have been eroded in the name of Islam?

Refusing Adhaalath the ‘oxygen of publicity’ is not going to wane its influence. With the pulpits theirs for the taking, Adhaalath does not need the mainstream media for its message. Ignoring Adhaalath, on the other hand, will allow it to quietly perpetuate its ideology among people until every follower will happily to make a detour to the ballot box en route to heaven.

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(1)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail is a Maldivian statesman and former chairman of the Special Majlis Drafting Committee responsible for the new Constitution. He remains one of the country’s key authorities on the subject.

He was recently reprimanded by both the Supreme Court and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges”. He responded by attempting to file a defamation case against the Supreme Court.

JJ Robinson: This defamation case sprang from your recent comment calling on citizens to stand up and sort out the judiciary. What did you mean by that?

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail: Basically what I meant is that the institutions that are supposed to keep the judiciary in check have been compromised too much, and they are not in a position to bring the judiciary to account. So when institutions fail in a democracy, solutions have to be found by the people.

This is what happened with [former President Maumoon Abdul] Gayoom. All the institutions that were in place failed to bring him to account. So eventually people had to come out and work really hard to bring him back into the folds of the law.

It’s a similar thing [with the judiciary] – the JSC has the prime responsibility of holding the judiciary in check, and failing them, the Majlis (parliament) has to do it. None of these institutions are acting on it.

No one wants to talk about it, and it’s very convenient for people to forget that the judiciary is making all this mischief. So the public has to remind these people that everything is not hunky dory, and they are making a lot of mischief, and the public is concerned about it.

JJ: So you’re talking about street protests?

II: Part of it involves street protests. But protests will only come when all else fails. Before street protests people have to stand up and act, lobby their MPs, write petitions, speak out, voice their concerns, have public debates. And if all these don’t get politicians moving, we’ll have to take to the streets – if necessary.

JJ: In response to your calls, the Supreme Court all but accused you of treason, stating that “making such statements in a free, democratic society under lawful governance goes against the principles of civilisation”, and demanded authorities investigate you. What did you make of the JSC’s – and the Supreme Court’s – response to your comment?

II: Very knee-jerk. I think the reaction from the Supreme Court and the JSC is an admission of guilt on their part. Because if they were doing things properly, and if they weren’t doing things they did not have to answer for, then they would not have this one person coming out and saying this. They would not have to worry about there being a bad reaction from the public. For me their response was tantamount to an admission of guilt on their part.

JJ: The JSC said it would request the authorities launch an investigation into your alleged treason. How many policemen have come to your door?

II: None. And I have begged police to take me in for investigation and conduct the investigation. I’ve even said to them that Supreme Court has ruled and passed judgement on me for treason. So why am I allowed to roam the streets? I should be behind bars. But they are not acting on it.

JJ: There seems to be quite a difference between theory and practice when it comes to the law here. Is this something you have observed?

II: Very much so. Ever since the adoption of the constitution. That is something I have been speaking out about.

JJ: When independent, outside groups such as the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) visit the Maldives and criticise groups such as the JSC, they respond by simply pointing at the Constitution and insist “the Constitution says we are an independent institution”. Is this denial?

II: Maybe it’s a kind of denial, but what you have to remember is that adoption of a Constitution doesn’t change mentalities and culture overnight. A lot of work has to be put in to put that Constitution into practice, and I think that everyone has become very complacent about the implementation of the Constitution.

There is an assumption that “now we have the Constitution, that is how things should be”. But firstly, many people – including state officials, across different levels in all branches of government – are not really aware of what’s in the Constitution.

Most of them have not witnessed a democracy in practice. So what they are doing is interpreting the Constitution from their perspective, and what they are familiar with, unfortunately, is very undemocratic, and goes against the grain of the Constitution.

It’s a continuation of culture, with the new arrangements. This is what we are seeing, and I’m concerned that if we don’t act early too many precedents will be set and it will be difficult to turn it back again. Now is the time to act, and set it right – put it back on track.

JJ: You mentioned earlier that the judiciary had been compromised. What did you mean?

II: It’s compromised in all aspects. The first compromise was the enactment of the Courts Act and the Judges Act by parliament. Particularly the Courts Act, which was totally against what was conceived in the Constitution.

Then came the appointment of judges, particularly the Supreme Court judges.

JJ: That was hailed as a victory of compromise by all the major parties.

