Senior military officers send “letter of concern” to Chief of Defence Force

Additional reporting by Zaheena Rasheed and Mohamed Naahii

Senior officers in the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) have sent a “letter of concern” to Chief of Defence Force Major-General Ahmed Shiyam, following the failure of the country to hold scheduled elections on Saturday (September 28).

Police surrounded the Elections Commission (EC) on Friday with orders from Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to storm the building and confiscate ballot papers should the EC continue to attempt to hold the election.

The Supreme Court had the previous evening opened at midnight to order security forces to physically obstruct the election in line with its earlier suspension, invoking article 237 of the Constitution, concerning the authority of the security services to “protect the nation’s sovereignty, maintain its territorial integrity, defend the constitution and democratic institutions, maintain and enforce law and order, and render assistance in emergencies.”

The MNDF’s letter to Major-General Shiyam was initially signed by four senior officers, but 16 officers across the top brass subsequently added their names to it.

MNDF Spokesperson Colonel Abdul Raheem, himself a signatory, confirmed the letter’s existence to Minivan News.

“It was to inform the leadership of our concerns about political turbulence in the country right now and how the military should plan and prepare for it,” Colonel Raheem said, and implied that it was not unusual for senior officers to brief the Chief of Defence on such matters.

One signing officer told Minivan News on condition of anonymity: “This is not a petition. It is a letter of concern over the Supreme Court’s order to delay elections, the failure of state institutions, and the possible politicisation of the military, and asking that unconstitutional orders not be issued,”

The officer said the letter had been signed by ranks including Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, Captains, First Lieutenants, Sergeant Majors and Warrant Officers.

The 3000-strong MNDF is responsible not just for defence, but also the Coastguard and civil services such as firefighting and rescue operations.

The letter seems to have prompted an internal shuffle in the organisation, including a marine commander switched to another unit. One resignation letter obtained by Minivan News, of First Lieutenant Mohamed Haleem, was addressed to Defence Minister Retired Colonel Mohamed Nazim.

“I do not believe the security services are currently adhering to the constitutional provisions stated in articles 237 and 238. Also, while the spirit of article 246 of the constitution is, to refrain from political affiliations and to treat equally among the people and different groups, respecting the principles of Islam and human dignity, I do not see this currently happening [within the security services],” First Lieutenant Haleem stated.

“For the last 23 years [of my military service]; I have served this country under a solemn oath taken in the name of Allah, I do not see any way that I can carry out my duties as prescribed in the constitution and the military act, while in this position, therefore I request you to relieve me from my duties,” he concluded.

Former Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, who as a junior soldier was instrumental in defending the Maldives from the coup attempt of 1988 which saw 80 mercenaries from the Tamil militant group the People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) launch a frontal assault on the Maldives’ military headquarters, issued a letter today over social media.

“My advice to the military officers is: ‘Do not give the opportunity to anyone who plans to rule this country by taking the laws to their own hands and override the constitution and undermine the constitutional framework of this country’,” wrote Didi, who was the Male’ Area Commander during the 7 February 2012 controversial power transfer before resigning “prematurely” from his 32 year career on July 16, 2012.

“Given the sad state of affairs this country has fallen to, as a person who came out to sacrifice my life to protect holy Islam and this nation when required, as a person who would still take any action required in the best interest of this country, people and religion and as a person who has been trained and acquired military expertise at the expense of the public funds, I could not remain silent today. I believe it is a national and a religious duty to say something on the issue,” he wrote.

This country is in a state of chaos since February 7, 2012. The government elected by people of this country were not given the opportunity to breathe. Opposition politicians, businessmen and religious clerics who supported them were continuously seen calling for the ousting of the government.

The people within the government were claiming that the opposition was insincere and irresponsible. The opposition claimed that the government officials were insincere and irresponsible. In this situation, conflicts between three powers of the state led to the military being unduly influenced.

Also, it is shameful and unacceptable in such a highly polarised society to see the government which the military ought to legally defend, regardless for whatever reason, be thrown out to the street.

In that circumstance, the international community saw the best solution for the country was to find a peaceful solution. And in that discourse, they saw the need to facilitate a presidential election, in which the people would make the ultimate decision. [It had to be this way] because of the conflicts within the three powers of the state and between these powers.

With that, I must disappointingly highlight that I am seeing the country falling into a state of chaos. I have heard some businessmen claiming that the only solution left for the country is a military solution. I am ready to challenge those who say this. That is a theory based on lies, deception and greed which only serves them a temporary benefit. We have seen what happened to countries that followed this theory.

