The opposition joint coalition and the government yesterday decided not to disclose any information to the media regarding the second round of peace talks, in an effort to calm tensions “and give the talks the best chance of succeeding”, according to one member.
A Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP said that during yesterday’s meeting all the parties had agreed not to reveal any details of the ongoing discussions.
“We will issue a joint statement. Now the administrative work of the statement is on going,” he said. A third meeting is scheduled for Saturday.
Chairperson of MDP and MP Mariya Didi, who is also representing the government in the peace talks, said it was “in the best interests of the country” to conduct the meetings behind closed doors.
Spokesperson for the MDP Ahmed Haleem said he would not wish to comment on the peace talks.
Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs Ahmed Nihan, Deputy leader Umar Naseer and Peoples Alliance leader Abdulla Yamin did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.
Meanwhile, President Nasheed welcomed the ongoing all-party talks, which aim to break the present political deadlock in the country between the executive and legislature.
“I very much welcome the discussions and I am optimistic that the parties will reach a productive outcome,” the President said in a statement.“There are people in all parties who are rational, reasonable and respectable and who would like this country to succeed.”
“I believe it is time for the voices of reason and compromise to step forward and leave behind those who hanker for a return to the authoritarian past,” he added.
The relative ceasefire of angry rhetoric between the parties will likely lead to a focus on the judicial reform process, with crowds gathering today outside the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) demanding action be taken against corrupt judges.
Haleem said the crowd did not only consist of MDP supporters, “but normal people who belong to different political parties”.
“The judges are working against the spirit of the constitution,” he alleged. “They can’t say, ‘We are taking an oath and this is for 70 years’. If that is the case, the president can also take an oath for lifetime.”