II: Yes, but even as it was happening I was fighting against it whatever way I could. The only avenue left to me was to speak out – which I did. I don’t believe appointments to the Supreme Court should be made through political deals.

Any appointment to the Supreme Court has to be scrutinised, both by Parliament, the executive, even the public. Judges should be beyond reproach. They can’t have baggage behind them.

Those were the compromises. Once the initial setting up of the judiciary and the key appointments were compromised, the rest would automatically follow. Their judgements are going to be compromised, their actions are going to be compromised – so that is why I said I believe the judiciary has been compromised. I blame the politicians for it – they failed the country when they did that.

The first instance of the Supreme Court’s move came while I was still in parliament in 2008, immediately after the elections were over. The Supreme Court moved a motion on itself, by itself, and ruled in their favour, to move the department of judicial administration from the purview of the JSC to the Supreme Court.

That was move number one. That very day, within hours, I was jumping up in parliament and saying “this is dangerous” – that these people have to be put in check immediately.

The entire Supreme Court was summoned to parliament – none of them turned up. We gave them the due respect that Justices of the Supreme Court deserved. We sent them a letter saying that the oversight committee would like to meet you to discuss some issues within the judiciary, so please tell us a convenient time to meet you.

They never bothered to reply. And the Speaker of Parliament took no further action on it.

For me it wasn’t just the ruling they had brought out that was a problem – it was the manner in which they were moving. I could see there would be more to come.

What we did in the 2009 budget was to put in an amendment moving the entire budget of the judicial administration to the JSC – and the Majlis passed it. So in effect, parliament was showing its displeasure, in a nice way. Saying: “You can make those rulings, but we hold the purse strings.”

But still they carried on.

JJ: And then the Supreme Court sent the President a letter ruling they were reappointing themselves for life, and no need to worry about the transition period? What did that signal?

II: The same thing. That was the next move. They were establishing that the Supreme Court was a supreme body in the country and whatever they say, goes.

That particular letter was composed saying they were going to be the Supreme Court, and neither the Majlis nor the President had any choice in the matter.

All these things signaled the same thing. First they wanted to hijack the judiciary – and through the judiciary they wanted to hijack the nation.

JJ: Who is ‘they’?

II: At that time it was the then Chief Justice – he appointed himself Chief Justice, by the way, because in the interim period there was no provision for a chief justice – and he was acting like that, leading. And then there was Mujitaz Fahmy, these were the people. Eventually when the appointments came, and the way it came, you could see, DRP had majority in parliament at the time, and by and large the People’s Alliance (PA) through their coalition was calling the shots.

JJ: Didn’t the Speaker of Parliament show up in the JSC office during the interim period to help photocopy letters of appointment?

II: Exactly. The Supreme Court and key elements within the judiciary are still controlled by Gayoom – directly or indirectly.

JJ: What does that mean for the provision of justice in the Maldives?

II: We can be guaranteed we won’t have justice. You can see these things going on – look at what the Supreme Court is doing.

Face facts – they are issuing instructions to the trial courts, saying “Case X, stop proceedings, we’ll take that over.”

Who ever heard of an appellate court taking over a trial court’s jurisdiction? I don’t know of any instance in any democratic country, anywhere in the world, where an appellate court will take over a trial court.

Even in cases of a mistrial, the instruction is to retry the case. Appellate courts don’t sit on trials. And they are systematically doing it – at least three cases so far.

What they are effectively doing is influencing the independence of the trial court. The significance of that is that if trial court judges cannot be independent of the higher court, there is no room for appeals. Because the decision is going to be the Supreme Court decision.

JJ: What has the role of the JSC been in all of this?

II: The JSC has been hijacked by these runaway judges, and they are serving their own interests in protecting the judges. This is one point where I disagree with the ICJ’s report.

JJ: The ICJ noted that it was a less-than-ideal structural oddity in the Constitution to have outside representation on the JSC?

II: They believe that the JSC should comprise of judges. I regret now putting even one judge on the JSC when writing the Constitution.

The ICJ’s caveat is very different from the ground reality here. In Britain and the US there are mature systems, and no politician in their right mind would even contemplate trying to influence court decisions – at least not publicly. Judges in the UK or the States, and most mature democracies, have come through a long history of democracy, worked as lawyers for a number of years, been scrutinised for their work and general behaviour – not just anyone can sit on the bench. But here in the Maldives we have a bunch of idiots.