In this situation, my advice to the military officers is, do not give the opportunity to anyone who plan to rule this country by taking the laws to their own hands and override the constitution and undermine the constitutional framework of this country.

The reason is, if such a thing happens, it would be all of us, our children and our children’s children who would suffer the consequences.

What does the constitution say about this? Article 268 says that any act committed in contrast with the constitution is void and invalid.

Article 124 states that in case of incapacity of the President and Vice President, it must be the Speaker of Parliament who takes up the duties and responsibilities in running the state.

Article 107 states that the duration of a presidential term is five years.

Therefore after November 11, 2013, regardless of who gives the orders and regardless of the situation, I sincerely urge the military to not let anyone take over the country in contrast with the provisions in the constitution, as this would have dire consequences. I request all military officers to sincerely and peacefully protect the interests of this country in such a situation.

By any means, the head of state should not be someone who assumed powers in contrast to the constitution of this country.

Translated from Dhivehi – read original


19 thoughts on “Senior military officers send “letter of concern” to Chief of Defence Force”

  1. Hope Abull Raheem (Kajuraa0 will do a better job with waiting and watch the county get flame of not because he is a MNDP but because he is a Maldivian save you nation from these treats of dictators

  2. What for?

    Regardless of the letter, the game is being orchestrated by politicians. The police and MNDF are the trumpet players.

    Even if one wins by 80%, this country would not be stable. The other 20% will make life so difficult, even the dusty Trivandrum would be a heaven compared to male.

  3. It is relieving to note that Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi has noted that its imperative that the armed forces uphold the Constitution. He has covered his

    What he fails to address is that in the Maldivian Democracy if and when a Constitutional dispute arises with whom lies the final onus of interpretation of the Constitution? Each time a Constitutional crisis arises concerning two parties are we to understand that the interpretation lies with him the esteemed Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi or perhaps ex Prezident Nasheed & his cabal.

    Since one cannot see into peoples hearts we are forced to take at face value the War hero Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi's assertion his sole interest lies in the upholding of his religion and country to the best of his considerable intellectual and military abilities. Time will reveal much.

    If my understanding is right the whole unrest in the Maldives revolves around the fact that one of 4 parties JP contests the validity of the elections on the basis of putting into question an electoral register that allegedly comprises dead people, under-age voters, repetition of names and incorrectly registered people in domiciles in Maldives unknown to the legal owners of such premises.

    To make matters even more daunting the MDP was seen to encourage the JP in its litigation and in fact promised intervention in the case alongside the JP. This resulted almost the immediate intervention in the litigation of PPM, who was willing until that time to await the results of JP litigation. Thus out of the 4 parties to the first round 2 parties seemed to agree with the JP that something was wrong with the first round of elections - in spite of the unanimous commendation of the first round as free and fair.

    The EC an independant institution was seen to drag its feet with respect to addressing the concerns principally of the JP and challenged them to go to the courts, to have access to the electoral register. This they have done.

    Due to EC dragging its feet with the verification process the case in the Supreme Court demanded that the Justices verify themselves the data in the electoral register; a process requiring time - (something that the EC was Constitutionally required to do ie addressing of the complaints). Given the limitation of time the 2nd round of elections were put on hold.

    So we now await the court ruling.

    Is the Maldivian State hero Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi suggest that the People of Maldives reject the Supreme Court as the final arbitrator of all legal disputes?

    One cannot help but note the lack of the Brigadiers advice as to who the Maldivian People should turn to as the final arbitrator of Constitutional matters.

    Are we to infer that the people of this country should seek legal redress to Constitutional disagreements at the feet of ex President of the Republic President Nasheed his ex Commander in Chief?

    A concerned Citizen

  4. @Doubting T:

    Bravo - couldn't have said it better. Less name-calling and more reasoned engagement is what we need to fight the portrayal of anyone opposed to Nasheed as some kind of sadomasochist Qayyoom-lover.

  5. Doubting T. Good that you mentioned :If my understanding is right", becuase what you have understood is quite inaccurate.

    The first round of elections on 7th Sept was carried out as close to as perfect a country of our resources can. Almost 4,000 people were involved in the administration and monitoring of the polls. This includes representatives of each candidate at every polling station, just a few feet from the officials.

    1 - The Electoral Roll was published publicly 45 days ahead of the election as required by Law. The complaints period was given, and this was the period for JP to complain if there were issues with the Electoral Roll.

