Supreme Court hears closing statements in annulment case

The Supreme Court has concluded hearings in the case filed by resort tycoon and presidential hopeful Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP) against the Elections Commission (EC), requesting the apex court annul the first round of the presidential election.

Submitting his closing statement the JP lawyer and running mate of Gasim, Dr Hassan Saeed, told the Supreme Court that the party was seeking three remedies from the court.

The first remedy the party sought, explained Saeed, was for the Supreme Court to declare that the voters list used during the election had undermined the constitutional right of the citizens to cast their ballot.

The second request, he continued, was for the Supreme Court to declare that the EC had formulated the list in contradiction of the general election laws, as well as the prerequisites set forth in its own pre-election ruling.

This ruling in question ordered all relevant authorities ensure facilitation of a free and fair presidential election, with the EC remaining duty bound to address any possible errors regarding details on the voter registry.

The third and final request made was for the apex court to declare that the presidential election held on September 7 is void and invalid, Saeed told the seven-member Supreme Court bench.

Attorney General’s contribution

In summing up his case, Saeed said that the party’s allegations – including double voting, voting in the names of deceased people, and underage voting – had been given additional weight after being acknowledged by the Attorney General during hearings.

Saeed also repeated his criticism of the security features on the ballot paper, as well as the under-performing of the Ballot Progress Reporting System (BPRS) – a web based application used by the EC officials at polling stations.

Saeed stressed that the BPRS system’s failure had left polling stations prone to double voting.

Referring to the statements given by the JP’s witnesses, Saeed noted that the party had produced sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate its claims.

He explained that the JP – being a private party – did not have the same resources as a state institution, and therefore the evidence provided was intended to prove that the entire election process was a systematic failure rather than to prove individual cases of misconduct.

In the closing statement given by the Attorney General’s Office, the Solicitor General Ahmed Usham told the court that the state did not wish to take sides in the matter and had only intervened in the case to present the complaints that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan had received through government agencies.

Meanwhile Ahmed Zaneen Adam, representing the PPM – which had also intervened into the case, told the court that it was imperative it uphold the rights of the people to elect their ruler.

He said that issues concerning the elections had caused doubts among the public regarding the sincerity of the EC.

Zaneen followed Saeed in reiterating the JP’s request that court annul the first round of elections and call for a fresh presidential election with the discrepancies amended.

Election Commission’s closing remarks

Responding to the remarks made by Saeed, EC lawyer Hussain Siraj stressed to the court that the JP had not been able to prove any of their allegations against the commission.

Siraj also requested the court distinguish between procedural irregularity and substantive irregularity in deciding the case. He argued that Saeed’s allegations, even if proven to have happened, would indicate only procedural irregularity rather than a substantive irregularity.

This would be insufficient grounds to annul the election, argued Siraj.

The EC lawyer also responded to the claims made in the JP’s closing statements, but was frequently interrupted by the judges – most notably the former Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, whose name had appeared on the injunction ordering the run-off’s postponement. Abdulla Saeed requested Siraj to shorten his speech.

The EC lawyer, in his plea to the court, requested that it rule there were no reasonable grounds to declare the voters list invalid and thereby there were no reasonable grounds to void the September 7 elections.

In concluding the hearing, the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that unless the court required clarifying matters from the parties, it will issue a verdict at the next hearing.

However, shortly after the hearing concluded, an additional case requesting the court delay the run-off was filed by Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – running mate of PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen.

A member of EC’s legal team told Minivan News that a hearing of Jameel’s case against the EC had been scheduled for Thursday at 2:00pm.


11 thoughts on “Supreme Court hears closing statements in annulment case”

  1. Dr. Hassan Saeed, Just tell your master Qasim to order the Supreme Court to void the first round of the election. By the way ascertain that Qasim gets a huge bill from Raajje Chambers for the services offered. You guys are fantastic

  2. "Abdulla Saeed requested Siraj to shorten his speech."

    The outcome of this case is a foregone conclusion. The EC lawyers, Suood and Siraj just wasted their time. No matter what evidence was brought to support their case, the EC can never win here. Gasim's four chums had decided the outcome even before the matter came to Court. Mark my words, the first round is going to be annulled!

    Ali Hameed must be absolutely knackered from the strenuous efforts he had to endure during this case. Luckily for him, Gasim has already arranged several weeks, all expenses paid, orgy filled holiday for him with an unlimited amount of hand picked prostitutes. Even Gasim couldn't arrange for them to be virgins, but that's as close to heaven as Ali Hameed will ever get, with rivers of white wine...

    In conclusion, Maldives is f**ed!

  3. The first round will get annulled by the Gang of Four including the serial adulterer. In this scenario, MDP should refrain from taking part in the election and its supporters should stay away. With a vast swathe of the electorate effectively boycotting the polls, whoever wins, Yameen or Gasim won't last long.

    If the first round is not annulled, but the second is prolonged as per PPM wishes, MDP can chose the same strategy. Neither Gasim nor Yameen can legitimately claim to have won an election that MDP didn't take part in.

  4. JP is 100% sure that fraudulent votes were cast by underaged voters, by people voting twice, and in the name of the deceased. With the original registry in hand they are 0% sure of a single specific incident where fraud can be proven as they allege. Looks like the JP have a watertight case.

  5. @ Ahmed Bin Addu Bin Suvadheeb

    I doubt yameen or gasim really care about legitimacy, for them winning is enough. Infact, it would be preferable if MDP did not join so that they will say there is no electorate representing them.

    It would be important for them to have Anni convicted, to weaken MDP especially before the parliamentary elections. That and some well placed money could seriously cripple MDP.

    What I learnt from the coup is that international pressure never amounts to action over an ideological argument- like for advancing the democratic process. Unless you are killing kids with chemical weapons, they will keep on putting out statements for a while, and will stop sooner or later. The world moves on, and all the parties know it.

  6. as per the current game, the 1st round will get annulled,..question: the two parties (JP & EC) can always file that they do not trust the judges i think the EC can prove easily that the decision made by the current bench is or would be biased decision. hence they can request for the current bench to change.

    we already know what the current bench would decide....moving the goal line until their reach..quiet the word for it.

    these judges can bet that we maldivians opposing this decision will not take it lightly. by 'we' i mean 95000 among this population. i think thats a lot of pple they are willing to face....

    Handle it carefully...not emotionaly,,,part of their goal is to capture as many of MDPians as possible...

  7. @kobakoba on Thu, 26th Sep 2013 10:51 AM

    "Handle it carefully…not emotionaly,,,part of their goal is to capture as many of MDPians as possible…"

    This is indeed very true. Part of the game is to disrupt MDP and throw them in disarray. It was only yesterday that a prominent MDP campaign coordinator was arrested by the Police over a 7 year old case involving "terrorism".

    Yes, the year was 2006. Have we forgotten who was the king then? Even looking the wrong way at the king got one charged with "terrorism", the catch-all umbrella category for anyone who dared to speak against the regime.

    They are dangling this Court case in front of MDP supporters, partly to agitate them, so that they can be promptly arrested and "annulled" from the voting process. Watch out!

  8. hi.
    Reading the above piece, it's clear that the case submitted to the supreme court,the judges has no ground to declare that the presidential election held on September 7 is void and invalid.
    The clamming party in this case only showed that some people committed fraud during the election.


Comments are closed.