What you see happening in the JSC is judges protecting their own backs.

JJ: The former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has previously stated that a majority of sitting judges have not completed primary school, while 25 percent have actual criminal records.

II: There are three judges on the JSC. And then you have a lawyer, who was elected by the lawyers – but the high court ruled at the time that a magistrate should be allowed to vote in the election of a lawyer to the JSC. So they elected this lawyer, whose wife was a magistrate.

Mujitaz Fahmy was heading the JSC at the time, he made arrangements for his wife to have her rent paid, to move to Hulhumale’ from an island court, and all this – and later even created a court in Hulhumale’ for her. So can this lawyer even hold the judges to account?

Then you have Abdulla Shahid, from the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP). Do you know the DRP leader and his cronies – MPs – have a Rf 1 billion (US$64.8 million) case suspended in the High Court, after the trial court ruled the bank could move in to take over the mortgages?

The trial court asked them to pay up, and all three or four of them would have had to declare bankruptcy and lost their parliament seats.

JJ: You are talking about Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and loans with the Bank of Maldives?

II: I have to be careful here or I could end up with a libel suit – it’s not Thasmeen now. Initially the loan was taken by companies in his name, his shareholdings. But during the Presidential election he was the running mate for Gayoom, so he transferred it to other people, and these people – the shareholders – are now MPs.

The Constitution says that if you are declared bankrupt, you will lose your seat. After the trial court ruled, they took it to the High Court, and it has been sitting there for a year and a half. The High Court has issued a court order suspending the trial court decision until the High Court sorts in out.

We all know that in an open and shut case like a bank loan there is nothing more to prove. Either you are paying it or you are not. I mean how many ordinary poor people have spent time in jail because they weren’t able to pay credit cards for personal expenses?

Under the same laws, the same court system, these people with Rf 1 billion in public money, are getting away with it. So no wonder a DRP-controlled Majlis, the Speaker, and Dr Afrashim Ali, will side with the judges. This is what I mean when I say they have been compromised.

JJ: So it all comes back to that Rf 1 billion?

II: Part of it. Look at [Deputy Speaker] Ahmed Nazim. He has a case currently against him that could put him away for a few years. Abdulla Hameed is a fugitive from justice. All these people from the old regime are fugitives from justice, so they depend on the judges to protect them.

Why was Nazim’s hearing behind closed doors? The public wasn’t allowed in, the journalists weren’t allowed in, which is against the Constitution. The Constitution spells it out that trials have to be open, unless a judge declares it a closed hearing to protect the interests of a victim in a case involving child abuse, or a rape, or a matter of national security. These are the only instances where a judge can declare a closed hearing.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that all these things involve ex-regime people.

JJ: So how right is Velezinee when she talks about the “silent coup”?

II: One hundred percent.

JJ: What do you think of Velezinee’s whistle-blowing role in this?

II: I think it was admirable what she did. But what she couldn’t do was garner the support for the cause.

JJ: Are people still intimidated by the Supreme Court to a degree that they feel they are unable to criticise it?

II: Intimidated yes, but there is also a hegemony amongst people. They think that courts can’t be criticised, that they shouldn’t be touched. Many think that if you say something against the Supreme Court they can summon you the next day and sentence you to jail. People don’t know what the limitations of power are. They see the courts as places that put people in jail – they’ve seen this happen all the time. They’ve seen wrongful convictions, and they know it’s the same judges and the same courts.

It takes someone like me to point this out. Part of my making this case against the Supreme Court is to convince the public that you can criticise the Supreme Court and remain a free man.

JJ: If this becomes a defamation case they can’t rule against you – because that supports your point – and they can’t rule in your favour, because that would place themselves in contempt of court. So what’s to stop there simply never being a hearing?

II: That’s a tricky point. I will see if the Civil Court will accept the case. I want to give the Civil Court the benefit of the doubt, until they reject it. Even if they reject it, I’ll take that to the High Court, and if they reject it, I’ll take it to the Supreme Court, and let them try themselves. (Note: the Civil Court subsequently rejected Ibra’s case).

JJ: What puts you in a position of being able to do this when many other people would not?

II: One thing is that I believe my knowledge of the Constitution tells me what they can and can’t do, which most people don’t know. Other than that, maybe because over the years and during the reform movement, I like to believe I have some standing in the public, because the majority of the public has faith in me for standing up for the truth. So that gives me courage.