    2 - Except in 2 polling stations there were no complains from either observers or anyone else regarding misconduct or phantom voting.

    3 - The Election Law clearly states the procedure to address grievances and complains which is to file such with the Election Complaints Bureau. Arrangements were made for receiving complains in all areas. Neither JP nor PPM has today filed a single case of fraud or double voting at nay areas.

    4 - JP applied for a copy of the lists used at polling station where people who voted were marked (along with their personal information such as birthday, ID Card nr) from Elections Commission. The EC informed JP that as per law, a Court Order as required to release even a copy of the single copy they had.

    5 - JP applied to High Court. During the deliberations it was revealed that they in fact did not have any proof, rather doubts. They needed copies of lists to verify these doubts. When asked where they got the names (which were in doubt) it was understood that these were from JP's own complains lines opened after the elections.
    The High Court ruled that JP had not been able to provide any credible evidence. However as a matter of public interest, and as Elections Commission had no objection, (but still required a court order by law) to disclose the list, the Court ordered Elections Commission to disclose the list to JP as per arrangements made by EC.

    6 - JP then applied for a Court Order for a stay of announcement of Final Results. The High Court ruled that JP had failed to show any evidence that a stay was necessary and denied the order.

    Where you mention MDP to be seen as encouraging JP in the litigation is something I completely failed to understand. MDP lawyers argued against JP.

    The reason for mistrust and the reason for the start of the unrest was when the Supreme Court accepted the same case in guise of a Constitutional case (instead of an appeal) Material which had already been thrown out twice by the country's High Court was deemed sufficient for the country's Apex Court. When evidence was given, the Lawyer for EC argued as much as he can that the evidence being given was regarding an electoral matter and that the case filed was a constitutional case. He had to stop after being warned by the Judge twice that he will be charged with contempt of Court if he goes along that line.

    Finally the Supreme Court issued an Injunction to delay the run-off election scheduled for 28th September citing Article 144-b of the Constitution. What is most questionable is that Article 144-b specifically required Art-144a to be fulfilled before Art-144b can be invoked. The Supreme Court has the final authority to decide of Constitutional matter. However it is mandatory to even the Supreme Court that their decision comply with the Constitution.

    While arguments can be made that they also have the authority to decide on the final meaning of articles, the Constitution does put a limitation. That power is not absolute and they cannot translate apple as orange.

    As long as the Court Order has a gaping hole as mentioned above there is every chance that it will be considered Unconstitutional. this may very well be why Fuad did not announce that teh election was cancelled because of a Court order, but due to EC not getting the required assistance from other Government Agencies.

    The Brig General has proved to the Maldivian people of his honour. His appeal is timely as this nation will come to a critical situation on 11th November unless we elect a President by then. That is the scenario he has mentioned and rightly so as both MDP and PPM are already making public on what each party thinks is right. He has appealed to his former colleagues not to bow to pressure and to only follow the Constitution.

  6. @Doubting T on Mon, 30th Sep 2013 8:55 PM

    "One cannot help but note the lack of the Brigadiers advice as to who the Maldivian People should turn to as the final arbitrator of Constitutional matters."

    It is easy to hide behind multiple pseudonyms and criticize people like the good Brigadier who literally put their life on the line for the sake of their country.

    The point is, not so much who the final arbiter of the Constitution is, but the sate of that august institution formerly known as the Supreme Court. It is no longer a place capable of doing any legal business; not least in a 100% Islamic country. In its current form it is NOT the arbiter of anything. It falls on the shoulder of every Muslim to rid that institution of filth.

    On that institution's bench sits a man who has committed a crime punishable by death in Islamic Sharia. The punishment for adultery, which Ali Hameed committed is death! Even murderers have a chance for pardon from the grieving families, but not so for adulterers. Their punishment of death is not irrevocable under any circumstances. The only crime of equal severity in Islam is denial of Allah Himself!

    Leave aside, Brigadiers, Generals, Colonels and even privates. Let's restore the final arbiter of Constitution to its proper dignity. Thanks.

  7. Correction: "Their punishment of death is not irrevocable under any circumstances." should read:

    Their punishment of death is irrevocable under any circumstances.

  8. @Doubting T

    Interesting interpretation. I personally thought the Brigadier General was addressing a possible military takeover, or rather a power shift due to change in military allegiance, similar to 2012.

    That would be disastrous, one shudders to think about the possible tit for tat coups to follow.

