Supreme Court calls Umar Naseer not to proclaim outcomes of unresolved cases

The Supreme Court has called on former Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader Umar Naseer not to publicly predict court verdicts before judgments were reached.

The Supreme Court said Naseer had proclaimed to the media that the court would rule in his favor in a suit filed by Naseer himself against Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa.

‘’Predicting the how the court might rule on a certain case obstructs the administration of justice,’’ said the Supreme Court, adding that the court had “authority to stop anything that might influence the judiciary.”

The court also warned that commenting on cases on sub judice was an offence under the Contempt of Court Act, the constitution and other relevant laws.

Such actions are considered as an offence under the ‘’Sub Judice rule’’ in other democratic countries as well, said the Supreme Court.

Last week speaking at a Z-DRP faction rally attended by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Naseer said the MDP “must be warned that they are about to lose two seats in parliament.”

‘’One will be Musthafa. You will remember there is a suit filed against him in Supreme Court, a suit I filed. The suit has almost reached a verdict, and all statements have been signed. I’m sure Musthafa will lose his seat. The next one is [alleged] child molester Adhil [MDP MP Hassan Adil],’’ Umar said during the rally.

Umar filed the suit against Mustafa in 2009, alleging that Mustafa had not been paying a decreed debt.

Article 73 [c][1] of the constitution states that ‘’a person shall be disqualified from election as, a member of the People’s Majlis, or a member of the People’s Majlis immediately becomes disqualified, if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as provided in the judgment.’’

People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim is also before the court on corruption charges. The PA is aligned the former President’s faction of the opposition.


4 thoughts on “Supreme Court calls Umar Naseer not to proclaim outcomes of unresolved cases”

  1. Supreme Court also ordered PG to investigate Rako Moosa manik. How much did minivan take from him for not reporting it?

  2. Oh God!! Its the Clown Naseer!! Now what is this fool upto?? Good of the Supreme Court to put that fool in his place!! Umar..please go and drive your submarine!! Better yet, sink with it to the bottom of the sea and spare us from your stupidity!

  3. Supreme courts reaction towards Reeko Moosa should also have been noted.

    However, I believe there is a difference between two cases. In Moosa's case Supreme court asked Prosecutor General to investigate on Moosa for his criticism on judiciary. Here with Umar's case Supreme court asked not to report on an ongoing case as it can influence the judgement.

    I feel Supreme courts announcement on Moosa's case as an attack on free speech. In this country people openly criticise the executive, and the legislature. So why cant we criticise the judicial system when there are room for criticism.

    The judiciary is acting as if they are above the law, and nobody should point out there failings. Its like saying you can rubbish everyone else but not us.

    The fact is judiciary is an dysfunctional organ, and if they choose to silence the politicians we elected from voicing the ills in the system then we, the citizens, will not have an agent to raise our concern.

    Judiciary grow up. Rather than demanding respect, perform yourself so we will have less to talk about you.

  4. Threatening the judiciary and sending clear warnings that the days of the judiciary are numbered while also implying that the door for negotiations is open if the judiciary cooperates with Moosa and his party amounts to an attempt to exert undue influence.

    This is of course due to Moosa and his position as well as the context of the speech.

    Umar Naseer is at fault as well for commenting on an ongoing case.

    The judiciary does not consist of elected members. The respect it demands sometimes has to be enforced by law. The judiciary cannot, should not and hopefully never will win any popularity contests. It is there to uphold the law, whether those in power, the general public and NGOs like it or not. However, the structural problems within the judiciary are matters of concern and should be open for criticism.

    It is regrettable that both major parties give only mere lip service to structural reform. Most of their speeches about the judiciary either directly or subtextually aims at controlling it.


Comments are closed.