But the bottom line is the same as when I stood up against Gayoom – someone has to do it. I waited for three years for someone else to do it this time, no one was forthcoming, so I figured “OK, here goes Ibra again.” Let’s give it a shot.

JJ: What kind of recourse do ordinary people have at the end of the day? You say people can go to their MP, but that engagement is not always in a democratically healthy manner given that most MPs readily admit to funding their constituents’ personal demands for money, education and overseas healthcare.

II: I think, with this recent fiasco in the Majlis regarding the committee allowances, parliament is on the back foot. They might try and please the public, if the public demands hard enough.

JJ: What is the impact on foreign investment of having a judiciary in this state? From the perspective of somebody investing in tourism if, say, I need to enforce a contract but I can’t go to the Civil Court with some guarantee of getting a fair ruling, what’s to stop somebody from just pulling my investment out from under me?

II: That’s happening already. Many potential investors are looking at the legal system here and deciding they do not want to take the risks.

JJ: Are people aware of this? Surely big businesses here are worried about this?

II: The big businesses already here are not worried, because they have the judges in their pocket. [Resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party MP] Gasim Ibrahim is now sitting on the JSC, and even as we speak he has seven cases in the courts.

JJ: The Constitution includes provisions for foreign judges, and the idea of a mercantile court has already been raised – an ‘offshore’ legal jurisdiction with authority in civil cases over a certain value?

II: I don’t think that’s a way out. It may serve a temporary purpose, but I think the real way out is to rewrite the Courts Act and appoint at least two foreign judges to the Supreme Court.

I was advocating this right from the start. I begged the President to at least nominate two foreign judges – retired or semi-retired people with experience – to come and assist us in setting up a Supreme Court and set the right precedents. But the politics got caught up.

I foresaw this even when we were writing the Constitution. On more than one occasion I said the next challenge would be the judiciary. The DRP wanted to write into the Constitution a stipulation that all judges should be Maldivian, but I fought single-handedly against it. Because that kind of nationalistic sentiment goes down very well with the public, because of the fear factor, the xenophobia and mistrust of foreigners which was actively promoted at the time.

The way is still open for foreign judges, and there is provision there for term appointments.

JJ: What is your overall prognosis? Optimistic or are you packing your suitcase?

II: I don’t know how long this will take. A short while, or longer than we think. But eventually, no society can sustain itself without justice. It is a fundamental feature a society requires to live in harmony.

The way justice manifests itself may not be readily seen or tangible, but people know when injustice is being done. And that is why people stood up against Gayoom – because of the injustices.

I’m optimistic that there will come a point – sooner or later – when people will just not tolerate it. But then it will be ugly. If we do it now it will not be ugly, with the least possible jolt to the system. I just hope the politicians – our parliamentarians – will have the wisdom to see that this is not a political issue, not something for personal gain. They should see this as serving the wider national interest and safety of all, including themselves. To get the judiciary on track.

For the bull to survive, it must ensure that the wider landscape in which it lives also survives. The judiciary is that wider landscape. You never know when you are going to end up in court, and on that day you should have confidence in the judge passing judgement over you.

Likes(3)Dislikes(0)

High Court overrules Civil Court injunction ordering JSC to halt appointment process

The High Court has overruled a Civil Court injunction issued on September 8 ordering the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to halt its appointment of judges to superior courts pending a ruling on the constitutionality of the process.

The temporary injunction was appealed by the JSC at the High Court, which ruled today that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of laws and regulations.

A group of lawyers had filed a case at the Civil Court contesting that regulations drafted by the JSC – containing evaluation criteria for selecting judges to superior courts – conflicted with both the constitution and the Judges Act. The lawyers requested the court abolish the regulations and declare the commission’s shortlist void.

The final interviews of 17 shortlisted candidates were due to place on September 10, two days before the injunction or staying order was delivered.

In its verdict today, the  three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, citing article 143 of the constitution as well as provisions of the Judicature Act.

Briefing press after filing the case at Civil Court, lawyers Ali Hussein and Ismail Visham argued that the evaluation criteria formulated by the JSC unfairly favoured graduates of the College of Islamic Education (Kulliya).

Ali Hussein explained that under the regulations drafted by the JSC, a candidate with a masters degree and a graduate of Kulliya both receive 25 marks for educational qualification.