  9. @Doubting T

    You made some good points (glad for a well thought out different perspective for a change).

    Your assertion that Supreme court HAD to get involved when EC "dragged its feet" is rather weak. To my understanding, the supreme court is not an investigative body, it rules on the facts available or evidence provided. If JP couldn't provide the evidence for the case to make a ruling immediately,therefore it is highly irregular for the supreme court is doing it for them (SC staff are there 24 7 going through voter lists, you could confirm this yourself by asking around). For perspective, the High court promptly dismissed the case earlier, without any fanfare.

    Even without considering any earlier instances, in this case the supreme court has conducted itself in a way that definitely leaves a lot of space for doubt on its impartiality. (Well thats me trying to be nice here, they are doing a really shitty job)

    On a different note, i am amazed at the idea that what SC decides is final even if it doesnt make sense.

  10. @ Tsk Tsk @Mind @Ahmed Bin Addu Bin Suvadheeb @peasant @sceptical enquirer

    Thank –you for yr. kind words & criticisms.

    I wrote as a very concerned citizen witnessing all kinds of violence perpetrated on the streets & the constant Damocles sword of extreme street violence hanging over our heads every time there are political disagreements.

    Every Competition for its successful completion has to submit to a final authority that rules on points of contention -The final arbiter. Most often the arbiters ruling are acceptable to all. Sometimes not - BUT all accept the arbiters decision as final – not because the arbiter is INFALLIBLE but BY Convention. People do it for just 1 reason to avoid MAYHEM. Nobody’s dreams are worth one drop of blood shed on our streets or one building g set alight. It’s in this spirit that I penned my comment.

    Let there be no mistake. I do not put into question the heroism of Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi. I might have been too small to appreciate the heroism he displayed but I was old enough to feel the lacunae the evil that he fought that day left in my household. But this land is heading towards self-destruction & anarchy and what has to be said MUST be said. My sole point is that Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi missed a chance to drive home the point that for a Democracy to take root we have to submit to the rule of law and respecting the Constitution. We have to bow down to the ruling of the hierarchy of courts – Every single one of us - fisherman, house wife, the President or the Generals; without exception.

    We are now Alhamdulillah a Democracy within the framework of Islam – by mutual consent. We have bravely put in place the nascent institutions for a functional democracy. Now it’s our duty to bring all our young intellectuals, the citizens –men and women and the Ulamah to make our institutions work. We need to structure our lives that our representatives, our functionaries live up to the highest moral standards not just at the tail-end of a key ruling but 24/7 all year round. Our heritage is huge, the examples are legion. All we need is to get all our minds- big and small, men and women to make it work. My plea is that- let not the start be spilling blood on the land, OR SPLITTING HAIR. WE OWE OURSELVES FAR BETTER.

    We have before us the beautiful example of the United States of America – Its election 2000 Gore Vs. Bush. The country went to sleep thinking that they had elected Gore as President but woke up to the fact that consequent to a Supreme Court ruling 5 against 4 Bush was elected President of the United States of America. The Bush camp was jubilant and the Gore camp incensed but civility won the day. All submitted to the ruling of the Supreme Court – even when the split decision, 5-4, suggested that Bush v. Gore was more a political, rather than a judicial, decision.

    At the moment the best that we have is the Supreme Court that we have today. Seven Judges put in place by none other than President Nasheed himself.I think it’s about time that we recognise that there is a time to look beyond party politics and the time is now - if we want to avoid anarchy.

  11. @Doubting T
    Since one cannot see into peoples hearts we are forced to take at face value your assertion your sole interest lies as a 'concerned citizen' of this country to the best of your seemingly intellectual and writing abilities.

  12. @Doubting T, to avoid anarchy we are supposed to submit to wrong doings, to daylight robbery?
    Its almost like asking a woman who is getting raped not to fight back, cause after all things would go a bit more calmer if one didn't fight back.

  13. Its blasphemy by Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, such a pain in the &^^&$&^$&..

  14. @ Doubting T

    Its enlightening to know that it was President Nasheed who appointed the 'Porn Judge' and the 'corrupt judiciary' in the first place

    Similarly, it is interesting that all the heavy weights MDP front benchers served under Gayoom to suppress Nasheed.

    How interesting.. 🙂

  15. Let me help Doubting T out. It is no fabrication that the MDP had initially issued statements casting doubt over the conduct of the vote. This lends credence to Doubting T's claim that MDP had initially supported the JP motion at the Supreme Court. Let me back up my words with evidence.