“We are saying this is not fair,” he said. “We especially note that the Faculty of Sharia and Law teaches shariah subjects to the same extent as Kulliya [Islamic College], but graduates of the faculty receive 20 marks while students from Kulliya receive 25 marks.”

Kulliya graduates also received higher marks than graduates of the Islamic University of Malaysia, he said.

The lawyers also claimed that two shortlisted candidates had close ties – as a spouse and a business partner – with two members of the commission, suggesting a clear conflict of interest as neither had recused themselves from voting in the JSC panel.

Moreover, the lawyers observed that the JSC criteria also conflicted with the academic rankings of the Maldives Qualification Authority (MQA), formerly the accreditation board, which places Kulliya certificates below those of overseas institutions.

Following today’s ruling, the lawyers are preparing to file their case at the High Court.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Islamic Minister resigns from chairmanship of Adhaalath Party’s Religious Council

A day after he was asked by the Adhaalath Party to resign from the position of Islamic Minister, Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari has resigned from the chairmanship of the party’s Religious Council.

In a statement issued on the party’s official website, Adhaalath said that the resignation letter was today sent to the party’s President Sheikh Imran Abdulla.

The statement mentioned no further information about his resignation or what was in the letter.

The Adhaalath Party decided this week to break off its coalition agreement with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), after the party’s consultation council voted 32 to 2 to approve a resolution to leave the government.

Dr Bari and current State Minister for Islamic Affairs Sheikh Hussein Rasheed Ahmed are both appointed to the government under the coalition agreement.

Along with Dr Bari,  Sheikh Hussain Rasheed, who was the former President of the party, was also asked by Adhaalath to resign, but replied he was under no obligation to do so.

Former State Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, who earlier resigned from the government after expressing unhappiness with the current government’s religious policy, today told Minivan News that Dr Bari’s resignation was not an issue and that he would not comment on the matter.

Dr Bari and Sheikh Imran did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The mixed story of the rise of Islamism in the Maldives

One of the many lessons of the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor’s magisterial book, A Secular Age, is how religion continues to exist and continues to be relevant.

The relevance is not only limited to religion’s potential for creating identity and meaning in life.

Religion’s relevance also lies in the moral and epistemological limitations of the virulent forms of atheistic exclusive humanism and hardcore naturalistic ‘science’ that Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and their ilk seem to be promoting.

Religion’s potential for solidarity and taking the cause of justice and vulnerable forms of life, is as relevant as ever.

Its potential for an ultimate explanation against an unfounded scientific reductionism cannot be blindly and arrogantly dismissed.

Rise of Islamism and electoral democracy

During the last seven or so years, coinciding with (or in response to) democratisation, the most spectacular religious phenomenon in the Maldives is the rise of Islamism. At least twelve Islamic/Islamist NGOs were registered between 2004-2010. Prior to 2004, there were no more than three organisations with the specific goal of religion.

But re-Islamisation led by Islamism itself should not be taken as alarming for at least ‘electoral democracy’.

If popular participation in politics can be an indication of support for democracy, the voter turnout in February 2011’s local elections stood at around 70%, which is comparable to past turnouts for parliamentary elections. Equally important, Islamist Adalath Party fared quite badly in all three elections since 2008.

However, re-Islamisation seems to have had, and will continue to have, mixed results for the society and politics.

Questioning religion

As late as the mid-1970s, ethnographic research in the Maldives could conclude that Islam of the people was largely limited to ‘washing, praying and fasting’.

What this means can best be contrasted by describing what James Piscatori and Eickelman call ‘objectification of Muslim consciousness’. They explain that this is ‘the process whereby basic questions come to the fore in the consciousness of large numbers of believers’.

This process has become a salient feature of all Muslim societies. Similarly, this growing objectification of consciousness, largely over the past decade, became the most important religious development in the Maldives. Its main feature includes fragmentation and pluralization of religious discourses.

For sociologists like Jose Casanova this could ultimately mean an Islamic aggiornamento, or a sort of reform that took place in the Second Vatican when Catholicism finally endorsed democracy and human rights in the 1970s. But should we be so optimistic?

Judging from data and people’s comments, often here on Minivan News, it would be hard for some of us in the Maldives to see any positives from objectification of our religious consciousness.

Indeed, in the Maldives what we have seen is a sort of reflexive re-Islamisation: through responding to the terms of alternative discourses (e.g. democracy and human rights) and processes of global modernity, the society seems to be undergoing a new re-traditionalization.

Mixed Results of Islamism

We could observe two parallel processes led by Islamism in the Maldives. It seems to be a striking reversal of what had happened since the 1970s.

First, there is an attempt at de-secularising the actual community. The most obvious example is public piety such as the Muslim veil.

But there is also an attempt at re-Islamising the functional spheres like the economy. Islamic banking or riba-free business is a case in point.

Call for re-Islamising the national curriculum, call against music and entertainment, and rise in ‘creationism’ pseudo-science, are important examples too.

Perhaps a more important example is greater de-privatisation of religion: Islamist organizations and Islamist media outlets have proliferated in the public sphere. Their influence in the political society and the state has increased (e.g., a religious ministry led by Islamists).

But here is the other side of the picture. Islamist attempts at ‘rationalisation’ and ‘objectification’, or in short ‘purification’ of the society, seem to have mixed results for the dominant national consciousness.

The powerful motif of a ‘100% Muslim nation’ may no longer serve as a taken-for-granted, internalised background. It may no longer be a largely unconscious sacralised background understanding of the nation.

The signs of this change could already be seen from the increased sarcastic deployment of ‘sattain satta muslim qaum’ (e.g., ‘are we really a 100% Muslim nation?’), especially by Islamists to decry the alleged failure of officials to make the society ‘Islamic enough’.

If this is so, there is not only de-secularisation. There is a sort of ‘secularisation’ taking place too. This is a secularisation of the imagined community, of the taken-for-granted national consciousness. Ironically, reflexive re-Islamisation is driving this secularisation.

Now, why does this matter? Here is one reason why it matters.

Freedom of religion

This sort of secularisation of the national consciousness seems to be a condition of effective religious liberty. Even if political secularism was to be enshrined in the Constitution, freedom of religion might not be effective without this sort of secularisation of the ‘imagined community’.

The poignant suicide of a young man, possibly because he felt he betrayed his ‘comrades-in-identity’ (i.e. the rest of us Muslims) is a case in point. His desperate email is telling: ‘Maldivians are proud of their religious homogeneity and I am learning the hard way that there is no place for non-Muslim Maldivians in this society.’

One cannot only legally be non-Muslim; but more importantly such a person may be dismissed as unworthy. If this is so, political secularism itself may not be a sufficient condition of liberty without secularisation now seemingly driven by reflexive re-Islamisation. (Here then is also a lesson for the arrogant global (i.e. the US) project of bringing freedom of religion to the world.)

Awareness of the Other

If the above interpretation is correct, we could increasingly experience these phenomena:

i) Through objectification of the taken-for-granted national consciousness, an increased awareness of the existence of some fellow Maldivians with different worldviews and faiths.

ii) Through a process of de-secularisation of the actual community, intense reflexive and political bulwarks (especially by Islamists) against this cross-pressured awareness.

I think both of these things are taking place.

Political Reconciliation of the Cross-Pressure

How we finally politically reconcile this awareness is the ultimate condition of the possibility or impossibility for democracy – and therefore equality, liberty, fraternity – in this over two-millennia-old country.

This is not a place for advocacy. But for this political reconciliation, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition is a dose of humility from the full political and social spectrum.

As a colleague at the government once pointed out, as a first step, the government needs to get over with its ‘hubris’ of going it alone.

Azim Zahir has a BA in Philosophy and Politics and is completing his MA degree at the University of Sydney.

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(1)Dislikes(0)

State Islamic Minister dismisses party’s demand he resign

State Islamic Minister and former President of the Adhaalath Party, Sheikh Hussain Rasheed Ahmed, has dismissed demands from the party’s council that he resign.

“You will know very well that I did not accept this position with the consent or with an approval of the consultation council, and therefore I do believe that there is a policy that allows the council to ask me to resign,” State Minister for Islamic Affairs Sheikh Hussain told the current President of the Adhaalath Sheikh Imran Abdulla, in a letter he send yesterday in response to the one demanding his resignation.

The Adhaalath Party decided this week to break off its coalition agreement with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), after the party’s consultation council voted 32 to 2 to approve a resolution to leave the government.

In the letter Sheikh Hussein said that normally when a coalition agreement is terminated, the President withdraws the positions shared with the party, and President himself would ask the members of that political party to resign from their positions.