    On 8 Sep 2013, in an interview to AP Nasheed was quoted as having said "even though the election was largely peaceful, turnout in some areas was higher than the number of registered voters. He (Nasheed) said he asked the Elections Commission for an explanation." (This interview is published here;

  16. @Doubting T on Tue, 1st Oct 2013 10:39 AM

    "At the moment the best that we have is the Supreme Court that we have today. Seven Judges put in place by none other than President Nasheed himself.I think it’s about time that we recognise that there is a time to look beyond party politics and the time is now – if we want to avoid anarchy."

    (1) You failed to address the key point I mentioned, i.e. the presence of Ali Hameed renders the Supreme Court dysfunctional.

    (2) How can you run a Supreme Court when Ali Hameed, by all accounts would have been stoned to death under Islamic Sharia?

    (3) Like Gasim, PPM and others you're also turning a blind eye to something that's unacceptable in any form whatsoever. It's not good enough to say that the Supreme Court is the "best we have today".

    (4) What's stopping the case of Ali Hameed? Why is he above the laws of Islam, never mind the land?

    (5) You cannot build a house on a rubble. The Supreme Court is a pile of rubble as it stands now.

  17. @ Ahmed Bin Addu

    What about the risks of using the Sharia argument against the porn judge!.

    The judge can be removed but after that next step COULD be the application of the same rule to MDP.

    I dont think the porn judge argument based on Sharia would work. In fact that approach carries more risk to MDP top brass..

    Don't you think so.

  18. Its a long read. Just scroll down if u so wish 🙂

    @Tsk Tsk @ … Addu Bin …..

    Thank you Tsk Tsk. I so wish you would let your pen flow. The need to consolidate Democracy, its embryonic institutions, hail the rule of law and expound the virtues of civil society. My means are limited and this is your training and expertise.

    @ Addu. You said

    (1) "You failed to address the key point I mentioned, i.e. the presence of Ali Hameed renders the Supreme Court dysfunctional".

    I was not sidestepping your ref to SC judge Hameed. I was hoping that you would realise on your own the limitations faced by all concerned. If Judge Hameed was a convicted criminal & he was sitting in his seat at the Supreme Court certainly your accusations are founded; well founded. However as yet he hasn’t been convicted of a crime and so must be presumed innocent until he is investigated and produced and convicted of his alleged crime. This you would assume of any citizen Ahmed, Ali or Amina. Why not citizen Hameed?

    The facts are that the ONLY LEGAL mechanisms available to unseat a sitting judge were not able to unseat the judge.

    We are all aware that the committee investigating the judge recommended that he should not sit in the supreme-court until his case was finalised. But the law does not give the investigate committee the teeth to act on what it feels. It only gives its recommendations and the JSC has decided in a vote. This august body met and voted down the recommendations of the committee. So as a result you see Judge Hameed sitting. Now you will tell me what we all know – that the JSC is politicised. I would say yes! Of course it is. The Constitution that we all agreed upon and the laws we all passed had the loop holes to see monkey tricks played out in all our institutions with the parliament and institutions such as the JSC at the pinnacle performing for some the most entertaining & for some most revolting monkey tricks.

    So the question is what do you do with a problem like Judge Hameed?

    His failing to step aside until his innocence is acceptable to the community that he serves as Judge IS without any doubt -the failings per se of Judge Hameed AND IS ALSO AN INDICTMENT of the Society that we are all a part of. In other nations it’s the MORAL PRESSURE exerted by the society that’s faced by an accused judge that PROMPTS him to resign or step aside until he is accepted as beyond reproach by the society.

    This is in the realm of ethics. This is in the realm of that intangible something that holds everyone responsible and answerable long before the breach of some tangible dissected law vomited out by a statutory body. Thus the shame of judge Hameed is ALSO OUR SHAME, the shame of the society that we live in - A society that dresses and sings to condone adultery, rape, paedophilia, drug abuse, rotting streets and infanticide. We are in the position that we are unable to pick up the first stone to stone Judge Hameed BECAUSE we are steeped in the same filth that Judge Hameed stands accused of. It’s the absence of societal morals and ethics that permits Judge Hameed not to resign.
    Sorry! But the fact is that the attitude is wrong and smacks of hypocrisy. This issue is not to be raised AT THE TAIL-END of a court case that another accused criminal – Nasheed sees as detrimental to his electoral dreams or phantasies. This was an issue that should have been screamed at from all the roof tops in our society when the RED TAPES hit the screens.

    If the society had the MORALS to stand up THEN, it would have been political suicide for a Gassim to poke his grubby fingers in shielding an accused in his seat in the JSC. It would have avoided a Presidential Nasheed from knocking repeated n insistently on morally questionable Gassims door. It would have spurred Yamin to scream for Good Morals by all public functionaries. But Judge Hameed was Hameed, Gassim was Gassim! Nasheed was Nasheeed and Yamin was Yamin because they are ALL a product of a society which revels in Lewdness, Adultery, Fornication, paedophilia, Rape, Prostitution, drugs, infanticide & theft in a relatively monumental scale, in a tea cup that is Maldives. And guess what Addu bin laden? You are not fit to pick up the first stone! I’m not fit to pick up the first stone. So let’s work within the law to reform the law.

    You also said "(2) How can you run a Supreme Court when Ali Hameed, by all accounts would have been stoned to death under Islamic Sharia?"

    Forgive me! I’m sorry!

    First and foremost we do not have an Islamic Sharia. So let’s not mix diamonds with gravels! First get the diamonds…..

    However some points to bear with.
    Leave alone the Sharia - any death sentence, require Irrefutable proof. That’s why we have a jury in some systems and Judges in others to establish proof beyond any reasonable doubt in capital punishment cases.

    So in Judge Hameeds alleged videos some questions are ….
    1. What’s the origin of these videos? Can the videos be porn movies acted by Dark curly burly porn South Indian Porn artists?

    2. How sure are we that the dark fat curly haired man in white briefs isn’t doubles of the accused?

    3. Can we see the eyes, ears, hairline nose and mouth for positive identification?

    4. Is the accused in the video circumcised? Was birth control practiced?

    5. In the video was full penetration - in full view witnessed?

    6. Is there a possibility that a man of similar physiognomy possibly a dark skinned actor from south India be used to play double?

    7. There are many impersonations of similar type done to blackmail people. The world is full of impersonations. Great leaders, stars are often portrayed. It’s a game of @MAKE BELIEVE.

    8. Was judge Hameed blackmailed? Is it true that he called the cops?

    9. Who are the black-mailers? Friends, foes? For political motivations?

    10. Has Judge Hameed confessed?

    Just 10 questions, that breed more questions and even more impossible conclusions touching treachery, blackmail, murder and what else? All this is to show that before you prove adultery on Judge Hameed that you have at least 10 questions & it’s spawn to answer. I forced myself to see the clips. I don’t know Hameed. I could not put my life on a positive id with his snap I had to compare. For Good measure I asked 3 friends – all refused to give a positive id when asked to be sure beyond any doubt as a person’s life depended on it. I agree this was a childish experiment. I did the experiment for myself. It might not be of use for anyone. The moral for me is that when the standard of proof required is 4 adult witnesses and viewing of complete penetration, the standard of the evidence required before a CONVICTION & a death sentence is ‘BEYOND ANY DOUBT’. From this just ‘grainy form’ id is not enough. In a ‘jury’ scenario – I would reject. What about you?

    In conclusion Judge Hameed sits in his Supreme Court Seat as per the norms of the society he is from and according to the existing laws. If you have your doubts put your money where your convictions are and start litigation. If you want to change the morals of the society you are in my best advice is start by changing your own morals and start preaching and practicing what you preach. In this regard my invitation is to consider the holy Quran and the example of the holy Prophet – Peace be upon him.

  19. @ Ahmed Bin Addu Bin Suvadheeb

    You said "(3) Like Gasim, PPM and others you’re also turning a blind eye to something that’s unacceptable in any form whatsoever. It’s not good enough to say that the Supreme Court is the “best we have today”.

    Believe be “ Addu” I share your frustrations. I agree things are really wrong. The Parliament, the Judiciary is in terrible shape. But that’s what we the people wanted and elected.

    If one thing we learned from Feb 7th resignation of President Nasheed is that “easy come is easy go”

    We need to work on building a Moral society which makes it mandatory on each individual to hold himself or herself responsible to: above all -to oneself, based on Islam.

    We need to elect moral educated and visionaries as our elected representatives – who sees themselves as being paid by us for a job done for us with knowledge that he/she is answerable to Allah in the day of Judgement.

    That’s a start. Not an utopia. Tangible workable if we all tried together with our most intelligent, the youth to grab the rope of Allah.

    If a majority of us have this vision, who knows? We may well have leaders that we can look at without puking?


Comments are closed.