“Every citizen has a national responsibility, and the only time he should stop fulfilling those responsibilities are when they are inconsistent with the principles of Islam,” he told the Adhaalath Party president in the letter.

He said that the greatest responsibility of a citizen was to serve the nation and to carry on the duties the he was assigned, adding that the work he was doing “fulfills both a religious and national duty.”

Following in the footsteps of now-opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and the Jumhooree Party (JP), Adhaalath is the third major party of the ‘Watan Edhey’ coalition – formed to rally against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the second round run-off of the 2008 presidential election – to leave the MDP-led coalition.

Sheikh Imran last night told Villa TV (VTV) that he had asked Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari and the State Islamic Minister to resign following the party’s split with the government.

Meanwhile, MDP Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik said the MDP regrets the Adhaalath Party’s decision to leave “like a husband regrets for a while when a stubborn wife leaves him.”

Islamic Minister Dr Bari has not said anything on the matter. The media today reported that he had departed to Haa Alifu Atoll with the President.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court issues injunction against releasing funds for MPs’ committee allowance

The Civil Court last night issued a temporary injunction ordering the Finance Ministry not to release funds to parliament for MPs’ committee allowance until the court rules on a case filed on behalf of a civil servant, contending that the allowance could not be given before deducted amounts from civil servants salaries were paid back.

A group of concerned citizens protesting the committee allowance filed the case on behalf of Maah Jabeen, Seenu Maradhoo Fenzeemaage, arguing that releasing funds for committee allowance without reimbursing civil servants violated constitutional provisions on fairness and equal treatment.

The committee allowance was approved on December 29, 2010 while wage cuts were enforced in October 2009.

In January 2010, the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) decided to reverse the pay cuts, sparking an ongoing legal dispute between the commission and the Finance Ministry.

At the height of the dispute last year, permanent secretaries of line ministries were ordered to submit different wage sheets by the commission and the ministry.

Speaking to Minivan News after Judge Hathif Hilmy granted the injunction last night, lawyer Mohamed Shafaz explained that the case was based on article 43 of the constitution, which states that everyone has the right to fair and just administrative action, “by which we take to mean that constitutional provisions in articles 17 and 20 relating to equality and non-discrimination would be infringed of a civil servant if the Ministry of Finance chooses to release the funds for committee allowance to the People’s Majlis before the deducted amounts from the salaries of civil servants is paid to them.”

“Our argument was based on the principle of judicial review,” he continued. “For judicial review to be used in a case in the Maldives is relatively rare and this is I would say a novel case. Our idea is that anyone vested with legal powers must act within the limits of the constitution.”

Delivering the ruling on the request for a temporary injunction, the judge said that releasing the funds before the court issues a final judgment on the case “could cause irreversible damage to the plaintiff” and ordered the Finance Ministry not to take any action that could “defeat the purpose of the claim.”

While the state attorney insisted that neither the Finance Ministry nor the President’s Office has made a decision on releasing the funds, the claimants submitted video footage of President Mohamed Nasheed telling protestors that the executive could not overrule parliament’s decision without threatening separation of powers.

In April 2010, the Civil Court ruled that Finance Ministry did not have the legal authority to overrule the CSC. Although the government contested the ruling and refused to restore salaries to previous levels, the High Court upheld the lower court ruling in May this year.

The state attorney also argued that the case should not have been accepted by the Civil Court as the government has appealed the High Court verdict at the Supreme Court. The judge however ruled last night that the state could not produce documentation proving that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the appeal.

Attorney General Abdulla Muiz confirmed today that the AG office has appealed last night’s lower court decision at the High Court.

Shafaz meanwhile observed that “the ruling [yesterday] affirms that the court recognises that there is an issue here that needs to be rectified or subject to the system of justice.”

“It is also significant because by granting the temporary injunction the court has accepted and taken on an active role for implementing judicial review in the Maldives,” he said. “So this opens up the possibility for each and every action of the executive branch of the government, or the parliament or any other part of the state, to be challenged in the courts.”

Yesterday’s temporary injunction was also significant because “it was based on infringement of the rights of an individual,” Shafaz continued, adding that it was “a case where the act of a minister of the executive could infringe upon the rights of an individual.”

The favoured outcome for the group of concerned citizens would meanwhile be “for the court to recognise that giving parliamentarians their committee allowance before the deducted salary is given would be an infringement of the rights of a civil servant, or civil servants, under the constitution.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)